The Inside Straight

President Bush Signs Unlawful Internet Gambling Act

Friday, Oct. 13, Marked a New Age for the Online Poker Industry

By Bob Pajich



The hammer fell on the online poker industry on Friday, Oct. 13, when President George W. Bush signed legislation that is designed to limit the ability of online poker players to deposit and withdraw money from their preferred sites.



The official name of the document that the president signed is the Safe Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. On the last Friday in September, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist worked deep into the night to get the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGE) attached to the Port Act.



Earlier that week, he tried to get the UIGE Act attached to a major defense spending bill, but both Republicans and Democrats spoke out against this action because of the perceived importance of the defense spending bill.



The passing of the bill sent shockwaves through the online poker industry. Several online sites, including PartyPoker and 888.com, said they would stop allowing real-money players located in America to play on their sites after Bush signed the bill.



Other sites like PokerStars, AbsolutePoker, Bodog, and FullTilt said they will still do business with Americans in the U.S. even after Bush signed the bill into law.



Shares of publicly traded gaming companies and third-party banking sites plummeted the Monday after Congress sent the bill to the president, with most of the sites losing more than half of their values.



Poker and online gambling sites have also started to change hands. Sportingbet sold its U.S.-based poker, casino, and sportsbook to another company for $1, and Excapsa Software, the company that hosts more than 60 poker sites, including DoylesRoom and UltimateBet, sold itself to Blast Off Ltd, a former customer of Excapsa.



The Treasury Department now has about 250 days to figure out the best ways to implement the UIGE Act, which makes it illegal for financial institutions to work with online gambling sites, including poker.



The UIGE Act does not target online poker players who live in America. The theory behind the Act is that if the federal government cuts off the money flow to the online gambling sites, they will not be able to function.



Please see the rest of the Inside Straight for more stories pertaining to the Act, and visit www.CardPlayer.com to take a look at its archive of articles about the UIGE Act.

Online Poker: Who's in, Who's Out

Americans Now Have Only a Few Sites They Can Depend On

By Bob Pajich



The online poker industry divided itself into two distinct camps in October after certain conservative members of Congress managed to attach anti-online gambling legislation to an act designed to make the nation's ports safer.



It's an interesting and expensive soap opera of sorts that just started playing out. Within two weeks, most sites either chose to keep doing business with Americans or decided not to do so, and each camp is singing a decidedly different song about what the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act is going to mean to American poker players and the sites they use.



Here to Stay


PokerStars made a lot of people smile when it announced that it will continue doing business with customers based in the U.S. Unlike the sites that say they are leaving, PokerStars made a short announcement:



"PokerStars has received extensive expert advice from within and outside the U.S., which concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to our offering of online poker games. Therefore, our business continues as before – open to players worldwide, including the U.S. You may play on our site as you did prior to the Act. PokerStars believes that poker is a game of skill enjoyed by millions of players, and we remain committed to providing you a safe and fun environment in which to play."



FullTilt sent out a mass e-mail to all of its players declaring it's here to stay. It also let players know that the law still doesn't make it a criminal act to play poker online. It also assured its members that the passage of the act will not affect play or the ability to deposit and withdraw funds, which is exactly what the law is supposed to target.



See the sidebar for a list of the sites that will keep doing business with Americans.

Stepping Out


The heavyweight on the side of the sites that are abandoning American customers is PartyPoker, the publicly traded company that has worked hard this year to diversify its customer base. It even listed the number of new real-money players from outside the U.S. as a Key Performance Indicator in its six-month report.



In the first six months of 2006, more than half a million new real-money players signed up at PartyPoker, with 46 percent of them coming from outside the U.S. Perhaps because of this, it was one of the first companies to announce that it will stop doing business with players in the U.S. Here's an excerpt of its announcement:



"As a result of this development, the Board of PartyGaming has determined that if the president signs the Act into law, the company will suspend all real-money gaming business with U.S. residents, and such suspension will continue indefinitely, subject to clarification of the interpretation and enforcement of U.S. law and the impact on financial institutions of this and other related legislation."



888 Holdings made the exact same conclusion and used similar wording to announce its decision: "The company will implement this suspension immediately upon the legislation taking effect, and the suspension will continue for as long as the legal situation remains the same. The Board will continue to seek clarification of the overall U.S. legal position to determine whether and to what extent, if any, resumption of participation by U.S. customers is feasible.



Like PartyGaming, 888 Holdings worked hard to increase membership from countries outside the U.S. It reported that about 68 percent of new real-money customers came from outside the U.S. during the first six months of 2006, and that about 48 percent of revenues came from non-U.S. players.



But all of the sites that said they'll stop doing business with U.S.-based customers gave themselves outs. They all said that they'll continue to monitor the situation here from distant shores and make the appropriate business decisions as more information comes along.

Professional Players Speak Out About Online Gambling Act

From Brunson to Vahedi, Players are Dismayed

By Michael Friedman and Lisa Wheeler



While the online poker world continues to hold its breath after the recent industry shakeup, many of today's top professional poker players expressed their opinion on the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.



Amir Vahedi: It would have happened sooner or later, but I wish the multimillion-dollar websites that made all the money would have spent more money for lobbying in Washington. It takes money to make money. It's wrong that they took money, made a profit, and then forgot about the rest of us. I really wish that the companies would have been a little more thoughtful and taken steps ahead of time to avoid this situation.



Sean Sheikhan: My thoughts are that if companies started paying money out to lobbyists and the politicians, there would be no problems.



Gavin Smith: I think the legislation sucks. I think it's kind of a backhanded way to get things done, but I think in the end, people will speak up. In the short term, I think tournament fields are going to get smaller and some sites will be less successful on the Internet, but in the long term, I think poker will come back.



Men "The Master" Nguyen: It has happened, so there is nothing that can be done now. I don't think it's good for poker or bad for poker. In the end, I think more people are going to go and play live action in casinos.



Thor Hansen: It was a bad day for poker, I believe. That's my feeling. It's going to be a problem for everybody, and I can't believe they let them do it. The casinos will do well in the short term, but there is no doubt that the Internet did a lot of good things for poker. Poker became so big because of the Internet, so it's kind of sad for those of us who love the game.



Daniel Negreanu: For the most part, I think they [Bill Frist and his supporters] can take their bill and shove it where the sun don't shine.



Tom McEvoy: I think that any poker player who votes for even one Republican congressman or senator who voted for this bill – which is practically all of them – should have his head examined. Sen. Frist is a hypocrite of the first order. He has well-known presidential ambitions and once compared playing poker with the use of crack cocaine.



I think that we need to fight this legislation every step of the way, and think of ways to circumvent it wherever possible.



Shannon Shorr: The new gambling laws are both frustrating and devastating. We can now only sit back and see what kind of effects the laws will have on our respective ways of life.



Todd Brunson: When will the government learn that they can't push their morality onto the general public? It didn't work with Prohibition in the last century and it won't work with banning Internet poker today. The government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not taking them away! Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.

PartyPoker Helps PokerStars Make History

Subtract One Monster and the Little Giants Benefit

By Shawn Patrick Green



The Sunday after PartyPoker stopped Americans from playing on its site proved lucrative for its rivals.



PokerStars set the tone by having its largest-ever number of entrants in its weekly $1 million-guaranteed tournament. A total of 6,157 players entered the tournament, generating a prize pool of $1,231,400.



The FullTilt monthly $500,000-guaranteed tournament also went beyond expectations on the same day (Oct. 15) with 1,127 players and a prize pool of $563,500. UltimateBet missed its target number of entrants again during this week, but its $200,000 guaranteed tournament entry numbers showed an upward trend during the prior month, regardless of the U.S. legislation.



Thus, while the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act took down the leader in online poker, the sites that chose to stay open are more than willing to pick up PartyPoker's slack and have seen increased traffic as a result.



With PartyPoker out of the running, PokerStars is the new online poker leader in terms of traffic. PartyPoker passed the torch and PokerStars turned it into a flamethrower with its $1 million-guaranteed tournament. The tournament made PokerStars history for being its biggest weekly tournament ever, with a first-place prize of $176,000.



A week before, PartyPoker had to fork over almost $82,000 out of its own pocket in order to make good on its Sunday Million Guaranteed. That tournament came about a week after PartyPoker announced that it would not allow Americans to play on its site after President Bush signed anti-gaming legislation into law, which he did on Oct. 13.



On that same Sunday, 5,501 players played in the PokerStars Sunday Million tourney, which was more than enough to meet its guarantee.



FullTilt also is reaping the benefits of a market without PartyPoker. Its $200,000-guaranteed tournaments have grown since PartyPoker ­- as well as several other sites – announced it planned to cut off U.S.-based customers. FullTilt hasn't missed a guarantee yet, and with more and more players moving over to the site that carries a team of some of the most popular professionals around, chances are it won't.



And although UltimateBet needed 1,000 players to meet its $200,000 guarantee on the Sunday after PartyPoker pulled out, the 896 players who played were more than it had in more than a month.

Tale of Two Online Payment Services

FirePay and NETELLER, and Their Different Business Strategies

By Bob Pajich



As all online poker players know, it already takes a little financial maneuvering to deposit and withdraw money from online poker sites. Many players use one of two third-party services, FirePay or NETELLER, to move their cash around, but last month, players lost one-half of that option.



NETELLER will continue doing business with American online poker players at least until July 10, 2007, when the government figures out how to enforce the law, while FirePay has already stopped.



Although the two money-transfer services handle transactions not related to online gambling, a majority of their revenues come from that sector. Like many online gaming companies, both FirePay and NETELLER made harsh business decisions in the wake of recent anti-online gambling legislation passed by Congress.



The different decisions made by these two similar companies is representative of how the industry acted as a whole. Online poker companies decided they would either continue doing business with Americans or stop.



NETELLER released a statement on Oct. 1, saying it was currently unclear how the company would be affected by the bill, because the entire company is located in Europe, but about a week later, NETELLER's executive vice president told an e-gaming conference in Spain that it is staying in the U.S. "I don't think we have a very big problem," Bruce Elliott said.



On the flip side, FirePay came out with a statement on Oct. 10, letting the world know it will not do business with Americans after the president signs the bill. The statement read: "The company today announces that following the approval of the Act by the president of the United States, it will immediately cease to process settlement transactions originating from the United States that may be viewed as being related to online gambling."



NETELLER and FirePay, like all of the publicly traded gambling sites, took major financial hits last month.



NETELLER watched its stock plummet from 355 pence to 140 pence on the Monday after Congress passed the act that contained the anti-online gambling legislative language. It was trading at 172 pence as of Oct. 10. Earlier this year, it peaked at 883 pence.



FirePay, which trades under FireOne, went from 176.5 pence to 58.5 pence on the same Monday, and was trading at 52 pence on Oct. 12. The highest it traded at this year was 350 pence.



Both companies are traded on the London Stock Exchange.



While NETELLER is staying its course, FirePay will look to diversify its ventures, but will continue to perform gambling-based transfers for customers everywhere except in the U.S.

Macau Will Match Vegas Dollars in Five Years

Mega-Casinos Are Generating Amazing Amounts of Cash

By Bob Pajich



There's a new casino battleground, and it's about as far away from Las Vegas and Atlantic City as possible. In the Chinese province of Macau, several mega-casinos have sprung up, with one being the largest in the world, and the region is on pace to match Las Vegas' gambling revenues in less than five years.



Macau is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and is located at its southeastern tip, on the water. Gambling has been legal there since the 1850s, but a government-enforced monopoly was in place until 2002.



After 2002, six operating licenses were granted to casino companies, three of which are located in the U.S.: Wynn Resorts (Macau), Las Vegas Sands Corp., and MGM/Mirage, which partnered with Pansy Ho Chiu-king. Chui-king is a Chinese billionaire whose father helped end the monopoly.



Las Vegas Sands Corp. wasted no time, and opened the first Westernized mega-casino in Macau in 2004. The company says that more than 20 million visitors have already visited Sands Macao, and an expansion was just completed in August that gave it the largest casino floor in the world at 299,000 square feet. The floor holds 740 table games and 1,254 slot machines.



The success of Sands Macao helped Las Vegas Sands Corp. founder Sheldon Adelson become the third-richest man in the world. See the story in this Inside Straight section about the Forbes 400 list for more information.



At the beginning of September, Adelson's rival Steve Wynn opened the $1.2 billion Wynn Macau, a 600-room mega-casino modeled after Bellagio, complete with the dancing fountains.



Adelson will open the $1.8 billion Venetian Macao in 2007, and the casino resort will have 3,000 suites, 1.2 million square feet of meeting and convention space, 1.6 million square feet of retail space, 550,000 square feet of casino space, and a total of 25,000 seats in venues for live entertainment.



MGM will also open its MGM Grand Macau in 2007. The 600-room, $975 million casino will open next to Wynn's property.

In the past three years, Macau experienced a 42 percent increase in visitors, mostly from mainland China, and there's no sign of it slowing. Macau now generates the second-most gambling revenue in the world, but Banc of America estimates that by 2010, its gambling revenues may hit $16 billion. That's the same amount that Price-Waterhouse estimates Las Vegas will generate in 2009.

Third Season of High Stakes Poker Filmed

It's Currently the Hottest Poker Show on TV

By Lisa Wheeler



The Game Show Network filmed another season of the smash-hit series High Stakes Poker recently, and although the show has been running for less than a year, its success is phenomenal.



A reflection of the High Stakes Poker phenomenon can be witnessed through the popular video website YouTube, which currently hosts 69 versions of the program's short video uploads, with more than a million viewer hits.



This show has proven to be a breakout hit with poker fans, said President and CEO of GSN Rich Cronin. "We couldn't be more pleased by the response that we have gotten from viewers and television critics."



High Stakes Poker gives its audience a look into the biggest no-limit hold'em cash game on television. Players buy in for a minimum of $100,000, with stakes starting at $300-$600 with a $100 ante.



This season's roster of professional poker players include Daniel Negreanu, Antonio Esfandiari, Phil Laak, Mike Matusow, Chris Ferguson, David Williams, David Benyamine, John D'Agostino, Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, William Chen, Daniel Alaei, Doyle Brunson, Victor Ramdin, Sean Sheikhan, Erick Lindgren, Jennifer Harman, Sam Farha, Eli Elezra, Barry Greenstein, and Todd Brunson.



High Stakes Poker commentator Gabe Kaplan also took his turn at the felt this season, along with a few other faces the audience will easily recognize, including 2006 World Series of Poker Champion Jamie Gold and runner-up Paul Wasicka. Amateurs Dan Harmetz, Dan Shak, Illya Trincher, and Brian Townsend were also added to the cast.



"It was a nice experience," said Shak about his time at the High Stakes Poker table. "I just wish I would have played a couple of hands differently."



High Stakes Poker is enjoying its third venue change in Las Vegas. Premiere episodes that aired in January were taped at the Golden Nugget in 2005, while season two was recorded at the Palms. The cast and crew of season three have moved the set even further down the Strip to Las Vegas' newest hotel casino, the South Coast.



Now is a good time to catch up on season one and two High Stakes Poker episodes, as they're currently airing on GSN on Monday nights at 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on the coasts, and 8 p.m. Central time. Encore showings air Fridays at 10 p.m.

Hollywood Park Casino Poker Room Review

By Johnnie Walker



The capital of live poker isn't Las Vegas or Atlantic City, it's Southern California, which boasts a handful of great poker rooms that accommodate the needs of the variety of people who play poker in the L.A. area.



One of those great poker rooms is Hollywood Park Casino, which opened in 1994 opened as part of the historic Hollywood Park Racetrack. The racetrack, originally called the Hollywood Turf Club, opened in 1938 under the chairmanship of Jack Warner of the Warner Brothers film corporation. Its original shareholders included Bing Crosby, Sam Goldwyn and Walt Disney.



Like most of the poker rooms located in Southern California, it is designed to accommodate many players. A remodeling of the room was completed in late 2003, with specific attention paid to the high-limit Pegasus Room. With 66 tables, waits for seats rarely exceed half an hour. The room uses a live brush board for seating, and one of the charming aspects of the room is hearing a name being shouted out every few minutes.



Hollywood Park Casino recently opened the world's first ePoker room. Filled with six PokerPro automated poker tables, the room enables players to play in sit-and-go tournaments 24 hours a day, as well as in dealerless limit and no-limit hold'em games.



The PokerPro system requires players to be registered in its system in order to play, but once registered, players can use the kiosk system to load money onto their cards and jump into the games.



With a rich history of horse racing as well as a racetrack on premises, the poker room is always filled with horse players. The casino ensures that these players do not miss a hand by providing bet runners to its players. Players must simply flag down one of the runners to place their horse bets (bets are taken on just about every horse race in the country), and the runner will return with the ticket and a quick "good luck."



There is no hotel on the property, but Hollywood Park has partnered with many local hotels to accommodate their guests. Discounts are available. Check with the manager for more information.



Tableside food service is quick and courteous, and the casino has several options for the poker players who want to combine eating with playing. There's even a "world-famous" Pink's hotdog cart in the casino's lobby, but players can also order from an extensive menu.



As a Los Angeles landmark, Hollywood Park is a great place to visit. As a Southern California casino, the poker room is excellent.

Dennis: I was playing in a cash game at my local casino and two players had limped in front of me. I was sitting next to the dealer and was last to act. I threw my chips in to call. The next thing I knew, the dealer had put my cards into the muck. I didn't have a card protector, but my cards were clearly behind the line and my chips to call were in front of the line. The floorman ruled that my cards were dead once they were in the muck, whether they got there on purpose or by accident. Do you think this was the right call?



Scott: This really boils down to house rules. A lot of places have different variations of the same rule. The variation of the rule with which I am most familiar, and also the most common to my knowledge, would go something like this: A. The line on the table has nothing to do with the protection of your cards. The line is there for betting purposes only, and whether your cards are in front of or behind the line makes no difference whatsoever. B. Your hand is dead for the reason of it being the player's responsibility to protect his cards. It is not up to the dealer to interpret the status of your hand according to its position on the table or the fact that another player asked you to count your chips.


Jerry: I was playing in a $100 sit-and-go and was dealt kings on the second hand. My style is usually to play tight in the beginning when the blinds are small, so I made just a standard raise. The guy to my left reraised, and then another player moved all in. I called, and the player who had pushed all in with jacks hit a jack on the flop and I was out. Should I have folded after the reraise and the all-in bet? I didn't have many chips committed at that point, and it was right at the beginning of the tournament. I can't stop thinking about this. I keep playing it over in my mind and can't decide if I made the right decision or was totally wrong.



Scott: You did the right thing at the table and the wrong thing away from the table. To let a hand like this eat away at you and affect your play for weeks is a HUGE error. The hand you described is very common, and not a bad beat, by any means! If even once you told this story and used the term bad beat, it would be you who is in the wrong! You are psychologically setting yourself up for disaster. Poker is all about what ifs, and if you are playing to win, you will often end up going out on the bubble; however, if you keep playing your game, the what ifs will eventually go your way and you will win.


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, and can be found at www.cardplayer.com/thecircuit.



The following is a discussion between host Scott Huff and guest Paul Wasicka on the adverse effect of ego in poker, as broadcast on The Circuit from the Borgata Poker Open.



Paul Wasicka: The one thing I have going for me is, I really don't care if I look like a fool. I'm willing to go out drawing dead as long as I follow what I think the guy has or if he'll fold.



Scott Huff: Do you think there's a lot of ego in poker that causes people not to make optimal plays based on the fact they don't want to walk away from the table looking like a donkey?



PW: I definitely think that's true. In fact, that's one of the big criticisms I have of one of my friends. I think he's an awesome player, but he is just too afraid of what other people think, in my opinion. Once he gets past that, he's going to have a lot more success. I think a lot of people are like that. I actually enjoy it when I make a call with an ace high. I like showing my hand. I kind of like showing them, "Here's what I'm calling you with, so don't move over the top of me, because I'm going to call you with a really bad hand."



SH: I like the idea of it being a tactic …



PW: That's kind of what my cash game is all about. I want people thinking that I'm a bad player, so that when I have top pair, they're going to call me down. I've had people call me down with 7 high before.



SH: Everyone wants to think that he's a superstar, and you're saying that you're the opposite, like the old-school way; you don't want people to know that you're good?



PW: Everyone thinks that he's awesome, and the competition is awesome. So, to think that you're never going to get it in with the worst hand is just unrealistic.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Put The Circuit to work for your game:



Hey, guys:



I just recently discovered all the archived episodes a couple of weeks ago, so I'm trying to catch up while also listening to the new shows as they air.



Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for all the good info.



I enjoy hearing from your different guests, as it gives me a little more insight into what they are like, other than what I see during the televised events.



Thanks again!

Merrick in Nampa, Idaho

Generation Next

Jason Strasser

As a Man Thinketh …

By Craig Tapscott



Throughout time, sages have clearly stated that the key to our own personal empowerment is in the mastery of our minds. Unlock that powerful resource, surpass limitations, and all perceived obstacles will fall by the wayside. From the beginning of his poker education, Jason Strasser challenged his mind to do just that: absorb everything, be quick, and be decisive. The results will take care of themselves.



Packing razor-sharp thinking, no fear, and a little luck, Strasser knocked out 2,457 obstacles that were standing in his way to a title and $442,000 during the 2006 World Championship of Online Poker $1,000 buy-in no-limit hold'em event at PokerStars. The Duke senior also credits his trained poker mind to opening doors on Wall Street. "I have a job offer in the financial industry, trading options and other commodities for an investment bank," stated Strasser. "The people in that industry love the mindset of a poker player. When trading stocks, you're in a stressful environment, making decisions on unknown information, guessing what other people have. The intellectual ceiling for poker is only so high, but when you get to a place like Wall Street, it's a bigger poker game."



Craig Tapscott: What initiated your thought processes during a hand early on?



Jason Strasser: I read all of the Sklansky stuff, and it got me thinking the right way. From there, I basically used the 2+2 forums to really improve. I did it through looking at hands on the forum or posting my own. My networking with better players and poker hand-reading game, I owe all to that website.



CT: You recently won a WCOOP title and went deep in the World Series of Poker main event. Can you share how you navigate these large fields?



JS: Don't pass up any edge. You will see people trying to avoid coin flips. You have to accumulate so many chips to do well in these events that you can't really be passing these up. The WCOOP win was a combination of playing pretty well and running well. I won every key coin flip and confrontation. I'm also good at picking up the pots in which no one has anything. I didn't get drawn out on in any big pots, either. When that's happening, I'm pretty hard to beat, because everything is going my way.



Poker is about being creative. The allowance for creativity increases as stacks get deeper. Find good spots to create fold equity, which is key in tournaments.



CT: I understand that some friends had a percentage of you during the WCOOP tournaments.



JS: I bought a new desk and drawer. I'm pretty lazy, so I traded two roommates of mine each 1 percent of my WCOOP winnings to assemble it. It turned out to be a pretty expensive desk.



CT: What advice do you have for players who are struggling to develop and discipline their poker minds?



JS: Get feedback on your thought processes by getting involved in a forum. That's the key. Also, don't be so results-oriented, which is so easy to do early on. Play a lot of heads up and shorthanded, because you have to make a lot of decisions – and fast. It's all about making good decisions.



In heads-up and shorthanded play, the decisions are a lot more complex, and many times are based on past actions. That's an interesting part of the game, how past actions determine things that happen in the future. Assuming a certain amount of confidence in your opponent, he is going to see something you've done in the past, whether it's a move, a fold, or a call. He sees you drinking, and so on, whatever those external factors might be. Those other factors will determine what decisions he makes in the future. It's very important to understand how you're being perceived.



CT: What would you recommend to train a poker player's mind?



JS: In the end, it comes down to being fair with yourself, accessing your play. You need to look at some hands and ask questions: Did I play that as well as I could have? What was I thinking when I did that? Why exactly did I do that? You have to force yourself to understand why you're doing certain things. It's very simple. You should have a thought process that you can go through at the table that's very concise and clear. It helps to find a better player for feedback and to develop very good ideas of what you should be thinking during a hand.



CT: Any parting wisdom?



JS: Many players would improve if they stopped check-raising when they were in spots where their opponents were not pot-committed. Lead lots of flops with different hands, check-call or lead the turn, and so on. Too many people check-raise, and most of the time there are better, stronger alternatives.

Poker Superstars III Has Its Winner

Todd Brunson Sweeps the Magician for the Title

By Bob Pajich



Todd Brunson is the winner of Poker Superstars III. He came out on top of a field of 24 top players to win $400,000.



Brunson dominated the championship match with Antonio Esfandiari so badly that the best-of-five final, originally scheduled to be shown in two one-hour shows, was condensed into one show after Brunson swept Esfandiari in three straight games.



Brunson won a total of $515,000 during this tournament, which featured 20 qualifying matches (in which players earned $10,000 for each win), a Super 16 round, a quarterfinal round, a semifinal round, and the championship match. The series, shown on FSN all around the country, took more than 30 episodes to show how the tourney turned out.



Brunson pretty much coasted through the tournament. He entered the round of 16 as the No. 4 seed and then lost only one match out of the eight he played during his championship run. He lost the first best-of-three match to Johnny Chan in the semifinal round, but that was his only hiccup of the tournament. He then went on to win the next two matches to make it to the final, where he blanked Esfandiari for the title.



Esfandiari also had a great showing. He left the first round as the second seed, and won $140,000 for finishing second. He won a total of $245,000 in the tournament.



The tournament featured some of the biggest names in poker, including Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem, Chris Moneymaker, Jennifer Harman, Barry Greenstein, and Cyndy Violette, among others.



Special kudos goes to Card Player COO Jeff Shulman. He finished the first round as the top points earner, and made it all the way to the quarterfinals. He earned $60,000 in the tournament.



The show was hosted by Howard Lederer and Chris Rose, and was shown on FSN every Sunday.

Youth Movement Destroys U.S. Poker Championship

Combined Age of Top Two Finishers, 44

By Shawn Patrick Green



The young guns of poker have been making quite a splash lately, as evidenced by the results of the recent U.S. Poker Championship.


The final table of the event eventually pitted up-and-coming 22-year-olds Alex Jacob and Jordan Morgan against each other heads up. First-place prize money was $878,500, while second place was $405,072, meaning both players were guaranteed to score their biggest live-tournament paydays regardless of how they finished.



The U.S. Poker Championship, which has run at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City since 1996, attracted 261 players this year and generated a prize pool of $2,531,000.



The outcome of the match was fairly predictable, considering that Jacob had $4,495,000 in chips compared to Morgan's $730,000. It took less than seven minutes for the final hand of the tournament to come down. Morgan raised to $75,000 preflop and Jacob pushed all in over the top. Morgan called and showed the K Q, while Jacob flipped over the A 5 for the lead. An ace hit the flop to increase Jacob's lead, and with a final board reading A 9 7 2 J, Morgan was eliminated.



Jacob took home the top prize for his only first-place finish in a major event, putting his lifetime winnings at almost $1.7 million.



He previously took second place ($655,507) at the 2006 Foxwoods Poker Classic in April. Jacob also made two final tables at the 2006 World Series of Poker, taking fifth in a pot-limit hold'em event and ninth in a no-limit hold'em event.



Morgan, an Internet poker star and winning online tournament player under the alias "iMsoLucky0," made a WSOP final table in a no-limit hold'em event, eventually finishing seventh.

Ask Yourself This Question

By David Apostolico



In my recently released book Lessons from the Felt, I pose a critical question for anyone who plays tournament poker. That question and analysis is excerpted here.



How many times after you have been eliminated from a tournament have you complained that you were card-dead? Don't feel bad if you have. I know I have done it numerous times before I straightened myself out. I still hear top professionals complain about it all the time. Well, now's the time to correct this mistake. Personally, I find card-dead stories more repellent than bad-beat stories. At least with a bad-beat story, the narrator presumably made the right move and suffered some bad luck. When I hear a card-dead story, though, my immediate reaction is that the narrator doesn't understand the game and was not proactive enough to compete.



The whole point of tournament poker is to force the action by increasing the blinds and antes. You do not have the luxury of waiting for optimal cards – neither do your opponents. In any tournament, some players will get a rush of cards at the beginning and others will be card-dead. Deal with it. However, every single player will have an opportunity to make a move and accumulate chips. If you are staying focused and studying your opponents, I guarantee that you will find some spots to pick up chips even when you do not have anything. You may not be a chip leader, but you can pick up enough to survive and avoid being short-stacked until bigger opportunities arrive. Of course, there will be times that you get caught stealing. That's part of poker.



However, if you are card-dead, would you rather get blinded out or get caught making a move? Give yourself a chance to win.



Make some moves before you get so short-stacked that you are guaranteed to get called down. Take advantage of your chips to give yourself some fold equity.



It's not easy trying to win chips when you don't have cards. Making such moves is a huge psychological hurdle to get over. If you have trouble getting over that hurdle, I'm going to give you a confidence builder right now. In fact, you already know how to make moves without cards. You just don't know it. The next time you play, count how many hands you win without a showdown.



Count both the number of hands won without a showdown and the percentage of your winning hands that come without a showdown. I think you will be surprised at how high the numbers are. If you are playing online, just click on the stats icon and you will instantly get all of this information. What does this tell you? It tells you that your cards were irrelevant in those hands that you won without a showdown. Actually, they weren't irrelevant, because they gave you the confidence to bet them. However, assuming your opponents' cards stayed the same, you could have bet any two cards the same way and won the pot. Think about that. If you are playing correctly, the majority of pots that you win will come without a showdown. Sure, it's nice to have the security blanket of cards to back up your bets, but if you're not getting cards, you're going to have to make do without them. In those situations, think of your chips as your security blanket. Bet them to protect your hand that you do not want to reveal. As long as you have chips, you have a way to win, whether or not you are getting cards.



One other thing – poker is a streaky game. If you are card-dead at the beginning, the cards will eventually come. Over the long run, things even out. If you can do enough to survive the dry spells, you will be in good shape when you do get some cards at the higher levels. Every tournament, I see some players get off to a quick start, only to flame out quickly when the cards don't go their way. Think about it. Would you rather be card-dead at the beginning of the tournament or the end? Do whatever you can to survive those dry spells, because they never last forever. So don't tell bad-beat stories, and from now on, keep those card-dead stories to yourself, as well. Instead, the next time you are eliminated, think about some situations where you could have picked up some chips even though you did not have cards. You should be playing poker because it is a skill game. If you're blaming the cards, you are relying on luck.



David Apostolico is the author of numerous poker books, including Lessons from the Felt, Lessons from the Pro Poker Tour, and Tournament Poker and the Art of War. You can contact him at [email protected].

Congresswoman Speaks Out Against Online Gambling Bill

Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas Calls Move a 'Ridiculous Abuse of Power'

By Bob Pajich



When a federal act to protect the nation's ports came before Congress at the end of last month, only two members voted against it. The act was deemed an absolute necessity in the fight against terrorism, and as Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said, how does a politician in an election year vote against port safety?



They don't, not even Berkley, a Las Vegas Democrat who called the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) "an invasion of our privacy and it takes away our citizens' rights."



"What could be a greater invasion of privacy than the government telling you you cannot play Internet poker in your own house," she said. "This was a breathtaking abuse of the exercise of war power."



Berkley's congressional district includes just about all of Las Vegas, and she has ties to the casino industry as a former vice president of government and legal affairs for the Sands Hotel.



She's one of a handful of politicians who spoke out against Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's attempt at getting the UIGEA attached to a major defense-spending bill. He initially failed, but succeeded later in the week at the last minute in the session before Congress broke for a long election-year recess.



This is what Berkley had to say about Frist's first attempt: "A ban on Internet gaming in the Defense bill? How ridiculous is that?



At a time when we have brave American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership is more worried about Americans playing poker online than protecting our troops in the field."



Although the UIGEA is considered a bipartisan bill, there's no denying that the impetus behind it came from Republican conservatives and traditional, conservative organizations. Berkley isn't shy about pointing this out.



"The ban on Internet gaming was part of the Republican family values agenda. They passed it to pound their chests and talk about how they're protecting America's youth," Berkley said. "You've got a bunch of ideologues running Congress. They're not interested in anything that has a modicum of common sense; they're only interested in a very narrow moral position."



In 2003, Berkley and four other Congress members introduced legislation to explore ways to tax and regulate online gambling.



Obviously, the bill stalled.



Berkley has a loud voice and is obviously passionate about this issue, even though the casinos located in her district sat back and watched as the politicians maneuvered this year. The American Gaming Association has come out and said it supports a study on Internet taxation and regulation, but it remained silent as the bill made it through Congress. Before this year, the AGA has stated it supports efforts to stop illegal gambling.



Berkley says there's no reason why the United States should not tax and regulate this industry, even though supporters of the UIGE Act say it's impossible to do.



Representatives from the federal government testified at the House Judiciary hearings that technology doesn't exist to tax and regulate online gambling.



"I believe we now have the software available to make sure that we can figure out who's 21 and above. We can regulate it, we can monitor it. There's no reason at all to ban it," she stated.



The UK is about to prove her right. In 2007, the UK will allow online gambling companies to set up shop there. They'll join more than 80 countries that tax and regulate online gambling, including Australia, Denmark, France, and Germany.



Berkley says it's not too late for online poker fans to let politicians know how displeased they are.



"You make sure your member of Congress knows that you are opposed to the ban on Internet gambling," she said. "Believe me when I tell you, we count the number of calls we get."



As for online poker, Berkley feels the same way thousands of other online poker players feel: "Internet gaming is going to exist whether the United States Congress says it can or not," she said.

Visit www.CardPlayer.com for more coverage of this legislative issue.

Online Hand-to-Hand Combat: Thorladen Plays A-A From Under the Gun

By Craig Tapscott



Want to study real poker hands with the Internet's most successful players? 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: Thorladen is under the gun with the A A and raises to $200. Villain No. 1 calls and Villian No. 2 calls from the button.



Craig Tapscott: What are your expectations after your raise?



Thorladen: Good news, but I would much rather have A-A in late position, as raising from early position usually reveals a much better hand. When I get called by the player two seats behind me (UTG+2), I like it for a few reasons: I want action, he's a short stack, and it makes it tempting for an aggressive player later to try a squeeze play. I'm not thrilled with the button call, because he's deep, has position, and is a good player.



Flop: 8 3 3 ($675 pot); all three players check.



TL: I like the flop, as the 3-3 seems non-threatening. The 8 looks relatively safe, but there is always the chance of someone flat-calling with 8-8 preflop. I decide to check. Sometimes I bet, and sometimes I check; you really have to mix it up. This line allows big hands to put me on A-K, and therefore slow down to let me hit a card. Without a very big hand, they are more likely to try to take it down on the flop.



When it's checked around, I am reasonably confident that no one has an overpair to the board, as he likely would have bet it.



Turn: 9 ($675 pot); Thorladen checks, Villain No. 1 bets $450, Villian No. 2 calls, Thorladen calls.



TL: The turn brings another club. I'm not concerned that the 9 hit anyone. I wish one of my aces were a club, so there would be fewer flush worries.



CT: Why the check with A-A?



TL: Something smells bad. Why didn't the good player on the button bet the flop when everyone checked to him? He might be huge or not – so let's feel it out.



I check, UTG+2 throws out a reasonable bet, and the button calls. Talk about alarm bells going off in my head! Is this a classic slow-play? I can't fold, but I will proceed with caution. If someone hits a flush, so be it. If the button had folded to the $450 bet,

I would no doubt go after this pot heads up. I'm just not getting away from this hand against a short stack.



River: 5 ($2,025 pot); Thorladen checks, Villain No. 1 bets $1,200, Villain No. 2 raises to $2,400, Thorladen folds, Villain No. 1 raises all in, and Villain No. 2 calls an additional $34.



TL: The river brings an apparent blank, but does hit 7-6 for the straight, which is possible. I really want to see what my opponents do here; if nothing, I'm happy to win a small pot. This hand has potential disaster written all over it.



When UTG+2 bet $1,200, I got to see the button's reaction before deciding. He miniraised and put his 8-8 on his forehead for all to see (not very easy to do online!).



Results: Final pot, $6,890; Villain No. 1 shows the 7 6 for a straight, and Villain No. 2 shows the 8 8 for a full house.



CT: Something did stink. Great laydown.



TL: My suspicions about the hand were correct. I knew I was beat. It was an easy fold.

To see this hand animated with analysis by Thorladen, visit www.CardPlayer/h2hc.

Thorladen started playing cash games in 2004 at the $1-$2 no-limit hold'em level and has worked his way up to some of the highest no-limit hold'em stakes available. He's also a feared multitable tournament competitor who has won the PokerStars Sunday $109 rebuy event twice and maintains a 17 percent in-the-money rate and an 8 percent final-table rate on an average buy-in of $257.