For the first time in history, a
World Series of Poker event was held outside the U.S. Personally, I had mixed feelings about the idea, and am still on the fence about it all. Strangely enough, for a guy as opinionated as I tend to be, you'd think that I'd have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but I still can't wrap my head around this one and get a feel for whether it's a step forward for poker or a step backward.
On one hand, I've always believed that it was a little bit foolish to call it the
"World" Series of Poker when each and every year, it takes place only in the U.S. It's true that most of the best players in the world travel to Las Vegas for big chunks of the event, but you just have to believe that it's advantageous for the American players in the long run. I know that this would never fly, and frankly, it would do me more personal harm than good, but I think the
World Series of Poker should take place in a different country and city each year. I could think of several locations that might be a good fit: New York City, London, Australia, Paris, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and a host of other countries that I'm sure could run a first-class event.
On the other hand, the last thing you want is to run so many events worldwide throughout the entire year that you water down the fields, as the top pros may be reluctant to play in all of the events, especially if there were, say, two a month in various countries.
As I said, I don't really know yet where I stand on the issue, and I think only time will tell. I wasn't about to miss this event, despite knowing that I'd be in London again just a bit more than a week later for the
European Poker Tour event in London. (I actually flew home for five days in between, if you can believe it.) The
World Series of Poker Europe was held in three separate casinos, all within close proximity. London is both expensive and a little cramped for space, to say the least, so I'm assuming that it was difficult to find a venue big enough to get everyone under the same roof. I actually never went anywhere but the main casino, the Empire, which is in the heart of Leicester Square. As a side note, you know that I'm a brat about complaining about food choices on the various trips that I make. Well, despite hearing that the food was "supposed" to be awful, I have never been anywhere with as many healthy food choices as there were in Leicester Square. I absolutely loved the food, and ate more falafel that week than I have in ages!
I actually played some poker, too, so without further adieu, here is an interesting hand from the early stages of the £10,000 main event. With the blinds at 50-100, a player limped in from under the gun, as did local pro Ben Roberts from middle position. I decided to make it 650 to go with J-J, and the big blind as well as both limpers called the raise, making a decent pot early on of 2,650.
The flop came 9
6
6
. Everyone checked to me, and I bet 1,600. The big blind folded, and the player who limped in from under the gun raised it to 4,000. Luckily, I had some information on this player, and my read on him was that he was a little on the overaggressive side and didn't necessarily have me beat at all. Ben folded, and I called.
The turn brought my gin card, the J
, giving me top full house. At this point, I figured that my opponent was drawing dead or, at most, to one out if he had flopped trip sixes. He checked, and not wanting to scare him off a pair of nines, I decided to check behind him, essentially trying to accomplish two things: I wanted to let him catch up, and if he did have a 9, I wanted him to call a river bet.
The river was the K
and my opponent checked. At that point, I bet 6,000, hoping to get a loose call from a pair of nines, but my opponent folded, and as he did, it seemed likely that he had a flush draw.
After looking back on the hand, despite the fact that I won a sizeable pot, I made one crucial error; I should have bet the turn, for several reasons:
• If my opponent had a 6, I may have gotten all of his chips.
• If I made a small enough bet, I still could have earned the call from a pair of nines.
• If my opponent had a flush or straight draw, he could have called a bet on the turn, but not paid me off on the river with a busted draw.
• If my opponent wanted to go for a big bluff on the turn with a check-raise, I hadn't allowed him to do that.
• If the river was a spade, that could cost me action if it scared my opponent if he held a pair of nines.
All in all, it was likely that nothing at all would have changed had I bet the turn in this case, but that's just not how you approach the game of poker. Regardless of the result, whether it was the same, better, or worse, you should focus on judging the merits of a play independent of the result. I won the pot, a nice pot at that, but I clearly made a subpar decision on the turn that potentially could have limited my winnings on the hand.
The good news is that I didn't play every hand like a donkey, and in the next issue, I'll share a hand with you that I think I played well.
