The Inside Straight

Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Help Clarify UIGEA
Bill Singles Out Sports Betting
By Bob Pajich

A Texas lawmaker has introduced a bill that, if passed, would give some clarity to what kind of online activities the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) could be used to stop.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 6663, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008 on July 30, days after four of his colleagues sent a letter asking the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Board to provide clarification on exactly what the UIGEA should consider online gambling.

Sessions' bill is a member of Congress' first attempt at defining exactly what the UIGEA calls "unlawful Internet gambling," which is as far as the UIGEA goes to define the illegal activities that the bill's authors want stopped.

The Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department, the two government bodies given the task of writing the rules and regulations that banks will eventually use to search for and stop transactions related to unlawful Internet gambling, are finding their job extremely difficult because of the lack of clarity.

Sessions' bill singles out only one facet of the online gaming industry: sports betting. If passed, his bill would leave no doubt that taking online sports bets - as well as facilitating the transactions used to fund these activities - is illegal.

According to H.R. 6663, "No provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as clarifying or implying that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers, which were accepted subsequent to October 13, 2006, are in violation of Federal law."

Sessions gave several reasons why he thinks online sports betting should be stopped by the UIGEA. Some of his reasons are that sports wagering is illegal in 49 of the 50 states, the potential for both professional and amateur sporting events to be corrupted, and the fact that all federal Internet gambling prosecutions have involved sports betting (according to the bill, this "creates a lack of authoritative court decisions on the applicability of other federal criminal statutes to Internet poker and casino-style gambling").

These prosecutions started before the UIGEA was passed in October 2006, using existing federal laws that specifically prohibit taking bets over state lines, laws that were designed to help fight organized crime in America in the 1960s. These laws are still being used to prosecute executives who owned either online sportsbooks or the eWallets that helped fund them.

The Treasury and Reserve Board are still in the process of revising the UIGEA rules that were introduced last fall. By officials' own admissions, employees are having a difficult time with this task, because of the many gray areas and the lack of case history pertaining to online gambling. Without these rules, the UIGEA cannot be used to stop banking transactions used for unlawful Internet gambling.

'TheV0id' Withdraws Case Against PokerStars
Natalie Teltscher Was Disqualified After 2007
WCOOP Main-Event Victory
By Bob Pajich

PokerStars recently released a statement announcing that a lawsuit filed against the site by Natalie Teltscher has been withdrawn. Teltscher filed a complaint in Isle of Man courts after PokerStars disqualified her account's victory in the 2007 World Championship of Online Poker main event, for which she was awarded more than $1.2 million (after the players agreed to a deal).

Teltscher withdrew the case after PokerStars showed her the evidence it had collected that proved she was not the person playing under the username registered to her name ("TheV0id"), which breaches the PokerStars terms-of-use agreement.
According to PokerStars, Teltscher also agreed to pay a sum for PokerStars' legal fees.

The entire release is published below:

PokerStars is pleased to announce that Natalie Teltscher has recently withdrawn her claim in the Isle of Man courts against PokerStars. Furthermore, in discontinuing her claim, she has agreed to contribute a sum towards the legal costs incurred by PokerStars in this matter.

Ms. Teltscher brought her claim against PokerStars because she was disqualified from first place of the 2007 WCOOP main event after PokerStars internal investigations demonstrated beyond doubt that she had not played on the account. On her disqualification, all other players were moved one place higher in the prize table and the money confiscated from her account, TheV0id, was redistributed in full, according to the amended tournament placings.

Ms. Teltscher initially claimed that she had played the account. However, when faced with the results from PokerStars' investigation, she eventually admitted she hadn't played.

The decision of Ms. Teltscher to withdraw her claim fully vindicates PokerStars' decision to disqualify her from the tournament and subsequently defend the claim, actions which were taken in order to protect the integrity of the games on offer at PokerStars.

Dates Set for PokerStars Caribbean Adventure
The European Poker Tour Event Will Start on Jan. 4, 2009
By Kristy Arnett

Since its inception in 2004, the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure has been one of the most popular major poker tournaments in the world, drawing huge fields each year, and recently, PokerStars announced the dates for its 2009 event: It will start on Jan. 4.
Demonstrating the event's popularity are its past turnouts. Every year thus far has seen an increase in attendance. In 2004, the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure started out as a World Poker Tour event, but since then, the event has been on the European Poker Tour schedule. Here are the stats for every main event:

World Poker Tour Releases Financial Report
Parent Company of World Poker Tour Lost $6.7 Million in the First Half of This Year
By Bob Pajich

World Poker Tour Enterprises recently released its financial report for the first half of 2008, showing that the company had a net loss of $6.7 million in the first half of 2008, which is $1.1 million more than the same period in 2007.

The reasons, according to the company's financial report, are:

A decrease in revenues of $2.2 million, primarily as a result of a decrease in domestic television license fees, which is due to lower per episode license fees under the GSN agreement in effect during the 2008 period, as compared to the Travel Channel agreement that was in effect during the 2007 period.

Costs increased by $200,000, primarily as a result of the delivery of 15 episodes of its sixth season in the period versus the delivery of 14 episodes of its fifth season in the prior year's period. Higher costs in international television sponsorship, a result of increased sponsorship revenues, also contributed to the overall increase in costs.

Selling, and general and administrative expenses increased by $700,000, due primarily to the company's increased efforts in marketing its online gaming operations and ClubWPT.com, offset by decreased headcount expenses company-wide.

WPTE, which is a subsidiary of casino operator Lakes Entertainment, also placed blame on the performance of its online casino, which is powered by CryptoLogic. The casino is not completely up and running, and won't be until the fourth quarter of 2008, but WPTE owed CryptoLogic $172,000 because of shortfalls in the first half of 2008.

By contract, WPTE owes CryptoLogic a minimum of $500,000 a year, or $125,000 per quarter. Monthly payments are determined by using a sliding scale that charts revenue.

During the first half of 2008, WPTE's online casino generated $538,000 in revenues while it spent $1.4 million in sales and marketing. WPTE's financial report also outlines the agreement it has with CryptoLogic.

WPTE is entitled to 100 percent of the first $37,500 in revenue per month, 79 percent of revenue in excess of $37,500 but less than $500,000 per month, and 80 percent of the revenue in excess of $500,000 per month.

After the online casino is fully operational, CryptoLogic will be entitled to a minimum revenue guarantee of $750,000 per year, or $187,500 per quarter.

If at any time after the nine-month anniversary of the go-live date of the full online casino that monthly gaming revenues fall below $500,000 for three consecutive months, CryptoLogic has the right to terminate the contract on 90-days written notice. WPTE may prevent any such termination through payment of the shortfall of CryptoLogic's percentage of such gaming revenue within 30 days of receipt of CryptoLogic's notice of termination.

Venetian Announces a Fourth Deep-Stack Extravaganza
Scheduled to Take Place Nov. 1-25
By Bob Pajich

Due to popular demand, the Venetian poker room in Las Vegas has announced a fourth installment of its Deep-Stack Extravaganza (DSE), which will take place Nov. 1-25.

This edition will consist of 25 no-limit hold'em events with buy-ins of $330, $540, and $1,060, with the championship event having a buy-in of $2,500.

Starting chip counts for the $330 events are 10,000, while the $540 and $1,060 events begin with 12,500 in chips. Players start with 15,000 in chips in the championship event. Additional chips will be available with the purchase of an optional staff bonus in all of the events.

Daily satellites will be held around-the-clock during the DSE, giving players a chance to get into the events for much less than the asking price. The DSE has proven to be so popular that players often play for prize money normally associated with much larger buy-in tournaments.

Registration for each event begins at 9 p.m. on the day prior to the event, and tournament play begins at noon. For more information, call the Venetian poker room: (702) 414-7657.

First Season of LAPT Ends With Spaniard's Victory
Jose Miguel Espinar Wins $241,735
By Bob Pajich


A player who has been playing poker only since December took down the PokerStars.net Latin American Poker Tour event in Punta del Este, Uruguay, recently, winning $241,735. Jose Miguel Espinar, from Valencia, Spain, had to beat poker veteran Alex Brenes heads up to claim the title.

A total of 351 entrants from 34 countries took part in the three-day event, generating a total prize pool of $851,175. They included 145 players who won their seats online at PokerStars, and two of them made the final table: Gylbert Drolet from Canada and Paulo Cesar Ribeiro from Brazil.

Brenes, brother of poker superstar Humberto Brenes, has done well in LAPT events. This was his second final table of the first three events on the LAPT. He finished fourth in Rio de Janeiro for $62,800, and his runner-up finish here, for $127,675, put him over the $1 million mark for lifetime tournament earnings.

Alexandre Gomes, a new Team PokerStars pro, came in fourth for $68,100. The 26-year-old Brazilian joined the PokerStars roster of star players after winning a $2,000 no-limit hold'em event at the World Series of Poker for $770,540. The deepest American finish was by Vanessa Rousso, who got knocked out in 10th place.

This was the last LAPT event scheduled for its first season. The season's three events generated a total prize pool of $2,513,675, built by 1,110 entrants, of which 457 qualified online through PokerStars.

Points Galore Up for Grabs in
the Remainder of 2008
By Bob Pajich

With the year two-thirds over, one quick glance at the Player of the Year leader board by the more ambitious and talented players could possibly lead to a moment of discouraging depression. After all, Erik Seidel already has compiled 4,580 points and he's not the only talented pro with thousands of POY points in his pocket. Also keeping Seidel company at the top of the standings are John Phan, David Benyamine, Michael Binger, David Pham and Erick Lindgren.

It's a lineup not to be messed with, and would be nightmarish for anyone - from seasoned pro to online qualifier - to face. But the tournament year still has four months remaining, and there are literally thousands and thousands of POY points up for grabs in 2008.

Between the European Poker Tour and the World Poker Tour, there are nine major events remaining in the year. Last year's numbers show that any player can conceivably overtake Seidel in the Player of the Year race with a strong year-ending performance.

For example, the 16 events of last year's Borgata Poker Open (this year's version takes place for much of the month of September and basically repeats the 2007 schedule) generated thousands of POY points. The winner of the $1,500 event received 960 points; the $2,000 event, 1,116 points (second received 930 points); the $5,000 event, 1,008 points (second received 840); and the $10,000 championship event, 1,920 points (the runner-up got 1,600 and the third-place finisher received 1,280).

The Bellagio Festa al Lago (Oct. 2-25) contains 15 events with buy-ins ranging from $1,500 to the $15,000 championship. The Foxwoods World Poker Finals (Oct. 20-Nov. 11) also contains 15 events, and Bellagio's Five-Diamond World Poker Classic (Nov. 28-Dec. 19) contains a dozen events.

As far as EPT events are concerned, the winners of last year's events received 1,440 points each, and there are five events remaining, meaning that about 7,200 points will go to the winners alone (with thousands of points left for those who aren't named champions).

The moral of the story? The POY race is far from over, and the remainder of the year will most likely provide some shuffling in the standings, to the delight of us all.

POY Hot spots:

'Assassinato' Sets Up a River Bluff From a Spewy Opponent
By Craig Tapscott

Want to study real poker hands with the Internet's most successful players? In this series, Card Player offers hand analysis with online poker's leading talent.

Event: Online six-max no-limit hold'em cash game at CakePoker
Players: 6
Blinds: $2-$4
Stacks: Assassinato - $550; Villain - $466

Craig Tapscott: We've done a lot of hands at the nosebleed stakes, but most players don't ever venture that high. So, let's talk about a mid-stakes cash-game hand you played, Alex.

Alex "Assassinato" Fitzgerald: OK. I'm on the button and the hijack-position player limps in for $4. I've pegged him to be a weaker player who limps and calls quite a bit, and someone I'm looking to exploit while in position. He tends to make spewy plays when he gets caught in a big pot with a small holding. This knowledge will influence my play later on in the hand.
Villain limps in for $4. Assassinato raises to $18 with the Q 9 on the button. Villain calls.

CT: What's your plan with this size of preflop raise in position?

AF: My plan is essentially to isolate the limper with a playable hand. Q-9 suited will hit enough boards, and I will be able to control the size of the pot effectively with my position. This will enable me to make this mediocre hand profitable. If I were to make it just $12 or $14, I'd be more likely to get one caller out of the blinds, which would make it more difficult for me to pick up the pot when I flop nothing. This also will give me a looser image, which I can use later in the game.

Flop: Q 7 6 ($42 pot)

Villain checks and Assassinato bets $32.

AF: I'm betting for value here. It also will help me know where I'm at in the hand, because this isn't the type of guy who will check-raise me here without a good queen. However, he will still call down with a 6, 7, ace high, and draws, so it makes sense for me to value-bet here. He calls me pretty fast.

Villain calls $32.

CT: Does this help narrow his range for you?

AF: I'm still pretty sure my hand is good, but the call tells me a few things. He helps me clip off his hand range: Gone are sets and two pair. If he had 7-6 or a set, he at least would debate raising here, mainly because he's going to want to get value from his hand. When he flat-calls me so quickly, he's letting me know that his hand is either a weak queen, a 6, a 7, 8-8 through 10-10, or 9-8 or 5-4.

CT: Do you ever consider timing tells online?

AF: Oh, yeah. When a person has an actual hand, he tends to worry about a draw catching up or getting more money for his hand. There will be a few seconds of debate. When he gets fed up with me constantly raising in position and betting him off a hand on the flop, he will start calling me down really quickly with his weaker holdings, as if to say, "Look, my hand is so strong, I'm going to call you down the whole way." And as we all know in poker, when someone acts strong, he's typically weak. This isn't 100 percent true, but it's a huge tell with many players.

Turn: 3 ($106 pot)

AF: That turn card completes one of the straight draws.

Villain checks.

CT: Did he check quickly once again?

AF: Yes.

CT: Which now means?

AF: I think there's a good case for me to bet here, but I don't want to create a big pot for my opponent to bluff me off my hand on the river. If I bet here and he calls, and then an overcard comes, I'll have a hard time discerning whether he has a hand or not. My specific read on this guy is that when he gets into a big pot, he makes spewy plays. I don't want to put myself in that odd position. This also applies if a straight card comes or one of the cards pairs.

CT: Should you check, then, for pot control?

AF: Well, if I check behind here, I induce his entire range to bluff on the river. It will be easy to call him, because I will have kept the pot fairly small. I get more value here than if I bet, and make it difficult for a 6 or a 7 to call a second barrel. I'm also limiting the damage if he has a good queen or 5-4.

Assassinato checks.

River: 3 ($106 pot)

Villain checks.

CT: The river card doesn't change much.

AF: Nope. At this point, I know I have the best hand. If he had Q-10 or better, he would have led this river for value. He's the kind of player who would assume his queen was the nuts after I checked behind on the turn. He also would have led the turn and river with 5-4. His range now is a busted straight draw, a 6, a 7, or 8-8 through 10-10.

CT: So, how do figure out your bet-sizing here?

AF: Normally, I would make a sizeable value-bet here, because there's a good chance he will call me. He will assume with those hands that once I checked the turn, I don't have a queen. Again, this is another advantage to checking behind on that turn, because now when I bet, it will look like I continuation-bet the flop, gave up on the turn, and then decided to make a last stab at it.

CT: So, how do you extract the most value?

AF: My read on this guy is that he gets desperate when stuck in a big pot, and he'll raise to try to win it now. So, instead of betting three-fourths of the pot here for value, I'll bet less than half the pot for deception.

Assassinato bets $44.

AF: I'm hoping this bet will make it look like a cheap ploy for me to win after he's checked three times. Hopefully, he'll turn some of his hands with showdown value into bluffs. He also might look at a small bet and think "scared," which is even better. He might have had the plan to just check and give up, but once he sees the small bet, he sees a lot of room for me to fold. In his mind, it might be the time to make the hero shove.

Villain moves all in for $416.

AF: I called instantly.

Villain flips over the 8 7. Assassinato wins the pot of $938.

AF: The Villain took a weak hand with which he didn't know what to do and jammed the river, turning his hand into a bluff, mostly because I made that small bet. My small bet induced his raise, which would've been more than a pot-sized value-bet, although I was surprised he shoved his whole stack.

Alex Fitzgerald is 20 years old and is from the Seattle area. He has been a professional poker player ever since he graduated from high school. Initially starting in the lowest sit-and-gos and multitable tournaments available, Alex has gone on to play in the biggest tournaments online and live and mid-stakes cash games for a living. He is also an instructor for the new training site Poker Pwnage.

Isaac Baron Can't Shake Off Chorny in Two Big Hands
By Craig Tapscott and Isaac Baron

In this series, Card Player offers an in-depth analysis of the key hands that catapulted a player to a top finish, online or live. We also will reveal key concepts and strategies from the world's best tournament players, as we venture inside their sometimes devious and always razor-sharp poker minds.

Isaac "westmenloAA" Baron is from Menlo Park, California, and attends the University of California at Santa Barbara. He is considered one of the best tournament and high-stakes cash-game players in the world, even though he just turned 21 years old in July 2008. He started 2007 with a bang, winning the $500 PokerStars Sunday Million for $254,517. In April of this year, he finished 11th in the European Poker Tour San Remo main event for $45,138. He closed out 2007 with a $132,787 win in the Full Tilt Poker $200 Sunday 750K tournament, and eventually captured the inaugural Card Player Online Player of the Year award.

Event: 2008 EPT Grand Final main event
Players: 842
Buy-in: $13,600
First-Place Prize: $3,193,822
Finish: Fourth
Key Concepts: Pot control, metagame



The action is folded to Chorny on the button. He decides to limp. Baron limps from the small blind with the J 10, and Kalo checks from the big blind.

Craig Tapscott: What's the feel of the table like up to this point?

Isaac Baron: It was going OK for me. I had gotten unlucky in one pot at showdown, but had won a bunch of small pots and a medium-sized showdown pot. I had direct position on the chip leader, and I thought that I was the most feared player at the table.

CT: Was it unusual for Chorny to limp from the button?

IB: Yes, it was the first time I had seen him do that. I figured he had a decent hand that he wanted to take a flop with, but not one strong enough to raise and then call a reraise.

Flop: A 7 6 (180,000 pot)

Baron checks.

IB: I check, expecting Chorny to bet almost always when I check to him in position.
Kalo and Chorny both check.

Turn: 7 (180,000 pot)

Baron bets 100,000.

IB: I'm hoping to get action from either player.

Kalo calls, then Chorny makes it 300,000.

CT: Did this freeze you at all? What's your read?

IB: His demeanor and the size of the raise scares me a little bit. For such a scary board and with two players in the pot, a raise of only 200,000 smelled very fishy. And it didn't smell like an ace or a 7, because I thought with a 7, he would raise much bigger, and with an ace, he would usually bet the flop; if not, he most likely would just call on the turn, fearing that one of us may have a flush or a set.

CT: Would you be willing to get it all in at this point?

IB: I still feel very good about my flush, but not good enough to play this pot all in.

Baron calls. Kalo folds.

River: 8 (880,000)

Baron checks and Chorny bets 300,000.

CT: Did you think of raising for value?

IB: Most of the time, I would raise here or on the turn to get more value from my flush, but for many reasons, I elect to just call.
CT: Can you go into more detail about your thought process in this spot? Most players would raise that innocuous river card, or am I way off base here?

IB: No, you're right. It's definitely a spot where I think my flush should be good more often than not. However, as I said before, I didn't think that Glen had a 7 or an ace, so that left only the possibility of a flush or a bluff. I also figured that if he had a lower flush than me, he would have raised bigger on the turn or most likely bet the flop, because he would not have wanted another club to peel off. So, his most likely holding was a higher flush or a bluff, in my mind. I thought just calling the river bet would be better than raising.

Baron calls 300,000. Chorny flips over the K♣ 9♣ for a cooler, and rakes in the pot of approximately 1,480,000.

IB: I was happy about not going broke or losing much more, thanks mainly to Chorny misplaying his hand on every street.

CT: What mistakes do you think he made?

IB: Well, by far the biggest mistake he made was not betting the flop. When it's checked to you and you are an aggressive player, you are expected to bet more often than not. What this means is that you should be balancing your betting range between weak hands, medium-strength hands, and big hands. Since I expect Chorny to bet a ton of hands, I check to him, planning to check-raise, but he doesn't bet - missing a ton of value. Also, he raised too little on the turn and bet way too little on the river.



Baron is first to act and raises to 210,000 with the A♠ Q♣. Chorny defends his big blind and calls the additional 130,000.

Flop: 7 6 3 (500,000)

Chorny bets out 335,000.

CT: Has he bet into you like this before after you've raised preflop?

IB: He had not done this to me specifically, but I had seen him do it once before and then check and give up on a later street; so, I figured he was capable of doing this with a ton of hands. The bet did confuse me a bit. I figured that with all of his draws and strong hands, he would check to try to check-raise me, especially because I'd been continuation-betting a lot during the final table.

CT: What hand range do you put him on?

IB: Well, I figured that Chorny's most likely holding was either air or a very strong hand that he was trying to make look like air (such as a set, two pair, or a slow-played big overpair). I took a long time to make my decision. I was sure I was going to shove, because I thought that he most likely was trying to take the pot down with nothing on such an innocuous-looking flop.

CT: Why a shove?

IB: I didn't want to make a smaller raise. This was mainly because if Chorny decided to go with a random 7 or something, I didn't want to raise and then fold to a shove with half of my chips in the pot. So, I had my mind made up to shove, and then he called the clock on me. I started to think back to the last time he called the clock, it was on Esfandiari, and Chorny had a very strong hand. I was at the table to witness it; in fact, Glen and I had even talked about how the clock influenced Antonio's decision. So, I really didn't know if calling the clock was a ploy by Chorny to throw me off, or if in fact he was very strong again. I elected to go with my initial read and not try to outthink myself; so, I shoved all in.

Baron moves all in for approximately 1,890,000. Chorny snap-calls, and reveals the A A.

Turn: 9

River: K

Chorny wins the pot of approximately 4,300,000.

Baron takes home $931,268 for his fourth-place finish.

Ex-Teacher 'Bhanks11' Schools the Competition
By Shawn Patrick Green

Leaving a job that you're passionate about can be very hard. Brent Hanks had been teaching fifth- and sixth-graders at a small school since he had graduated from college at St. Bonaventure in rural New York.

"I really loved teaching; I loved the kids, and I loved what I did," Hanks said. "I left [teaching] because I realized that before I got a little older than what I am [25], if I was going to make this poker thing work, I really needed to make it happen now."

Hanks had been making thousands and thousands of dollars playing online poker (under the screen name "Bhanks11") while he both taught and worked toward a master's degree. All of that money, coupled with the competitive, challenging nature of the game, meant that his switch was from one career he was passionate about to another career he was passionate about, which made his resignation from teaching a little bit easier.

Since his switch to professional poker, Hanks has racked up nearly $500,000 in Online Player of the Year (OPOY) cashes this year, scored a win in the PokerStars Sunday Million (every online poker player's dream), and made a huge splash at the 2008 World Series of Poker, cashing in three events and making one final table (at which he finished fifth).

Hanks recently talked to Card Player about his own education, the recent Series, and some strategies for success.
Shawn Patrick Green: How'd you get started playing poker?

Brent "Bhanks11" Hanks: On the side, I'd always played poker. I grew up playing with my dad in home games and some of the high-low stuff. And when the no-limit hold'em boom kicked in, I caught the sickness and was determined to make myself quite good at the game. It didn't take too long, about a year and a half of watching the best players online and working with some of them and basically adapting my skills.

SPG: You had quite a bit of success in this year's WSOP. You cashed three times for about $194,000. Can you talk about the final table of the $2,500 no-limit hold'em event you were at?

BH: I think I was roughly third or fourth in chips. Another guy at the table named Shawn Buchanan was to my left, and he was quite aggressive. I recognized him from other events. He was really the only one who I thought could give me a tough time.
We got five-handed, and I pretty much had held my own at the table and chipped up, chipped up, chipped up. In fact, in the first pot, I had gone all in post-flop on a K-K-10 board, and all I had was the Q J, which was an open-end straight draw and a flush draw. But I was all in on the very first hand, so I set my aggression at the table right away.

When five-handed, I played a pot against Steve Merrifield. If it was folded to me in the cutoff or on the button, I was going to raise any two, because of the stack sizes I had behind me. Shawn Buchanan was always in the big blind when it was my button, and as aggressive as he is, he didn't want to get too carried away when it was five-handed. I know that's kind of how good players think; when it gets four-handed, you can start to open up a bit, but when it's five-handed, you almost can't be overly active from certain points at the table, like the big blind, where you're out of position. So, I raised with the A K on the button, and Steve Merrifield - who was probably third in chips at the time, and I was second - flatted [flat-called] me from the small blind. The flop came A-K-9 with two spades. He led out for roughly 225,000 into a 350,000 pot.

SPG: What were you thinking when he led out on that flop?

BH: I actually had misread him, slightly. I thought he would flat me with a hand like A-X suited up to A-J; I thought that with A-K or A-Q, he would probably reraise me preflop. So, my range included all small aces, but it also included a hand like K-Q, with which he would have flopped second pair. Guys like that have a tendency to lead out to see where they're at in a hand, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A lot of times, they'll lead there with second pair. If that were the case, I could make a small enough raise to maybe look like I'm trying to bluff by representing an ace, and then he would shove second pair through there. So, I decided to go for a raise; I made it about 500,000 or so to make it just barely more than a min-raise back to him. He thought about it for a couple of minutes before moving the rest of his chips into the middle. I called, showing him top two, and he got there. He had a bare flush draw with the 8 7, and he made his flush on the river to cripple me, and I was out shortly thereafter.

SPG: What got you to that final table in the first place? It was a pretty big field, right?

BH: Yeah, the field was quite large; there were about 1,400 entrants. I was comfortable with my live-tournament play; I adjusted fairly quickly. I'm pretty patient when it comes to live poker, as I think you really need to be, because there's a different gear among the best players live than there is online.

I remember that by the first break, I was very short. I got down to like 1,700 in chips. Anyway, I chipped up, chipped up, chipped up, and when we got to about four tables left, it was quite an inflection point for the tournament. I picked up my aggression a lot, and I was three-betting all in on post-flop plays. I check-raised all in twice, once when I flopped a gutshot-straight draw with K-J on a Q-9-X board. It was just a lot of very, very aggressive plays that I hadn't really had to take out and apply through most of the stages in the tournament. I picked my spots to speed well, and I also picked my bluffing spots quite well.

SPG: Would you say, then, that being aggressive is less important in the early stages?

BH: Yeah, absolutely. You do get moved from table to table, so your image is going to change every time you get moved somewhere new. But, for the most part, in three-quarters of that tournament or more, possibly even four-fifths, I played a very patient style of game, very TAG [tight-aggressive]. It almost got to the point that I thought, "I might be able to get exploited here because of how I'm playing." But that was really part of the game plan anyway; if people think they can run you over and you can sense that kind of aggression toward your play, that's when you smash the deck in their faces. So, only when we got down to four tables did I let loose, and it shocked a lot of players, and they were uncertain as to what they were supposed to do, and I got fortunate enough never to move in when they had hands.

SPG: You took down the PokerStars Sunday Million early on this year. How did you do it?

BH: I play that one a lot differently than I would play a World Series event, although you can kind of compare them. I always play very aggressively in the early stages of that tournament, simply because the structure has a tendency to move on very quickly right away. So, I come out raising and reraising right away with such a deep stack in the early levels, basically to shoot off and collect a big stack in such a tremendous-sized field. That style has quite a high variance, but that's how I've come to play on Sundays.


'Andy McLEOD' is Back and Already Scoring Big

The online poker world has seen its fair share of underage phenoms (Annette_15 ring a bell?). One of those under-18 superstars was James "Andy McLEOD" Obst. He flew under the radar to hide his identity as much as possible as he made huge cash after huge cash during 2006 and 2007. Then, in late '07, he was outed in the online poker forums as being underage, and he was promptly banned from the major online poker sites.

Well, Obst is now of age, and the poker sites have let him back in the ring. So, what do you do with your newly re-found ability to play online poker? Make the final table of the PokerStars Sunday Million, of course. He came back in style when he finished in fourth place there, earning almost $76,000. Welcome back, James.

'Yuvee04' Takes Down Two FTOPS Events - on the Same Day

Poker pro Yuval "yuvee04" Bronshtein proved his mettle to the poker world with an unprecedented feat: He took down two events in the Full Tilt Online Poker Series IX (FTOPS) on the same day. And the two events couldn't have been more dissimilar; one was a $500 buy-in H.O.R.S.E. event, for which he earned $70,000, and the other was a $200 no-limit hold'em turbo event, which landed him $102,000. These weren't Bronshtein's first FTOPS titles, either; he took down a seven-card stud eight-or-better event in the FTOPS VI. To say Bronshtein is a multifaceted poker player would be an understatement.

Spade Club Spotlight
By Lisa Anderson

SpadeClub awarded its $10,000 monthly first prize to a female player for the second time this year in SpadeClub's $40,000 Mega Monthly tournament on Aug. 3. Roseann "rnana1" Urban has been playing poker for only about five months and already has proven that she is a dedicated poker player. Her key to success is that she listens to what her boyfriend says, is patient, and plays position.

Urban enjoys playing on SpadeClub and thinks it is a great place for beginners like her to practice their game and win some serious cash. She loves the community on SpadeClub and was impressed to find that everyone was friendly and left her congratulatory messages on her player profile. "To all of my fellow players, I hope the same thing can happen to you, because it was just awesome. If you can experience this just once in a lifetime, it is amazing. Everyone is so excited for me-my grandkids, my kids, my cousins, and many others. It was just the best thing that ever happened to me, so I hope everyone can experience that," said Urban.

Check out SpadeClub to see how you can be the next $40,000 Mega Monthly winner and take home the $10,000 first-place cash prize.

To view complete interviews with SpadeClub winners, please visit www.spadeclub.com/news/landing.

Tournament Schedule

$5,000 Weekly
Sept. 7 4 p.m. ET
Sept. 14 4 p.m. ET

Bellagio Monthly Qualifiers
Sept. 28 6 p.m. ET
Oct. 26 6 p.m. ET

$40,000 Mega Monthly
Oct. 5 4 p.m. ET

To view a complete list of SpadeClub tournaments offered, please visit www.spadeclub.com/how-to-play/tournament-schedule.

Promotions

SpadeClub is well into the exciting Bellagio Championship Series promotion. On Aug. 31, SpadeClub held its first of eight monthly qualifiers. The top nine finishers in the monthly qualifier received their reserved seats in the finals in April. SpadeClub also has awarded its first-place monthly qualifier winner with a $2,500 satellite seat in the 2009 Bellagio Five-Star World Poker Classic WPT championship event. The next monthly qualifier is Sept. 28 at 6 p.m. ET. To participate, become a SpadeClub Exclusive member now to start qualifying and have the chance to walk away with the grand prize, a $25,000 seat in the 2009 Bellagio championship event.

For more information and to view the tournament schedule, please visit www.spadeclub.com/promotions.

Tips From the Table

User Christopher "IsleRoyale" Gennick said: "I have really enjoyed the new Omaha pot-limit games on SpadeClub. In the last week, I've managed to win four times and build up some points. Big pairs do not seem to be as important in this game, and suited connectors seem to gain in value. Four-card wraps with a couple of suits are my favorite. The most important thing is to have either the nuts or a draw to them."

Submit your own tips or comments from the table along with your SpadeClub screen name to: [email protected]. If we publish your tip or tale, you'll receive a free SpadeClub T-shirt along with the pride of being published.

Highlights

SpadeClub has added a new feature to its community pages, AskKenny. Kenny "SCKenny" Goldstein is SpadeClub's go-to guy for everything poker and SpadeClub. The new AskKenny section allows members to ask SCKenny questions about poker and SpadeClub, to ask for tips on poker play, and much more. SCKenny has been on the professional poker scene for more than 18 years, and SpadeClub is happy to have him help members improve their game by giving his personal feedback to their questions.

Nick Maimone Feels Blessed
By Craig Tapscott

Tempers can easily flare up at a poker table, sparking an ugly river card into an out-of-control, testosterone-fueled wildfire. Verbal abuse, chair flinging, table banging, and even fists of fury can fly at times during a game. And money comes and money goes. Those players who stand calm within the eye of the storm tend to weather the violence of variance with the least amount of damage. Online tournament star Nick Maimone is one such gifted player.

"I don't approach the game from the aspect of, if I don't win, I must have run bad or gotten screwed," says Maimone. "That approach will just make you miserable. I approach the game as a blessing. I believe that I have a God-given talent to play a game on my own schedule and my home computer, and make an incredible amount of money. Hey, I'm not waiting tables anymore. I feel lucky."

With a little luck and a dose of spewey aggression, Maimone was a blind mouse finding some cheese when he built up a bankroll of $30,000 with some tournament wins early in his poker career. But just as quickly, the recent Furman University graduate ran headfirst into the brick wall of variance, and struggled. It was time to slow down and regroup.

At the beginning of 2008, Maimone (aka FU_15 online) made a resolution to be more focused, committed, and patient. Things began to turn around. This spring, he went on a sick rush at PokerStars, capturing first-, fifth-, and sixth-place finishes in one week in the daily $100 rebuy tournamnet, for a total of $53,000. In April, he won a $1,000 buy-in Super Tuesday event for $67,000, and then took down another $100 rebuy event in May, to the tune of $73,000. Maimone had adjusted his hyperaggressive style, repaired a few leaks, and discovered what it took to win consistently online.

Craig Tapscott: So, what changed?

Nick Maimone: My attitude. As I said, I feel lucky to play poker. From this point of view, I think I appreciate the game more. The biggest thing I'm happy about is being able to pay for school and do volunteer work for a year because of poker.

CT: What else?

NM: I've learned to have confidence, to sit at a table and not be scared. I mean, at most of the tables, I'm not the best player there, but it's playing from the mindset that I am the best player that helps me.

CT: What's the biggest adjustment you've made to your game to become a consistent winning player?

NM: Learning pot control. I've always stressed and focused on playing from position at the table. I used to bet, bet, bet all the time. While it's good to be aggressive, I still had to learn to switch gears and learn how to control pots when I had showdown value.

CT: Explain.

NM: Showdown value and pot control are very related. Showdown value means - in my interpretation - that you hold a hand with which you may not want to play a big pot, but it's a hand with which you think you can get to the river and have a decent chance of winning. Even if you don't have the best hand, it can be good for your table image. It also may show people that when you have A-K and raise preflop, you're not continuation-betting every flop. That will then earn your future continuation-bets more respect. I think this awareness is crucial.

CT: You're well aware that you're considered a "lagtard"- you know, a player who's very wild and spews chips like a college freshman after a night of beer bonging on his first trip to Tijuana.

NM: (Laughing) Yes. The way I see it is there are tons of tight-aggressive players who can be tricky and make moves, but for the most part, they're waiting for hands. For me, it's more fun, competitive, and creative to play almost any two cards, but, obviously, with the understanding of stack sizes and what stage I'm at in a tournament. I like being able to accrue chips even when I don't have the best hand. You just can't wait to pick up big hands. I've learned to know when to put pressure on certain size stacks or the blinds. The best players stand out because they can win chips and tournaments when they don't have good cards. Those are the times that really define a great player.

CT: Your humble and positive attitude is a welcome breath of fresh air. Thanks for your time, Nick.

Taking Nonstandard Lines With Medium-Strength Hands
By Evan Roberts

Recently, I have been trying something new in my training videos for Card Player Pro (powered by PokerSavvy Plus). I have been narrating over some member-submitted videos to help plug some of the leaks in their heads-up game.

This particular hand was played by MikeH, a longtime Card Player Pro member. He recorded a 45-minute session of himself playing two tables of $10-$20 heads-up no-limit hold'em against an aggressive and talented regular. Mike included his commentary throughout the video, which provided some interesting insight into his thought processes. For this column, I have chosen a hand in which he questioned his line and wondered if he could have played it differently. This hand brings up several interesting concepts, including thin value-raises on the river and taking tricky lines to deceive your opponent.

The Setup

Game: $10-$20 heads-up no-limit hold'em
Player: MikeH, a Card Player Pro member
Opponent: SpamFilter, a talented and aggressive $10-$20 and higher heads-up player
Stacks: $2,079 (MikeH) vs. $2,050
MikeH's Position: Button
MikeH's Cards: K 4

This hand took place about 10 minutes into the match, which had been played very aggressively, with a lot of preflop raising and three-betting. Thus far, there had not been any large post-flop confrontations.

Mike open-raised to $60, and his opponent called. The flop came A 5 4.

Mike had flopped bottom pair and a backdoor-flush draw. His opponent checked, and he decided to check behind.
The turn was the K, giving him two pair.

His opponent led for $100 and he decided to call, saying: "I could raise here, but I think if I just call, there's a better chance of getting value on the river." There is merit to both calling and raising here, but I think this is an excellent spot for him to mix up his play by smooth- calling with a strong hand on a draw-heavy board, which is something that most players do not do enough.

The river was the 6 and his opponent bet $270.

At this point, Mike said, "Now that the river is a 6, I don't think I can raise for value." I disagree with this. Let us estimate what sort of hand range his opponent puts him on. I suspect that he thinks Mike would play 6-6 through Q-Q this way, occasionally A-X, often K-X, sometimes backdoor-flush draws, sometimes 5-X, and occasionally air. I suspect that his opponent thinks it is highly unlikely that he would have a hand stronger than top pair, because if he had such a hand on the flop, he almost always would bet it. He also would almost always raise the turn when the backdoor-flush draw comes.

Mike's hand is at the very top end of his opponent's hypothetical estimate of his range. This fact alone is not enough to make it a clear raise. We also must determine what range of hands his opponent will bet on the river and how he will react to a raise. I suspect that his opponent would value-bet A-X, any two pair (likely two-pair combinations are 5-4, A-4, A-5, A-6), strong K-X hands, sets (5-5, 6-6), busted flush draws, and air. He also will occasionally show up with a straight, but I think this is a small enough portion of his hand range that it can be discounted. If Mike decides to raise, considering the range that we estimated his opponent would assign him, I suspect he occasionally will call with K-X, and almost always will call with A-X or better.
For these reasons, I think it is correct to raise the river to about $700-$800. This is a thin value-raise, as Mike's opponent will have a better hand than his a significant portion of the time. Still, it will have a positive expectation in the long run.

Mike decided to just call. His opponent turned over the A♣ 2♣ for top pair, and Mike won the pot.

A large part of playing high-level poker is making it as difficult as possible for your opponent to accurately assign you a range of hands. Mike did a good job of that in this hand by deciding to smooth-call his opponent's turn bet with a relatively strong hand on a draw-heavy board. He failed to capitalize on this deception by deciding not to raise the river. Good luck at the tables.

To watch Evan Roberts comment on and play this hand, point your browser to Card Player Pro, the complete online poker training site, at www.CardPlayer.com/link/eroberts-4.

Desire, Focus, and Clarity
By David Apostolico

There is a long-standing connection between poker and golf. Many of the best poker players in the world also do battle on the golf course for high stakes. And while there is nothing in poker to compare to the physicality of golf, I do believe that both require similar skills in many respects. In fact, the mental aspects are extremely similar. More than most endeavors, both poker and golf require tremendous mental discipline. In this column, I'd like to focus on a few of those mental aspects.

First, let's look at desire. Without desire, it is impossible to have success. Both golf and poker seem simple on the surface but are incredibly complex and almost impossible to master. In order to be good at either, you really have to want it. Really wanting it means making the sacrifices necessary to reach your potential. In golf, it is endless practice and countless time spent on the range and course. In poker, it means not only putting in the hours, but reading quality books and articles, and discussing the game as much as possible with other players. Above all, however, for both golf and poker, desire means an unwavering commitment to excellence and an incredibly strong mental constitution to withstand the ups and downs.

Both golf and poker can be very humbling. If you get complacent or allow any success to go to your head, you are sure to be slapped back to reality. A good round of golf can be followed by a bad one. A great tee shot can be followed by a horrific approach shot. Likewise, a winning poker session can be followed by a losing one. A great flop can turn to a loser on the turn or river. You have to really want to hit a great shot every time in golf and make the right decision every time it is your turn to act in poker.
Of course, desire is not enough. Poker, like golf, requires intense focus. Think of that first shot off the tee on a busy Saturday at a municipal course. With a long queue of foursomes looking on, wondering who will be the one to slow down play, that initial shot requires you to shut everything out and focus on yourself, the club, and the ball. You have to be relaxed, yet strong and forceful. If there's the slightest deviation in that focus, that ball is heading left, right, or fat instead of far and down the middle.
Poker requires that same equilibrium of calm and intensity. You must be clearheaded but constantly on the ready to do damage. You have to be focused on your opponents, the pot odds, the cards, position, how your opponents are perceiving you, past history, and every other potentially relevant factor. The slightest letdown will cost you chips.

The end result of a maniacal desire to succeed and a steely-eyed focus is clarity, and there isn't a better feeling in the world. It's that feeling you get when you feel perfectly right on the tee box and, just as you expected, the ball goes straight down the middle of the fairway. It's knowing exactly what your opponent has and manipulating him for your gain. It's a feeling of invincibility built not on false bravado, but rather the culmination of countless time spent cultivating a craft. Depending on our varying degrees of desire and focus, we've all enjoyed glimpses of this kind of clarity.

The demands of both poker and golf are so great that it is impossible for anyone to achieve anything resembling perfect clarity all of the time. However, with consistent desire and focus, those moments of clarity come more frequently.

David Apostolico is the author of numerous poker strategy books with a philosophical focus, including Tournament Poker and The Art of War and Machiavellian Poker Strategy.

Flopping Sets for Fun and Profit
By Mike Sexton, the "Ambassador of Poker" and Commentator for the World Poker Tour

All World Poker Tour events at Bellagio draw large fields, and a good number of those players are from foreign countries. Players love Bellagio because of the beautiful property, the deep-stack tournaments that Tournament Director Jack McClelland provides them, and, most importantly, the big prize money that they can win.

One of the international superstars of the poker world, David "Devilfish" Ulliott, was going for his second WPT title and was the big name at this final table. His problem, however, was that he was starting out in fifth chip position more than 6 million behind chip leader Eugene Katchalov from New York.

In this hand at the Five-Diamond World Poker Classic, Ken Rosen and Ted Kearly folded when Jordan Rich (in second chip position with 6.4 million) opted to raise to 220,000 from the button with the 6 3. Eugene Katchalov (the chip leader with 8.2 million) surprisingly just called from the small blind with two jacks. Devilfish, with a Q-8 offsuit in the big blind, opted to fold and let the two big stacks fight it out.

The flop was Q-J-8 rainbow. Katchalov, in an effort to trap his opponent, checked his set of jacks! Rich, with just a 6-3, tried to pick up the pot with a continuation-bet of 320,000. That didn't work, as Katchalov check-raised to 840,000. Rich now tried to win the pot again by reraising it 780,000! Katchalov, who realized that he could be beat by a straight or three queens, didn't buy it. He decided to raise again, this time, just over 1 million. Well, that did it. Rich finally gave it up.

Notice that Devilfish might have gone broke had he decided to see a flop. There was 670,000 in the pot and it would cost Devilfish another 140,000 to call. Instead, he folded a Q-8 offsuit in the big blind (he would have flopped two pair and it could have been taps for him). The lesson here: As bad as you want to see flops, sometimes it's best to fold marginal hands regardless of pot odds (like Devilfish did here), and let two chip leaders battle it out.

You may not agree with his plays, and obviously his timing was off, but you have to admire the way Rich was fighting for the pot. He was also trying to send a message to the chip leader, something like, "I'm here and I'm not afraid of you."
Eugene Katchalov played superbly and went wire to wire to take down his first WPT title. Congratulations, Eugene!