Life Out of the Fast Layne

After a five-year absence from the winner's circle, Layne Flack was back at work this summer. He picked up his sixth World Series of Poker bracelet and the largest cash of his career after winning the $1,500 pot-limit Omaha event and the $577,725 first prize. His victory put him in a tie for seventh place in number of bracelets won all time. Only Phil Hellmuth, Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, Johnny Moss, Erik Seidel, and Billy Baxter have won more.

Flack's poker education took place in Deadwood, South Dakota, where he dealt cards, paid attention, and developed a fast, loose-aggressive approach to the game. Cutting his teeth as a cash-game grinder, Layne quickly made the transition to tournaments and immediately began collecting titles and accolades as one of the game's premier players.

He made a name for himself by doing what other poker players dream of - win WSOP bracelets in bunches. In 2002, Flack won two bracelets, both in no-limit hold'em, and he accumulated more than $800,000 in winnings in what was to be his breakout year.

As an encore, he did the exact same thing in 2003. He added two more bracelets, this time in Omaha eight-or-better and limit hold'em, and banked more than $500,000 during the year. This runaway success bred a reputation as a loose-aggressive savant, but also enabled a reckless lifestyle that, eventually, grew Flack's legend into one of self-destruction rather than poker genius.

Soon after establishing himself as one of the game's marquee players, the fast-talking kid who was born in Rapid City, South Dakota, was becoming better known for partying than outthinking opponents. When it began to cripple his life and destroy his poker prowess, friends intervened and talked Layne into seeking help. For a few years, he struggled with rehab and personal battles. From 2004 through 2007, he racked up a skeletal list of results. Moments of brilliance flashed, like his two final tables at the 2005 WSOP and a runner-up finish that was good for $500,000 at UltimateBet's Aruba Poker Classic the year before, but those who knew Flack best knew that the results did not correlate with his raw talent.

Flack says that he's spent the last few years rebuilding his life, and now that he is back on track and has added the word moderation to his vocabulary, the poker world had better watch out. After the World Series, Card Player caught up with the two-time Montana state arm-wrestling champion poolside at the Palms Resort and Casino. In between sips of his mango "panty remover" cocktail, he talked poker, redemption, and about pulling out of the fast lane in order to race ahead and capture what he is truly capable of achieving.

Justin Marchand: You won your first World Series bracelet in five years this summer in the $1,500 pot-limit Omaha rebuy event. What were the key hands and decisions you faced on route to victory?

Layne Flack: I took 21 rebuys in the tournament, so I had to finish at least 13th to make money. I had this French guy to my left who wasn't afraid to stick it in every hand. Then I had Phil Ivey to my right, and he was shooting hard for a bracelet due to all the World Series bracelet bets he had, so it was just all going in every hand.

I was involved in one huge hand just after the rebuy period ended. This was after I ran it up to 30,000, which was the chip lead, then down to zero, and then up to 40,000 at the break. At the time, Ivey had about 90,000 and the French guy had about 50,000. We saw a queen, jack, 6 flop with two diamonds. Ivey had flopped a set of jacks, I had flopped a set of queens with the diamond draw, and the French guy had a wrap straight, so we all got the money in the pot. I won the hand, which put me up to 125,000 or so. This made me the dominant chip leader.

Later, I had to make a very important call for about 80 percent of my chips. Erik Seidel was to my left, and I remember him saying, "Wow, what a call." I had two kings. The flop was queen high. The turn paired a 7 and a guy who played extremely tight made a monster raise, and moved the rest in on the river. That one put me in the tank for a while.

At the final table, I knocked out five players. From start to finish, I never got my money in without having the best hand.

JM: What did you learn in your early years as a dealer that you believe still helps you as a player today?

LF: Reading players. When I would sit at the table and deal, without having a hand to distract me, I could just look at the players involved and study the game. It's equivalent to having a front-row seat as a spectator.

JM: You've been described by some of poker's best players as a no-limit genius. What is it about your game that elicits these sorts of comments?

LF: Probably my ability to read players; that, and I have a fearless, fast aura surrounding my play. It's kind of a mirage, though; I'm not as fast as most people think. But it's easy to create a mirage of being fast.

As people have sped up, I've had to make transitions. When I came into the game, there was so much more offensive playing as opposed to defensive playing. Now, you have to add more aspects to your game than just aggression.

JM: I've read that you have said, "In no-limit, everything you think you should do, you shouldn't do." Can you give me an example of where this line of thinking is applicable?

LF: Most people think you should always raise on the button in no-limit, but they are wrong. In no-limit, the most common places where players go broke is on the button and in the blinds. Everyone thinks you're stealing in those positions, so you cannot steal.

Hypothetically, what you do in limit is way different from what you do in no-limit. In limit, you should almost always raise on the button and play position, but in no-limit, if you raise on the button, you had better be prepared to sick it all in.

JM: You've also advocated attacking big stacks rather than endorsing the small-ball approach to accumulating chips. Why so?

LF: Well, first off, it is the best way to gain chips, right?

The hardest thing about playing no-limit is playing a big stack. With a short stack, you have only a few options, but with a big stack, you have a ton of options. Big stacks are forced to play the flop, turn, and river, which is a much harder thing to do. And people who have a big stack have something to protect and don't want to lose it, so, actually, they are less dangerous than those players with short stacks, if you play them right.

So many players just don't change gears when they get a big stack, and cannot hold on to it. The other problem with playing a big stack is that you get into more coin-flip situations. Often, if you have a big stack and make a raise, and someone reraises all in, pot odds will require a call. Now the guy gets to see all five cards and his hand is protected. Now you're not a player, but a coin flipper. When you're building your stack, you're a player, not a coin flipper.

JM: You won your first World Series bracelet in 1999. What are the major changes you've seen in the way players approach the game since you started as a player?

LF: I don't know if this is going to sound egotistical, but when someone comes out with a successful style, like Stuey Ungar had, and then I came out and started winning everything, everyone watches that and imitates it. Poker is funny; it's the only sport that we teach our opponents how to beat us. Tiger Woods is not out there telling you how to putt right every time, you know. But with poker on TV, we're teaching people how to beat us.

JM: You've put up big results in several games, winning bracelets in limit hold'em, Omaha eight-or-better, pot-limit Omaha, and no-limit hold'em. What do you consider your best game? Why do you think you excel at that particular game?

LF: This is going to come from my buddy Ted Forrest. Whatever game it is, the problem many people have is that they feel like they get too good at it. Once you feel as if you're too good, you don't pay near as much attention and you get too creative. Once that happens, you should switch games. I told Ted one day that Omaha eight-or-better is my best game, but I cannot win at it. He told me to go play stud. I said that I didn't know how to play stud. He said, "OK, but you know how to play cards, and if you go play stud, you'll start learning about the game again and studying the game again."

JM: You're always very talkative with other players at the poker table and entertaining. Why?

LF: To get information. Anytime people talk at the table, they are going to give away information. You have to find out what kind of person your opponent is. You have to know if a person is out after you or is going to stay out of your way. When a player sits down, I have to find out if he is scared of me, because I'll know how to play him. But if he has no fear of me, I'll play him another way, and I'll figure this out after a little conversation.

JM: What is a typical poker week like for Layne Flack? Cash games, online play, tournaments, what?

LF: I quit playing online because it really affected my live-game play. One of my best abilities is reading players and talking to them, and online I cannot do that. Last November, I went up to visit Hellmuth. When I came back, I had a crowbar through my front door and my house had been robbed. My TV, computer, and safe were all gone. I didn't buy another TV or computer, and this got me out of my house and back to being social and away from online poker.

But, I went and played blackjack the other night, something I normally don't do, and I lost. I was so mad, I went over to Brandon Cantu's house and he sent me $20,000 online. I played $200-$400 no-limit and won $100,000. My friends were telling me not to play these guys, that they are the best players online. I don't care how good they are. I just crushed them. There was one guy in the $100-$200 game - I was playing two games - who started mouthing off. He said, "Layne, you're not a pro on here anymore. Your name is not in red." I quit Full Tilt. He said, "I don't play against semipros." I told him to quit, then. He didn't quit and I beat him out of more than $50,000. I told him that he shouldn't go tackle the pros if he cannot beat the semipros (laughing).

JM: Why did you quit Full Tilt?

LF: For personal growth. Since I've been in Vegas, I've been backed by Johnny Chan, Ted Forrest, and many others. With Full Tilt's sponsorship, they were big enablers. I could do anything I wanted and really never try. So, I just quit everyone. I thought I would grow if I had to do it all for myself. Financially, it was a ridiculous move, but in my mind I was right.

JM: You've never been shy about being backed in major tournaments. Why do you choose to be backed?

LF: Most backing arrangements have nothing to do with the financial situation of a player. When Ted backed me, I had money to play on my own. But with Ted's backing, I had money to play in Larry Flynt's ($2,000-$4,000 stud) game. Also, when Johnny Chan backed me, he said, "Kid, you're playing too cheap." I was playing $100-$200 and he was telling me to play $500-$1,000 for him, so why wouldn't you get backed? There is no risk and you can play much higher. It is financially a smart move. To play a year's worth of tournaments these days is tough. If you have a dry year, you are out a million dollars. Who the hell wants to lose a million dollars? It's just smart business.

JM: You've acknowledged that you've had weaknesses associated with discipline and drugs in the past. Can you talk a bit about the low points you encountered on your road to recovery?

LF: The lowest point was after I quit everything. I just wanted to die. When you quit and you're doing everything right and still waiting to reap the reward, it's tough.

My life coach "Fast Eddie" Walters played a huge role. As he puts it, it takes a lot of courage to come in every day, man up, and admit what your problems are. I made a commitment to myself that I was going to, and I did. He stressed that I stay on purpose. When you stay on purpose, the goals you seek will come.

JM: What were you doing wrong?

LF: The drugs were one thing, but I was also in a bad relationship. I had a girlfriend who played the blame game and blamed me for everything. I was eventually beat down so far that it even affected my (poker) game. I was being told that everything I did was wrong. I was sitting down at the table thinking I was not good enough to do anything anymore, and I could only picture all of my decisions at the table being the wrong ones. That made life, and poker, very difficult.

JM: Do you feel like you lost an edge in poker from the drugs and partying?

LF: Absolutely. Daniel Negreanu said it perfectly. He said, "Layne is embarrassed to be in a cardroom. He doesn't want to be there. He walks in waiting to leave." It's so true. Sure, I would go in and play, but I was relying on the cards to do if for me. If they didn't, see you later. I wasn't even studying the game anymore.

JM: You've won nearly $4 million in poker tournaments over your career. What is your proudest accomplishment over this time and what do you still hope to accomplish?

LF: This bracelet was big. Before that, I was pretty proud of Aruba (the 2004 Ultimate Bet Poker Classic), not because of the money, but because it was the first tournament that my daughter, who is now 13, was at. They wouldn't let her come into the poker room, so she never could watch me play. But I fought through over 600 players so that she could watch me play, because they moved the final table outside. I played with a lot of heart those five days.

Something I've learned over the years is that all you can do is stay on purpose. Today, I'm working on just getting from A to B. If I do everything right along the way and stay on purpose, my results and accomplishments in between will be good.