Michael Binger's Big Bang

A hundred meters beneath the border of France and Switzerland, the biggest and most costly science experiment in the history of mankind is going online. This machine-city, the Large Hadron Collider, will do no less than re-create and record the conditions that took place immediately following the Big Bang, also known as the birth of our universe.

Take that in for a second. This machine will re-create the exact moment the universe was born, 13.7 billion years ago. It will most likely alter the understanding of physics as all the smartest people in the world know it, and if you believe a small group of doomsayers, it might simply end the world.

Michael Binger may not have been the only one in the Borgata tournament room with an interest in what the LHC will help find, but there's no doubt that he's the only one who, instead of sitting fifth in the 2008 Card Player Player of the Year standings, could be sitting in that underground lab, running those machines and dissecting the millions of bits of information that will be produced from the LHC and its 16-mile-long proton gun.

Binger worked with what was once the largest particle accelerator in the world while earning his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford, at around the same time that he started to realize he wanted to play poker professionally. Besides the hours spent working in the physics labs at Stanford, he also did a lot of field work in the poker room of Lucky Chances Casino in California, the same room where Antonio Esfandiari, Gabe Thayer, and Phil Laak got their starts.

Working his way up from $9-$18 limit and using money he made before he was asked not to return to several Reno casinos after management determined that he was a skilled blackjack card counter (a skill he picked up while a senior at the University of North Carolina), he eventually became a fixture in the $20-$40 game. This was around 2001, and within a year, he would tell his advisors at Stanford that he was taking some time off to focus on poker.

And focus is a skill that has tremendously helped Binger throughout his life. When something interests him, he is one of those people who will eventually devour everything he can find on the matter. But he also is a meticulous note-taker, naturally adept at analysis, and an undisputable math genius (if the Ph.D. isn't proof enough, a perfect 800 on the math portion of the SATs should do it), which absolutely helps him maintain world-class player status.

After playing and failing in several 2005 World Series of Poker events, using his winnings from both Lucky Chances and online, Binger took an enormous leap the next year, only months after returning to school and completing the work to earn his Ph.D. At the 2006 WSOP, Binger broke the cash bubble in a big way by making the final table of a $1,500 no-limit hold'em event, in which he finished sixth for a little more than $100,000, by far his largest single score up to that point. Less than a month later, he would dwarf it by finishing third in the main event for $4.1 million. He made it through 8,770 players to get there.

Instead of disappearing, like a majority of recent years' main-event final-table participants, Binger followed this appearance by proving that he belongs on a roster of the world's best poker players. Since then, he's cashed 29 times for another $1.49 million, including an incredible 2007 WSOP, where he tied for most cashes during the tournament with eight, including a $295,245 third-place finish in a $5,000 no-limit hold'em event.

In April, Binger scored his first major career win in a $5,000 no-limit hold'em preliminary event that was held before the $25,000 World Poker Tour Championship, which was good for $317,280. His self-described bad 2008 WSOP still included four cashes, none of which were worse than 14th place (he made one final table, where he finished fifth, and also landed a seventh-place finish). He's made eight final tables so far this year. His tournament winnings now total $5.59 million, with $749,667 coming this year.

But Binger is not only a walking supercomputer. A workout buff, he believes that good physical health is one of the most important factors for him to play at his best. He says that if he doesn't put in a workout before playing, he rarely does well. He spends hours a week hiking Red Rock, a natural park just outside his new hometown of Las Vegas, clearing his mind and putting his body to work. He does the same thing by swimming laps in his pool.

He's also a serious foodie who loves splurging at notable restaurants and spending time cooking for his friends, who, if lucky, get to share in his budding collection of good wine, an interest he's had since graduate school. He's also addicted to traveling, and recently spent time in the jungles of Peru. He also just launched a personal website, where fans can learn more about Binger's love of wine, his favorite recipes, and his theories on poker and physics. The address is michaelbinger.com. He also has just become a sponsored player at UltimateBet.com, and he co-writes Card Player's "The Oracle's Corner" with Roy Winston.

We caught up with Binger two days before the $10,000 championship event of the Borgata Poker Open, where he arrived a few days early to play in some preliminary events.

Bob Pajich: A lot of players who make World Series of Poker main-event final tables prove to be one-hit wonders. How does it feel to vindicate that performance with your subsequent results?

Michael Binger: I never really was concerned about that. I'd been playing poker for four or five years preceding the final table, and although I had just started playing major tournaments, I'd done well in smaller local tournaments, I'd done well in cash games, and I made decent money every year, so I was confident in my game. Obviously, it feels good to succeed, but on the other hand, I don't feel like I have been vindicated. I feel like there's a lot more I want to do and can do in poker, so I'm always striving to do better and not rest of my laurels.

I remember Bellagio in April, my biggest tournament win as far as a first place is concentrated. The next day, I was playing in the next $5,000 event and was going deep before busting out, and I was really, really upset with the way I played a hand. There was no consolation whatsoever that the previous day, I had won a tournament. It was like, I want to win that one.

BP: What drives you?

MB: I've always been very competitive, just the desire to succeed. Second of all, I love games; and third of all, I love puzzles and mathematical things. This all kind of comes together in poker, and that's what keeps me going.

BP: When the main-event final table ended in 2006, did you think you would become this involved in tournament poker? Was that always the plan, or was that a life-altering moment for you?

MB: It was both, but it was definitely part of the plan. I finished my Ph.D. in April of 2006. My plan was to play poker full time and to play as many of the big tournaments as I could, and also play cash games at the same time, but my bankroll wasn't as pumped up as it needed to be to play in all the major tournaments at that point.

If I hadn't done well in the main event, I probably wouldn't have traveled all around the world to the big tournaments, but maybe just played in the more convenient ones in California and Vegas, and tried to satellite into the main events. So, I would've been playing as many big tournaments as feasible, but certainly the big score enabled me to play all of them that I wanted, and to travel around a lot.

BP: How has your game changed since '06, and was it an increased confidence that enabled you to take your game to a higher level?

MB: Poker is all about experience and continuing to try to improve. The game has gotten tougher the last two years, but I think I have gotten better, as well. There are a lot more quality players out there now. I feel that just having played hundreds of big tournaments around the world the last two years, my tournament game is definitely at a much higher level, and I think I've fine-tuned different aspects of it, like short-stack play.

BP: You have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, and your thesis was about theoretical particle physics, a little math-heavy, to say the least. How does one start to apply your wealth of mathematical knowledge to poker, and can you get too math-heavy at the poker table?

MB: When I first started playing poker, just thinking about the mathematics was second nature to me in understanding the probabilities of things happening, understanding how to work out expected value, and working through hands and realizing, "Aha, this is the most sensible way to play." You could see the detail of it.

You don't need to know a lot of advanced mathematics to understand the math needed for poker. It's fairly basic, and was second nature to me because I work with that sort of stuff day in and day out. It certainly helped me. But more than that, I actually really enjoy thinking of things quantitatively and mathematically, and I've been working on a number of different projects involving poker theory and poker math, which I think, at the end of the day, will help me play the game better. I'm working through various models of things, but they're also just for my own fulfillment and interest.

One thing I'm working on is a way to quantitatively account for skill in poker tournaments and how to relate mathematically the skill factor with your long-term edge, and using that to inform decisions at, say, a final table.

Let's say you're at a final table and you have a decision with three people left of whether to call an all-in bet. It is well known that tournament-chip equity does not necessarily translate to real-money equity. So, what might be a correct call when just looking at the chips does not necessarily mean that you should be calling in a tournament, because there's prize-structure implications.

There are certain models that take that into account already, but they don't take into account the skill of different opponents.

BP: How did you learn about the humanistic side of the game, which is a challenge in itself, and combine it with mathematics in order to become a complete player?

MB: That's a good question, because a lot of very mathematically inclined players are very self-limiting, because poker is, I like to say, half art and half science. The art aspect is those million subtle little things that you have to take into account, like your opponent's psychology, his state of mind at the time, and all those little variables that I guess you could put into mathematical terms, but it's not the most useful way to think about it.

Really, the mathematics of poker forms a foundation to build from. To be a really great player, there's a lot more skills that are totally not mathematical that you have to develop. A lot of it comes down to experience, observing your opponents, observing tendencies that most players have. What are the signs that a player is nervous? What are the signs that he feels confident?

It mostly comes down to experience and basically being able to sit at the table and be mentally disciplined enough not to be distracted by everything around you, and to watch every hand as it happens, watching for all of the very subtle things, even if you're not involved.

BP: What are the most important mathematical elements that players need to know to succeed in the game of poker?

MB: I would say a basic understanding of the probabilities of things happening, like flopping a set when you have a pair before the flop, making your flush or straight draw, and being able to understand roughly whether you're getting the right price. Those are very basic things that most poker books cover, and I think for beginning poker players, they are the most important things to learn.

Another thing, which is almost equally important, is the statistics aspect, and that is what your distribution results will be. A lot of people - even very solid, winning players - say they're a winning player, and that's all they want to know. Being able to understand the likely distribution of your results is very important, because that helps you emotionally deal with it when you run bad for a couple of weeks. Rather than blow up, you'll think: "Well, this is bound to happen every once in a while." It also helps you plan your bankroll and ensures that you're playing within your limits.

BP: When does math go out the window and your feel for a situation and your reads on a player become more important?

MB: A vast majority of the time when I'm playing poker, I'm not thinking about anything mathematical. Even though I've been talking about math for quite a while, that's how my brain works outside of poker. When I'm at a poker table, that's all in the background. It's underneath the surface, and I'm looking at everything that I can observe about my opponents. So, I would say, almost all the time, the math is not the most important part. These are the things that help you make the big plays and make the big calls that win you the big pots.

BP: When do you stop thinking about the game as a problem and let your intuition take over?

MB: I think it comes in moments. I can't identify one particular time, but it's a progressive thing. When you first start playing, you'll have a short span where you're like, "Wow, I just totally saw that this guy was bluffing, and I don't know how." Intuition is always best guided by logic and observations, so a lot of times when I'm observing an opponent and have been watching awhile, something will click in my mind and I'll think: "Wow, this guy is bluffing." Maybe I can't identify why, I just get that feeling.

The subconscious mind is able to assimilate a lot more information than the conscious mind. It will take into account a lot more variables, like facial micro-expressions, breathing patterns, hand position, all of these little things. It's not like I have a flow chart in my conscious brain. You just watch all of this, and hopefully your subconscious brain will guide you more often than not to the right decision.

BP: Is it easy for you to listen to your intuition, or do you find yourself talking yourself out of making certain plays that your intuitive voice might call for?

MB: This past year, I've found myself trusting my instincts more, with good results.

It does require a fair amount of confidence in your own reads and your own game to trust that intuition, to call with third pair against a huge all-in deep bet in a tournament, when maybe you'd be crippled if you lost, you can beat only a complete bluff, and you're staring at the opponent and thinking: "I think he's bluffing."

In the past, I might have played it safe and folded, but when I'm really sure, I'm going with my intuition, and it really has not led me astray. When I feel really strongly about it, and I try to make a great call or bluff, it usually works out.

BP: Is there any correlation between the laws of the universe and the game of poker?

MB: (Chuckling) Poker certainly has to abide by the laws of the universe. Other than that, the short answer is no.

Ryan Lucchesi contributed to this article.