Barney Frank’s “Shuffle up and Deal” at WSOP Main Event

For the poker player or gambling site owner who hasn’t lived under a rock for the past few years, Dem. Rep. Barney Frank doesn’t need any sort of introduction. He has been at the forefront of the battle for the legalization and regulation of online poker and gambling, and he has been the most active authority figures, trying to undo the damage caused by the 2006 UIGEA. For those of you who are not on a first name basis with this ominous piece of legislation (rightfully called by Frank “the stupidest bill in American History”) the UIGEA is in fact the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, passed after it had been attached to the Safe Port Bill by Senate majority leader Bill Frist. The move was obviously a political one meant to secure the support of a clearly defined target group, for a Presidential bid that eventually failed. Despite all that, the UIGEA has remained in place to this day making life miserable for all those who offer online poker and gambling services to the US public, but especially to financial institutions which now have to play the role of a law enforcement agency and block all transfers with gambling and poker related destinations.

To make a long story short, Frank was the honorary guest charged with the task of kicking off the WSOP 2009 Main Event hostilities by calling out the traditional “Shuffle Up and Deal”. He didn’t miss the opportunity to address the issue of poker regulation in a brief media conference. The entity responsible for Frank’s presence at the Main Event was the PPA (Poker Players Alliance) which has actively supported the Congressman’s numerous anti-UIGEA initiatives.
Of these, two are currently up: H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 – which sets a blueprint in regards to the regulation of the online gambling industry in the US – and H.R. 2266, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act, which aims to table the implementation of the UIGEA scheduled for the end of this year.

At the press event, Frank once again slammed the way the UIGEA was passed and highlighted the downsides of a piece of legislation which not only interferes grossly with the personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, but in great lines, it fails miserably at what it’s set out to accomplish.
Even though most of those who are not well informed about the stipulations of the UIGEA consider that it is a piece of legislation directly aimed at outlawing online poker and online gambling, it does nothing of the sort. Rather, it goes after the banking industry by forbidding it to complete player transactions to and from online gambling and poker sites.
Frank also addressed the IGREA, his previous bill meant to overturn the UIGEA which faded in committee in 2008. Ha said the bill was defeated on unfounded arguments involving money laundering, drug smuggling etc, and that had it cleared the committee, the bill would’ve certainly ended up being vetoed by President Bush. The Congressman didn’t miss the opportunity to sneak in a few punches aimed at the Republican leadership which enacted the UIGEA. The irony in forbidding people to gamble with their own money was obvious, as the Republicans readily allowed institutions to gamble with other people’s money in the billions.
The true short-comings of the UIGEA are not solely linked to the “extraordinary” interference with people’s liberties. The law itself has been cataloged as the worst piece of US legislation by numerous experts, due to other factors as well.
First of all, it fails to define what qualifies as illegal online gambling. It fails to establish the clear guidelines in regards to implementation. The law is fully intent on burdening financial institutions with law enforcement duties, something for which the above named institutions are ill-equipped for. In order to fully comply with the provisions of the UIGEA, the already beleaguered financial sector will be burdened with hefty expenses, all in the name of restricting people’s access to spending their own money the way they see fit.
The law takes online poker under the same umbrella with online gambling, oblivious to the fact that several courts all over the nation have since established precedents for considering poker a game of skill rather than one of chance.
The UIGEA also closes the door on any sort of regulation of the online gambling industry, thus depriving the federal budget of billions of dollars of potential income.

Barney Frank was also asked about the recent seizure of several tens of millions of dollars from online poker and gambling player accounts. In response to that question, he delivered another thinly veiled jab towards his political opponents, floating the idea that Bush-era holdovers must’ve been behind the actions of the Southern District of New York DoJ’s actions.

In closure, Frank specified that separate timelines were likely to develop for the two bills the hopes of the online poker and gambling industry are currently pinned on. He said that as a first objective, the postponement of the implementation of UIGEA provisions would be satisfactory. With the implementation process suspended, he could then work on a more elaborate approach to online gambling and poker regulation, especially because people still need proof that it is indeed feasible to put a regulatory scheme into place.

Phil Ivey: the One the poker community has been waiting for?

Does poker really need a redeemer? I mean are we really that desperate? Following the 2003 explosion, provoked by Chris Moneymaker’s Main Event victory (coupled with a number of other factors) poker and online poker seemed destined for world domination. Online poker rooms sprung up like mushrooms on a rain-soaked forest-floor, and tales of getting rich quick through online poker floated every step of the way.

For a good few years now, things have been going downhill though. Let’s admit it: I find no shame in it. The industry has been on the ropes since the UIGEA, and the UIGEA doesn’t seem to be the sole cause of the decline. While like it or not, lawmakers pushing their own political agenda and not giving a rat’s ass about poker, have managed to up end a previously thriving industry, it has become obvious that the industry has adapted to the new circumstances and that therefore the UIGEA cannot be considered responsible for the continued decline, or rather the lack of growth in both the online and the offline sector. The roots of this problem are deeper. Could it be that the popularity explosion set off by Moneymaker and then Raymer’s wins has just run out of steam? I mean there has to be a peak to it somewhere and maybe we’ve reached that peak already. These are some of the reasons why people – experts and amateurs alike – have been keeping an eye on various WSOP Main Event final tables, looking for that possible redeemer who may just nudge the industry out of the rut, and make the much needed growth a reality again.

Several champions were crowned and many of them have disappeared right back into non existence by virtue of the lifestyle they’ve managed to attain through their Main Event winnings. The One hasn’t surfaced yet though. The formula of a no-name, God-fearing, lucky amateur who rises from rags to riches through a meager online satellite buy-in, so successful in Moneymaker’s case, has been tested again when Jerry Yang won the Big Dance a couple of years ago. I think it’s safe to say that it has ended up as a miserable failure. Not only did Yang disappear after his win, these days many experts have him on top of their list of Main Event winners who haven’t really done anything for the good of the game.
Yang’s example clearly shows: copying the Moneymaker effect and letting it explode once again is a much more complicated matter than previously thought. It’s not exactly a cinch to replicate all the circumstances that led to the Moneymaker effect, and because the WSOP is not a lab experiment, the undertaking may be an impossible one altogether.

Industry experts nowadays nurture no illusions about a 2003-like explosion happening. They would be well content with a much smaller bang though. Since the rags to riches story appears to have grown tired, maybe a different angle approach is needed…Maybe people don’t want to see another – apparently random – player walk away with the millions that the WSOP Main Event offers to the winner. Maybe people do need to receive some actual proof that this game is a skill based one indeed and that it rewards the pro who has been perfecting his game for years rather than an amateur favored by luck.

Enter Phil Ivey, the respected Full Tilt pro, considered THE best poker player in the world by many. A possible “Ivey effect” in 2009 would be the opposite of the 2003-2004 Moneymaker effect. How would that conceivably work towards the good of the game and the industry? For one thing: players world over would gain a renewed appetite for the game, seeing how skill was being rewarded over blind luck and the outburst of excitement would draw in new participants. On the other hand, the government would finally gain undeniable high-level proof supporting the skill based nature of poker and that may come in more than handy in the fight against the 2006 UIGEA (although many of the political forces supporting the “stupidest law” in American history had very different reasons for pushing it through in the first place, and therefore their approach is not likely to change, regardless of what common sense says).

So, just how real is the possibility of a small 2009 poker boom?
The November Nine setup the WSOP has been experimenting with is quite useless without any big names in the lineup. Last year, that point has been driven home, but last year’s final table has also pointed it out that with a big name or two in the lineup, the November Nine could potentially set off the long awaited fireworks. This year, those fireworks may just light up the sky one more time. With Ivey one of the November Nine, the circumstances are aligning perfectly.

One question remains: though Ivey is probably the best poker player alive today, he’s not a show boating, UIGEA busting, aggressively spotlight-hungry character. As a matter of fact, he’s the kind of laid back personality who appears to go through life knowing what he wants and knowing exactly how he can get it. Is this the guy we want to pit against the unscrupulous politicians of Capitol Hill who may not know what they want but who are prepared to give it their all for an idea?
Could be. Ivey will certainly understand the nature of the position he’ll be in provided he wins the Big Dance in November. He’ll also understand more than any amateur ever could the types of hopes that burden the shoulders of a WSOP Main Event champion.

His final table appearance is great for the industry as it is. His winning it, may well be the life saving device the industry is so desperately clawing for. Come November we’ll see.

WSOP innovations over time

The WSOP is a living-breathing entity. It evolves and it adapts to the requirements of an increasingly bigger and more competitive market. Over the course of its long history, several defining changes have been brought to various aspects of the series. Some ideas were tried out and then scrapped. Holding the Main Event outdoors was one such attempt to bring novelty to the action. Due to practical factors though (wind blowing etc) the idea was only tried once.
Separating the final table from the rest of the Main Event and holding it in November, several months after the actual series has ended, is the newest WSOP innovation. The introduction of the “November Nine” has sparked quite a few debates over whether or not the idea was viable. Given that the setup has been embraced again this year, after what seemed to be a successful 2008 test-run, the tweak does indeed seem to hold up.
There have been several such controversial changes to the Series over the years. As a matter of fact, none of the most significant changes were welcomed unanimously. Most of them have been targets to criticism, but they stood the test of time and nowadays we couldn’t image the WSOP without them.
Here’s a brief list of the most significant (that is not to say “the best”) changes.

Such controversial moves were the introductions of the Ladies’ Event in 1977, and the Seniors’ Event in 2001. In the Ladies event, obviously, only women could participate, while in the Seniors’ event only people older than 50 were accepted. This led to critics arguing about whether restricted entry events should be given the right to award WSOP bracelets. Women and the “seniors” also objected to being branded and separated this way, but both innovations proved to be a success, in the sense that they definitely brought in people who would never have played in a WSOP event otherwise.
The Ladies Event started off as a 7-Card Stud event and gradually progressed to a limit-holdem/Stud mixed event. In 2004, the event was turned into a NL Holdem one and both the Ladies’ and the “Seniors” events were given the World Championship event status.

Believe it or not, the introduction of WSOP side events the way we know them today, didn’t happen until 1971, the second year the WSOP took place. There were but four preliminary events in 1971, a 5-Card Stud, a 7-Card Stud, a Razz and an A-5 Draw event, all fixed limit. The side event selection was gradually expanded afterwards, and thus nowadays we have no fewer than 56 such events. There’s still only 1 Main Event (also known as the Big Dance) despite the fact that there are now several “World Championship” events. Regardless of the Main Event’s importance though, the various side events play an extremely important role in the texture of the WSOP. They define its nature as a “series” of different events meant to put players to the test from a variety of angles.
Besides the lack of preliminary events, there were other peculiar things about the very first edition of the WSOP too (1970). The winner of the first edition, Johnny Moss, didn’t actually survive a freeze-out structure like the one every MTT features today. Rather, he was voted the champion by all the other participants. Whether or not the choice was accurate was put to the test the following year, and Moss did indeed confirm that he was the top dog, by winning the newly introduced freeze-out structure MTT Main Event. The introduction of the Main Event has been the most significant change in the history of the WSOP. To this day, the Main Event represents the essence of the Series, and it continues to produce the largest prize-pools and largest fields of participants.

The introduction of the WSOP Commissioner (a position held by Jeffrey Pollack since 2006) has helped focus the WSOP’s marketing as well as operations-related efforts. All changes in schedule as well as other innovations have gone through the Commissioner’s office since its inception.

You may not know this, but up until 1977, WSOP events were “winner takes all” types. Only one player – the winner – walked away with money from the tables, but his share was the entire prize-pool. In order to motivate participation, the re-distribution of the prize-pool was first introduced in 1978.
1977 saw Doyle Brunson win the Main Event, as the entire prize-pool of $340,000, to which 34 players had contributed, landed in his pocket.
The following edition of the Big Dance attracted a bigger field: the 42 registrants combined for a bigger prize-pool, however the new rules meant that the money would be divided among the top 5 finishers, so Bobby Baldwin, the winner, only pocketed $210,000, 50% of the total prize-pool.
Nowadays, the Main Event draws thousands of players, therefore the rules governing the redistribution of the prize-pool had to be re-considered. As a general rule, around 10% of the initial field of participants finishes in the money. This means that as the field grows bigger and bigger, the winner’s share becomes smaller, at least as far as the percentage share is concerned. The amount itself will be bigger, of course.

The introduction of Main Event satellites was indeed a big stepping stone in the history of the series. Word has it that the idea first surfaced in 79 or in 80. One thing is certain though: the introduction of the satellites made it possible for players of more modest financial means to attend the Main Event, thus transforming it from a social gathering of a select group of professionals into an event accessible for all comers.
The televised broadcasting of the event had also contributed to lifting the Series to the popularity levels seen today. The first ever TV coverage of a WSOP Main Event came in 1973, via a short documentary shot by CBS.

Learn to handle tournament coin-flips properly – Poker Strategy

With the battle noise in the wake of the WSOP Main Event barely settled, we take a look at a bit of tournament strategy as such blog posts have been woefully neglected lately, since all the precious little energy of this writer went into WSOP reports and blog posts.
Today’s subject: the almighty and dreaded coin-flip. That’s right, love it or hate it, the coinflip is here to stay and as long as there’s tournament poker, its place in the poker history books is secure. No tournament winner has ever won an event, live or online, without wadding through his fair share of coin flips.
The bottom line is, regardless of what you do, you won’t be able to avoid this bad boy. Now that we got that down, let’s see how you can make sure that regardless of the 50-50 (or near 50-50) nature of the coin-flip, you give yourself the absolute best possible odds.
The coin-flip does not give you good odds. Ask any poker player about getting all your money in on adverse odds and he’ll tell you to hold it and wait till a better opportunity rears its head. That’s very sound advice indeed and that’s exactly how you should act in cash games, where – with a few exceptions – getting all your money in on a coin-flip is a big mistake.
The odds you’re faced with aren’t any better in tournament poker either. Due to the escalating nature of the blinds though, you will sooner or later find yourself in a position when a coin-flip is your best shot at staying alive. In conclusion: don’t seek out coin flips and never think you’re being smart shoving all-in on them when deep-stacked. The coin-flip is a move reserved to those whom the tournament pressure has pushed onto the edge.

The fold equity is the first factor you should exploit when you go for that decisive coin-flip. That’s right. You won’t be able to avoid a coin-flip, but you sure as hell will be able to pick your spot. In this respect, you have to know that when you make that all-in move and you wait for someone to make the call, you actually stand a better chance at staying alive than when you’re the guy making the call on someone else’s all-in. The extra value stems from the fact that when you make the move, chances are no one will call you and you’ll take down the blinds, thus adding to your stack and staying alive in the tourney.
It is extremely difficult to quantify this edge, but I suppose it’s quite obvious that the guy pushing all-in has two shots at winning the pot: by making his opponent(s) fold or by winning the hand outright. The caller has to win the coin-flip in order to stay alive, there’s no other possibility for him.
That means you want to be the aggressor. Pick your spots right and secure that tiny edge the fold equity offers you. If you have to go, might as well go out with a bang, right?

Make sure that when you take that decisive coin-flip, it is indeed a coin-flip you’re talking about. You know, a 50-50 one or at least a 48-52% one. A 30-70% match-up is not exactly a coin flip. Shoving all-in on hands which just beg to be dominated is not the way to set up your do-or-die coin flip. Take something like an Ace-rag for instance. You have better odds on it than on a K,Q but just about any other hand with an ace in it and any pocket pair has you dominated. On such a hand, you need a truck-load of luck just to be in a coin-flip, never mind winning it and staying alive.
What this part of the coin-flip strategy comes down to is opponent-reading skill. Take a hand like pocket 4s for instance. That’s not such a bad hand to stake your tournament life on, provided your opponent calls you with something other than a pocket pair. If he does have a pocket pair, chances are his is higher than yours and in that case, you’re in a pretty deep trouble.
The bottom line about the coin-flip is: a coin-flip is a 50-50 (or close to it) match-up, not a 40-60 one. Make sure that your coin flip is actually a coin-flip and not just some faint attempt at it.

Playing the Ace – Poker Strategy

Playing a single Ace is one of the trickiest spots for a newbie player. That’s right, the Ace is the highest card in the deck, but does that mean you should commit your entire stack on it? Not by a long-shot. Does it mean you should muck it every time you pick it up? Nope. In poker there are no simple answers to such problems regardless of how we generally like to make things simple for ourselves: this one can’t be simplified further.
Sometimes it is a good idea to play that single Ace, other times it’s not. Try to evaluate your single-Ace performance from an objective perspective. If you’re losing money on it, there are obviously leaks in the way you play it. If you’re winning on it, don’t change a thing about how you play them.
If you are losing money though, you need to patch up your leaks. Here are a few leads that may help you get to the root of the problem faster:

Position. Position is one of the most important factors when it comes to strategy. It gains even bigger importance when you’re about to play a drawing hand like a single Ace. Playing drawing hands out of position is something that far exceeds the capabilities of average and sometimes even good poker players. Given the delicate situation that such an A-X would have you in when you’re out of position, you should do your best to avoid playing it from early position. As a general rule, fold that A-X whether it’s suited or not, if you’re out of position. Remember, the primary objective of preflop play is to make your decisions simpler on later streets. Limping along on an A-X from early position will achieve the exact opposite: complicate your life and generally make it miserable.
Of course, even though you should consider this a pretty sturdy rule, there may be exceptions to it. Remember though, there has to be a pretty solid reason for you to venture into this quicksand of a situation. In the absence of such solid arguments for, just do what’s best for you and get rid of the hot stuff.

Chasing your flush draws. This one is an extremely common leak, especially if that A,x happens to be suited. Even if they’re not suited, the A in hand gives players a sense that they’ll hit the nut flush which will be unbeatable anyway. Now then, most players commit the mistake of engaging into pot-building before they even hit their flush. Suppose a players fires out a raise preflop and you call it with you’re A,x suited. Chances are, whatever the flop brings, your opponent is going to fire out a bet after the flop. You’re going to have to call that too, and if it’s massive enough and the flop misses you too, you’re not going to get the odds to call. Always remember that before you hit that flush, all you have is an A-high. As long as your hand is not filled up, your goal is to keep the pot small. After you hit your flush, you should switch into pot-building mode.
The bottom line about playing your draws like this is that it’s going to end up costing you money, especially if you end up heads-up against that preflop raiser. The flush draw you’re after is an implied odds hand which means you’re looking for multi-way action on it. Heads-up is just not going to pay you enough. If you keep on pressing you’re A,x heads-up, you’ll be overplaying it.

Overplaying is the next biggest factor in turning your Ace-rag into a money-loser. One thing to keep in mind about the Ace-rag is that it doesn’t play well at all heads-up in a raised pot. Assuming that you’re not playing against donkeys, in such situations your opponent is always going to have something like A,A, K,K Q,Q, J,J, A,K or A,Q against you, and you’ll be dominated. To make money un such hands you need to hit the flop dead on, like making two pair with your A,4o. If you hit like a pair of 4s with an A kicker or a pair of As with a weak kicker, you’re essentially beat.
Whenever you pick up an Ace-rag, look at it like this: you need to get very lucky to turn it into a winner and hands that require you to get very lucky are guaranteed to cost you a lot of money in the long-run.

The bottom line about the Ace-Rag is: it is unplayable unless you can see a cheap (or free) flop on it. If you can take it to the flop, treat it like one of them implied odds hands that you play: get rid of it if the flop misses you and pump the pot if it hits you dead on.
You may also take down smaller pots on it, in case you’re able to pull off a c-bet. Other than that, your Ace-rag will only end up costing you money.