Reikenmeier vs De Wolfe controversy

If poker’s a sport, then I suppose sportsmanship should be just as big a part of it as it is in football, soccer, basketball and you name it. Certainly the rules cannot possibly cover each and every situation that arises in a basketball game, and there are definitely things one just doesn’t do regardless of whether it is within the rules or not. The same goes for poker. There are a set of rules governing the game, but peculiar situations can arise, when it’s up to the sportsmanship (or rather gamesmanship) of the participants to handle things appropriately.

How fine the line between the rule-book and such marginal situations is, has been excellently illustrated at the EPT’s recently concluded Barcelona Main Event, by a hand between Tobias Reikenmeier and British pro Roland De Wolfe.
Before we begin discussing the situation, let’s see the facts. On a board of 7c,9h,4h,10c,Ah, Roland De Wolfe fired out a 95,000 chip bet which was promptly called by Reikenmeier. Following the call, neither player wanted to table his hole cards. De Wolfe eventually said that he had a K high and flashed the K before pushing his hand towards the muck. Reikenmeier then triumphantly tabled his Qc, 6c (which has obviously missed a club flush), and began to celebrate his win. In the meantime though, De Wolfe had pulled his cards out of the muck with the help of the dealer and showed a K,8o for the better high-card. The two of them started arguing as the crowd grew larger around the table. Tournament director Thomas Kremser walked over and after a short briefing session with the dealer, he awarded the pot to Reikenmeier.

You can watch the incident here though be warned, it’s German commentary.

Obviously, after just reading about the incident, the decision seemed well justified and fair. Roland De Wolfe only showed one of his cards before he pushed his hand towards the muck, which means that he actually mucked his hand. He’s a pro who’s been through a hell of a lot more than you and I will ever be through poker-wise, so yes, he should know better. As a matter of fact, you can actually tell that he kind of feels the decision was the correct one as well and that he is somewhat angry with himself for not showing that hand down properly.
On the other hand, if you actually take a look at the video the link to which I posted above, you’ll begin to doubt the decision. I mean that hand was pulled away from the muck so fast (with the dealer doing his best to prevent De Wolfe from getting it there in the first-place) that the decision doesn’t look like a no brainer anymore. Sure, the cards did touch the muck, but with the dealer’s intervention, there was no doubt the two cards retrieved were indeed the two legit cards. Now that I’ve actually seen what happened I think the TD’s decision would’ve been a different one, had he seen it with his own eyes too.

What makes the situation even more controversial is the fact that the K De Wolfe had shown made it pretty clear which the winning hand was.
Under the circumstances, the honorable thing for Reikenmeier to do would’ve been to muck his hand on the spot and let the possessor of the better showdown hand take the pot.
To add further confusion to the situation, it also has to be noted that if Reikenmeier did ask De Wolfe to show both his cards, then the TD’s decision would have to be accepted as the correct one. Why? Simply, because if he had decided to muck his hand or to show down the best hand (had he had it) he would’ve lost every right to take a look at his opponent’s second hole card. If we look at things from this angle, it’s pretty clear that there was no real showdown and that De Wolfe had actually folded.

This brings us to the German’s behavior. Regardless of whom the pot was awarded to, his behavior at the table was absolutely unacceptable. Certainly, the fact that he called De Wolfe on that last bet had earned him the right to take a look at both his hole-cards, and the fact that De Wolfe only showed one card, coupled with his hand actually touching the muck, offered him the technical possibility to lay claim to the pot, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he did was just plain wrong. What sort of an image does such behavior convey about the game of poker? Greedy angle shooters stalking their victims and taking advantage of all sorts of shady technicalities to chip up? This may all be about cold hard cash but one has to ask him/herself, is it worth it? (on second thought, with the amount of money involved I’m not sure the answer would be “no” to that question).

The bottom line is, after watching the video and reading a few of the comments about the hand, I’m left even more uncertain about what the decision should’ve been. At any rate, regardless of the decision, the TD should’ve issued a warning to Tobias for angle shooting, as one thing is certain: what he did there was less than honorable.

Jeff Schulman offering us a behind the scenes peak into the WSOP Main Event

Following his successful rise into the ranks of the 2009 November Nine, Jeff Schulman – obviously a very down to earth guy (or at least trying hard to look like one) – gives us a piece of his mind about how the WSOP truly works – from the commoner’s perspective.

Take a look at the following video and take a minute to think about it:

Even though I have been playing poker online for quite a few years now, I haven’t yet managed to land a WSOP seat, and I’m just not prepared to cough up the direct buy-in either for some reason… I don’t know. It may the working class mentality of sticking to small-ball that I just can’t shake… or the possession of an all too vivid imagination that depicts the moment I lose my buy-in and head to the rail in such lifelike colors…the bottom line is I have never actually taken part in a WSOP event. As your regular (and hopefully better than average) online player, I’ve always nurtured this vision about what the WSOP could be like. Well thanks loads Jeff Schulman, you’ve just ruined it all for me. Common sense backs this guy up all the way though. Everywhere you turn, people get treated differently: some always seem to land on their feet, others can never crawl out of the gutter. Why would it be any different at the WSOP Main Event? I mean equal opportunity is capital baloney and everyone knows that. What Jeff does in this interview is that he delivers a slap across the faces of all those who thought the WSOP was supposed to be this out of this world frenzy of glitz and glamour where even the average Joe could be king for a day.

First off: celebrities and poker celebrities were allowed in while the regular guys got turned away. I have to admit I did not foresee this limited space problem happening. I mean these guys were trying hard to attract as many participants as possible. Pollack himself said that in an interview before the series got rolling. They would’ve loved to break the 2006 record, so how come players weren’t allowed in on the final day? How come the final day 1 exodus took organizers by surprise this way? It was something predictable, that’s the state of affairs at every prestigious live event. What makes that issue even worse is the fact that common folks were apparently treated like scum yet again. Now why doesn’t that surprise me? I know my $10k and your $10k is not worth as much as poker celebrity’s, and I know it’s supposedly good for the game to have accomplished professionals playing. After all, who cares to see you or me on television? But to see such open discrimination must’ve been pretty damn humiliating for those everyday folks who pep-talked themselves into heading down to Vegas for the Big Dance and found that their hard-earned money was no good there. Aren’t we the masses supposed to develop a taste for the game? Isn’t that what the whole Main Event is about? How is the Big Dance supposed to help popularize the game, if it treats regular folks this way?

That brings me to another issue brought up Schulman: the dealer cutting undeserved slack to a pretty woman. Well, that’s just plain un-professional, I don’t suppose there was any sort of malice involved, although it can be pretty disappointing, to the point that witnessing it several times could send some people tilting. Then again, who cares about what you do? You should probably be glad you were allowed to rub shoulders with some of poker’s greats and some Hollywood celebrities.

The singing of the national anthem and the podiums… I’ll have to agree with Schulman on that one too. Some of these guys may be known all over the world, and they may be outlandishly good at what they do, but should they be treated like athletes representing their county at the Olympics? Hm…that’s got to be over the top there…although if one is to consider poker a sport indeed, it may have some justification. As far as the bracelet is concerned, no, I don’t think Schulman would give it away or toss it to the bin. It may not be the most stylish and tasteful piece of jewelry, but one has to be practical about it: that thing’s worth much more than gold it’s made of, although every time a new one finds its way to a winner, the others lose value.

How big a chance does Schulman stand for taking down the big one this year? He’s third in chips so I’d say above average. Other than that all I can say is I don’t know, and don’t you believe anyone else who tells you otherwise. People speculate a lot and they spare no ink putting their thoughts to paper, but the bottom line is poker’s way too unpredictable. One thing looks certain though: if Jeff Schulman wins it, he’ll probably go down in poker history as the guy who rode off into the sunset with his prize money and never gave a rat’s behind about what’s good for the game. Don’t go looking for tips to this guy either. He’ll tell you to take it easy. It’s just poker for crying out loud, there’s no rocket science involved.

Making the move from online to live poker

Let’s face it: every online poker player’s dream is to one day make it to the big leagues and to play live against players like Daniel Negreanu and Phil Hellmuth for fabulous prize-pools and bragging rights. Ok, it may not be everyone’s dream, but for the vast majority of online players, moving on to live play is a goal indeed.
Are there significant differences between how the game is played live and how it’s played online? Why, certainly there are.

For one thing: there’s no way any live table will ever catch up with an average online table, speed-wise. While at an online table, getting in about 80 hands per hour is not something out of the ordinary, at a live table you should be glad to log about 30. Add to that the fact that while you’re online, you can play at multiple tables, which you can’t exactly do in a live card-room and you’ll see that the difference between the number of hands you can play per hour online and live is quite immense.

This difference will be well reflected in your hourly rate. Obviously, the more hands you play per hour, the bigger your hourly rate will be (as long as you don’t overextend your multi-tabling skills), therefore, you’re likely to see a huge drop in your hourly rates at the live tables, provided the quality of the opposition that you face is similar to your online opponents. Fewer hands played per hour come with another drawback too. Because you’ll see so little action every hour, you’ll get bored easily. In an environment where live poker is played, there are so many distractions that beginners can often lose focus and begin to contemplate other things at the poker table. Cute cocktail waitresses, the funny looking guy at the other table, the general bustle are only a few examples of things that can make you lose focus at the poker table.

Make sure you do not allow boredom to divert your focus from the game and pay keen attention to everything happening at the table. Make your reads: live poker offers you far more opportunities to read your opponents than online poker does. When the time comes, you’ll be glad you paid attention to how X, Y or Z played a certain hand against another player at the table.

The main challenge here is to stay sharp at the table at all times, and to fend off boredom which will creep up on you inevitably.
From what we’ve discussed so far, it’s rather obvious that online poker is better than offline poker . Why would you be willing to make the move to live poker then? Simple: live poker offers you certain advantages that more than make up for the slow play. Live games are always juicier and easier to beat than online ones. With the amount of useful information available to online players these days (not to mention all sorts of software doohickeys that help them make better decisions), it’s no surprise that games have tightened up incredibly. You’re lucky if you find yourself with a true fish at your table, but even then you’ll have to squirm and shove just to establish your place in the pecking order.

At a live table, chances are you’ll be faced with several fish. The regulars (who play the good old tight aggressive poker) will be more predictable than online too. The number of truly dangerous, good poker players you’re likely to encounter is much smaller.
I think you have heard of the weak tight player who plays nothing but pocket rockets and pocket Ks and sometimes he only plays them from late position… Well such guys do exist at live poker tables, and they’re not even the fishiest players you’ll meet there. As a matter of fact, such players are most often winners. What that tells you is that if being weak-tight is all it takes to beat the live game, there’s more than enough juice to go around at each of these tables for savvy players.

The post flop nature of the game is more prevalent at live tables. As you probably know, there’s preflop poker and then there’s post-flop poker, depending on a variety of factors. Both types of games require certain skills. Well, offline, you’ll have to whip your post-flop game into shape because that’s what you’ll be playing, like it or not.
Getting all your money in preflop on something like A,K (which you may have gotten used to playing online) won’t do you much good at a live table, because you’ll either see everyone fold or you’ll find yourself staring down pocket rockets or Ks.

Because of the predominantly post-flop nature of the game, preflop limping is very popular offline. Live players like to decide their pots after the flop, which means preflop raises meant to isolate are not frequent there. 4-5 players going past the flop is not something unusual. Online, those who limp are usually the fish. Offline that’s not the case at all.
All this limping usually leads to multi-way showdowns as well, so you’d do better to reconsider your hand values. Starting hands lose value here because of all the limping, but showdown hands sky-rocket in value for the same reason. The fact that several people limp past the pot time and time again will kind of kill the value in continuation betting too.

The size of your stack will be another factor that will deepen the differences between live and online poker. While online, holding 100BBs in your stack is usually considered deep, offline, you have to have around 200-300 BBs to keep up with your opponents. This difference in stack size induces a whole cascade of other differences too.
Calling an opponent’s all-in becomes a much more delicate decision. Shoving 100 BBs into the middle is just not the same as risking 300 BBs.
Post flop play is impacted by these stack sizes too. Once you make a call, you’ll be staring down some pretty substantial bets on later streets.