2009’s most significant poker stories part 1

2009 was definitely a year loaded with outrageous poker stories. Apparently, as time goes by more and more poker information gets tossed online through the ever more numerous channels available to fans and poker pros alike, which means we’re likely to get even more to nibble on next year… Anyway, for now here’s a look at some of the most significant poker and online poker moments of 2009.

I’m not going to jump straight to Isildur1, even though that is probably the biggest online poker story of the year. Instead, I’m going to build up gradually to that, dissecting some of the less spectacular but equally significant events first.
One such event, which has the potential of becoming much more important than all the other ones put together (provided it develops in the right direction) is the progress that online poker’s legalization efforts have made.

Ever since it’s been pushed through Congress, attached to the unrelated Safe Ports Act, the UIGEA has had the online poker and gambling industries on the ropes. 2009 was the first year that any sort of anti-UIGEA progress has been made, and when I’m talking about progress, I’m talking about something palpable, like the postponement of the actual implementation of the UIGEA’s provisions, which had initially been scheduled for December 1st. In an impressive show of force, the anti-UIGE front, spearheaded by House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, obtained a 6 month postponement on the regulations. The result itself may not be seen as impressive by pessimists, and it may well turn out to be a mere prolonging of the industry’s agony, but several points have been made and unlike alliances have been formed.

Because the UIGEA doesn’t expressly outlaw online poker and gambling, rather it outlaws financial transactions to and from offshore online poker and gambling companies, its provisions burden financial institutions, turning them into law enforcement agencies, something which is obviously not what banks are looking forward to. Therefore, they were eager to ally themselves with the PPA (Poker Players’ Alliance) IMEGA and other organizations pushing for legal online poker and gambling.
Horse racing representatives proved to be the least likely allies in the war against the UIGEA, yet they sided with the promoters of legalized and regulated online poker and gambling too, despite the fact that their industry had been exempted from under the UIGEA provisions.

The December 3 hearing that followed the postponement of the UIGEA’s implementation was another small victory for the anti-UIGEA camp. Though nothing palpable had been achieved through it, the hearing essentially turned the tables on the supporters of the UIGEA, voiding many of their claims through rock solid arguments, and making hard to ignore points in the matter. Even though the ordeal of the online poker and gambling industries is far from over, 2009 marked the first time actual progress has been made in defeating the UIGEA.

While the UIGEA did manage to put the brakes on many of the live poker initiatives, nipping them in the bud, the WSOP proved to be an exception to the rule. 2009 saw another multi-bracelet winner emerge in Jeffrey Lisandro, who joined Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Puggy Pearson and Ted Forrest on the list of poker players who have won three bracelets in one WSOP. Lisandro’s achievement once again highlighted the idea that with perseverance and hard work anyone could make it big in poker. After all, only 2 years earlier, Lisandro had still been busy trying to break the ice by winning his first WSOP gold. He did eventually secure the goods in the $2,000 7-Card Stud event and he came close to adding another piece of WSOP jewelry to his trophy case in 2008. It wasn’t meant to be then though, as he ended up second behind Mike Matusow in the $5,000 NL Deuce to 7 lowball event. 2009 was something else though. Not only did he win 3 bracelets, he won all three of them at the end of more than convincing final table performances.

Lisandro’s first 2009 bracelet came in the $1,500 7-Card Stud event, where he bested a field of 359 players. The second bracelet came 12 days later, in the more prestigious $10,000 World Championship 7-Card Stud Hi/Lo event. The prize-pool was much bigger in this one, but the eventual winner had to endure a 19-hour long final table session against players like Doyle Brunson, Abe Mosseri and Frank Mariani.

Lisandro’s 3rd bracelet came in the $2,500 Razz event, in which he literally threw his final table opponents from pillar to post before mopping up the floor with them.
Though no one else besides Lisandro managed to win 3 bracelets in the 2009 Series, two other players managed to hit a double, which is probably a record in itself.
Brock Parker won two consecutive events to etch his name onto the multiple bracelets winners list, and so did Greg Mueller who won the $10,000 Limit Holdem World Championship event and the $2,500 Omaha/Seven Card Stud Hi/Lo event.
The 2009 WSOP certainly saw no shortage in player numbers. Although some events saw smaller participation than in past years, overall, more players showed up at the green felt than before. With online poker shipping red hot real money action into people’s homes around the clock and with poker strategy sites churning out useful and free information, WSOP field sizes have not only increased, they’ve become much more competitive too.
Another thing that the 2009 WSOP will probably be remembered for is the Main Event final Day 1 flight incident where a bunch of players were denied access on account of overcrowding. It is also true though that had it not been for players’ preference to get rolling on the very last day, the incident would probably never have occurred.

Poker in 2009 – some good trends

As 2009 slowly draws to a conclusion, one can’t help pondering about the ups and downs poker has seen in the past year, whether it’s online poker or live poker we’re talking about. In this first segment of a planned series, I’ll take a closer look at some of the good things that happened to poker in 2009. Having been showered with bad news for the past few months, it’s become easy to grow accustomed to negativity and to overlook the positive factors, of which there have been in fact quite a few too.
One of the most important such factors is one concerning the number of online poker players. 2009 has proved once and for all that the industry is here to stay and having proven its viability in times of extreme economic hardship, its right to exist can no longer be questioned.

The economic downturn has certainly had a rather devastating effect on the live poker scene (on regular low buy-in, local-specific action rather than on WSOP-caliber events) but the online poker industry didn’t really feel any such impact. Players continued to flock to the tables, drawn by the ever improving software packages, generous promotions, sign up bonuses and rakeback deals. Of course, in keeping players focused on the online tables, the high stakes, in house professionals of various online poker rooms pitched in as well. That brings us to the second positive trend of 2009: insane online cash action.

I guess it’s safe to assume that nothing draws people to the online poker tables as the 6-figure pots and the multi million dollar bankrolls changing hands over a single session at the very tables at which they too can play do. In this respect, Full Tilt Poker should probably receive an award as the high stakes cash game action featured by the notorious online poker room was literally out of this world for the better part of the year. Swedish mystery player Isildur1 was undeniably responsible for the bulk of this insane action as record after record fell in the wake of the nosebleed stakes juggernaut as he fleeced one Full Tilt regular after the other, only to eventually give all his winnings back to Brian Hastings, who had apparently benefited from hand history analysis performed by Brian Townsend and Cole South. The upheaval resulting from Hasting’s confession drew further attention to online poker, although not all that attention was favorable. Tom Dwan and Patrik Antonius also need to be mentioned here, despite the fact that their durrrr challenge match-up not only failed to stir the waves it was supposed to, it pretty much died off over time. They did however play a major part in the Isildur1 saga, which entitles them to at least a share of the above mentioned “online cash game action award”.
The WSOP’s Main Event is always the highlight of the year in poker, regardless of what goes on online or in other live events. In that respect, Joe Cada’s win has to be considered poker history material too. Partly overshadowed by Phil Ivey’s elimination, Cada’s win proved to be a blessing in disguise for the poker industry. The 21 year old has so far acquitted himself nicely of the responsibilities bestowed upon him with the title and the several million dollars in prize-money. Cada didn’t turn out to be one of those Jerry Yang type champions who vanished into the sunset with the goods once the deed was done. His televised appearances have already achieved a lot towards spreading the love for the sport among the youth world over.

At the beginning of this article I stated that nothing brought more players to the online tables than the hot nosebleed action Full Tilt has seen this year. The truth is, on second thought there may be an exception to that. Network television poker may well be a much more efficient recruiting tool than any kind of online action on account of a simple fact: while online action only reaches those who are already into the game, televised poker (like Full Tilt’s “Face the Ace” and PokerStars’ “Million Dollar Challenge”) taps into pristine territory: everyone who’s watching becomes a potential poker player. It is kind of difficult to trump that, and given the success of the above mentioned two shows, it’s highly unlikely that anything has managed to top it, at least as far as domestic poker interest is concerned.

The delay of the actual implementation of the UIGEA has to be the biggest success story of the online poker industry in 2009. Though insignificant in so many different ways, the tabling of the UIGEA’s provisions, much dreaded by poker players and financial institutions alike, managed to score a huge moral victory, especially in light of the House Financial Services Committee hearing that followed.

Besides the fact that the backers of legal online poker finally learned they had some level of support in the higher spheres of government, the fact that the arguments of those opposing such legalization held little water has also been exposed. Regardless of what the future may bring, Barney Frank has scored a few big ones for poker and gambling this December, and nothing will be able to change that fact.

The emergence of well-respected and loved ambassadors for the game of poker is another of the positive poker trends of 2009. Daniel Negreanu and Annie Duke have both done more than their fair share in dispelling the negative myths and the effects of the negative press the game of poker has received throughout the year. The rise of Negreanu and Duke-like personalities is obviously more than a blessing for the industry. Every time they show up somewhere through their mere presence, these people convey the message that poker is indeed a sport which rewards hard workers and punishes near-sighted con artist wannabes.
Of course there were plenty of other positive developments for poker in 2009. The ones listed above are only a few of those I considered the most significant.

There was something fishy about Brian Hastings’ fleecing of Isildur1 after all

I don’t know about you, but about a week ago when I penned the story about Isildur1’s demise at the hands of Cardrunners and Full Tilt Poker pro Brian Hastings, something seemed out of place. I mean this guy – Isildur1 – had been dominating the high stakes action before, and then he suddenly just dropped his entire bankroll during one single session. The ends somehow didn’t seem to meet for me, but at the time I wrote it off as a streak of bad luck for the Swede (which does indeed happen quite often), combined with an obvious tilt. Well, it turns out things were indeed fishy…don’t you just hate it when you’re right on such things?
In an interview granted to Garry Wise of ESPN.com, Hastings proved to be a little too talkative and he dropped a few bits of information that he should probably have kept for himself and for his – should I call them that? – accomplices.

Knowing what he did, and probably embarrassed to take all the credit for the felting of the biggest nosebleed stakes menace ever on Full Tilt Poker, Hastings pointed at fellow Full Tilt and Cardrunners professionals Brian Townsend and Cole South as his “partners in crime”. He said the three of them shared hand histories of past heads-up matches each of them had had with Isildur1 and that Brian Townsend had identified certain trends in the Swede’s action patterns that helped him get an accurate read on his opponent. What he didn’t say though was that provided all that were true, it meant he’d acquired an unfair advantage over Isildur1 through means expressly forbidden by Full Tilt Poker.

The unfair nature of the move is obvious. Three Full Tilt pros joined forces to bust a player who had no idea he was going up against 3 players rather than one. The question that remains is what sort of punishment will Full Tilt Poker dish out to the three players involved?
According to Full Tilt poker’s rules, sharing hand histories or using any sort of data mining software is subject to “maximum penalties for prohibited software use”. Now then, the only question here is: what is the maximum penalty for prohibited software use? I bet if any of the square regulars did something like that, Full Tilt would freeze his account, confiscate his balance and ban him from the site for good. In the case of a red Full Tilt pro though, I doubt the rules are the same.

As a matter of fact, I just read that Full Tilt had launched an investigation into the matter, as a result of which, Brian Townsend’s red pro status has been suspended for a month. That must be the maximum penalty for prohibited software use then…
Townsend himself was in quite a hurry to clear the other guy’s names and to take the entire burden of blame on himself, which would indeed be a respectable gesture, were it not for the circumstances leading up to it.

One needn’t forget that this is not the first time Townsend finds himself in the pickle at Full Tilt. A while ago – correct me if I’m wrong – back when he used the online nick-name “shrugby”, he admitted to running multiple accounts: an offence Full Tilt doesn’t really tolerate either.
Now I don’t personally know Townsend, but from what I’ve seen thus far, the guy is a wiser than average angler, who keeps getting busted on account of ill timed honesty urges or overly honest associates.

Even though I do indeed think that Isildur1 “got played” by the Cardrunners gang, I don’t really care much about it, and the whole thing did stop one step short of collusion. In a blog post a while ago –right after he took $3 million of Dwan – I did say I wished Isildur1 had ridden into the sunset with the money never to be seen again. He didn’t do that, and if you hang around long enough in high stakes poker circles, you’re bound to give the money back one way or another. So basically he had it coming. What I do care about though is the image that such actions paint of the online poker industry. The mere thought of 3 highly skilled professional players ganging up on a newcomer to fleece him sends shivers down my spine… At a time when lawmakers and politicians are thinking more and more seriously about legalizing the game, a story like this one may be the last thing that we need indeed.

Word has it that Isildur1 has issued a complaint with Full Tilt Poker, but no reliable sources confirm that yet. One thing is certain thus far: none of the $4 million he dropped to Brian Hastings has yet been returned, and the chances for it are rather slim indeed.
Hastings may have been suspended too, although that hasn’t yet been confirmed either. At the end of the day though, options and the probability of a refund are running thin for Isildur1. About the perpetrators: after having won $4 million, you could suspend me for a month any day… hell, you could do it for life…

An analysis of the House Financial Services Committee hearing regarding online poker

While by now we all know that the House Financial Services Committee hearing that took place at the beginning of the month didn’t really achieve much in terms of actual results, and that Barney Frank plans to take up the issue once again before the 6 month deadline regarding the implementation of the UIGEA expires, it is still worth to take another look at the hearing and to dissect it a little.
There were a few issues that came up and that will obviously come up again when the Committee holds its second hearing in the matter. What this fist hearing made obvious was that these issues will eventually make or break the case for Frank, for the IMEGA, the PPA and – at the end of the day – for the entire online poker and online gambling industry.

In that respect, this hearing has indeed achieved a lot and it gave us a preview of what the real battle regarding Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act and Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act will be like. Here are some of the potentially decisive factors that were touched and that I personally consider of utmost importance for the case.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, who’s the staunchest opponent of legalization, brought forth a letter that FBI Cyber Division assistant director Shawn Henry sent him. In the letter, Henry wrote about how prolific a breeding ground online poker is for cheaters and how it is impossible to verify the age of those who play at these online poker sites. Henry also pointed it out that online poker sites were a haven for money laundering criminals. This letter is bound to pop up again at one point or another during the debate about Frank’s proposed bills. Fortunately though, Bachus didn’t quite do his homework as far as research was concerned in regards to Henry’s letter. The letter contained many inaccuracies and some of the facts it presented were downright fabrications.
For instance, in the letter Henry wrote that the online poker sites were well content with the showing of a credit card as proof of age, which is just not true. If you’re an online poker player you probably know that a copy of the ID is sometimes insufficient too and further documentation – like utility bills – is also required most of the time. The points Henry made about money laundering and cheating were also turned around by the PPA, as all such issues can obviously be apprehended much more effectively through legalization than through placing these sites outside the law.

A point that Bachus seemed to score came when he forced two of Frank’s witnesses, Parry Aftab – who proved to be the most efficient and eloquent of all witnesses – and Kevin Whyte, to “admit” that the organizations they represented (Wired Safety and the National Council on Problem gambling) had received funding from Harrah’s, a company interested in launching an online poker site provided the game does get legalized. The way Bachus “extracted” the confessions made it seem like he did indeed score a point there, but the fact remained: the funds that Harrah’s had contributed to the above named organizations – both tasked with safety and problem gambling prevention – only underlined the fact that it was concerned with delivering a safe, reliable and risk free product to its would-be customers. It was by no means a measure of corruption or vile intent on the part of Harrah’s or on that of the online poker industry.

The fact that Bachus failed to produce any credible witnesses and that his case was built mostly on Robert Martin, tribal chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, a tribe pushing for legal online poker in California, was definitely a huge win for Frank’s side. The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee was quick to pounce on Martin and to expose the hypocrisy of his testimony.
Despite the fact that all of the factors taken into account thus far were largely in favor of legal online poker, there were some more worrying issues as well. On one hand, taken by his Libertarian zeal, at one point Frank compared online gambling to booze and pornography. Placing the industry into the same boat with pornography and alcohol was by no means a fortunate move, despite the fact that Frank used the comparison to express his view on the government meddling with private affairs it should never be involved in.

Another, much more worrying issue that came up was state based legalization as opposed to federal legalization and regulation. Because it makes tons more sense than any of the other angles Bachus attacked Frank’s proposals from, letting individual states decide the fate of online gambling/poker within their own jurisdictions could end up as the biggest hurdle in the path of federal regulation.
Because online poker legalization is already under way in California, it could well end up setting a precedent in this respect, which would make federal regulation even more difficult to push through.

The issue of the credit card, raised by Republican Representative Chris Lee isn’t likely to develop into a deal-braking factor though. Lee expressed his concern about letting people gamble using their credit cards. He also said though that he didn’t have any sort of objections against allowing online gambling through debit cards. On top of the fact that gambling with money one does indeed have makes perfect sense, dropping credit cards would be a more than reasonable concession, especially given the fact that most credit card companies have begun to block online gambling related transfers years ago.

Whether any of these issues will prove crucial in the making or breaking of online poker legalization and regulation, remains to be seen. At the end of the day, it’ll be up to Frank and his supporters to convince the majority through well thought out and rock solid arguments.

A few points about the exaggerated nature of high stakes games on Full Tilt Poker

There’s no question about it: nosebleed online poker action is spinning out of control at Full Tilt Poker these days. The arrival of Isildur1 has turned a previously orderly and apparently well established high stakes status quo upside down, and records began to fall, pots began to swell and million dollar swings became commonplace among the pros at Full Tilt. Once dropping more than $3 million in a single session, this guy got many people wondering where the limit was. Was that limit already reached and even crossed though? Is this high stakes extravaganza turning out to be a little too much? Is it good for the game on the whole or is it bad? Does it draw new interest or does it raise condemnation? This is what I’ll attempt to uncover in this post, looking at the matter from both sides before reaching my conclusion.

In order to truly assess the effects of the ultra high stakes action on the game, one needs to take a thorough look at the very root of the issue. Namely: who plays at these nosebleed tables, why and what is the driving force behind the actions of these guys?

One thing is certain: high stakes online poker isn’t for everyone. There are only a handful of people in the world who can afford to sit down to a table like that, and even fewer who can do it with positive EV. While the action may seem chaotic and quite insane for an outside layman, it is everything but that. These guys know all too well what they want, and they only ever play in games in which they think they have an edge. A clear example in this respect would be the $1 million durrrr challenge. I know what you’re thinking: that stuff has pretty much ground to a halt, but it can indeed be brought up as an example here. When setting the terms of the challenge, Tom Dwan was very careful to set things up in a way that would offer him an advantage over whomever he would play. He was by no means looking to just create 50-50 action. He knew that if anyone took him up on the challenge, he would be the one holding an edge. Whether or not that would be the case indeed once the action got rolling, was a different matter though. So far he seems to be doing fine against Antonius (in the challenge series that is) so it’s safe to say his assessments were correct.

The bottom line is, these high stakes players are not acting out of insanity. A high stakes poker scene would exist whether or not Full Tilt Poker were there to provide the arena. The fact that Full Tilt Poker offers these stakes means that we can all gain an insight into how such a high stakes poker scene works in reality. Is it good or is it bad for the industry? It has to be good because it keeps bringing railbirds to the tables and it keeps generating more and more interest in online poker. For most people, railbirding a Tom Dwan/Phil Ivey match-up will be as close as they’ll ever get to experiencing the thrills of high stakes action. A few years ago though, when there were no nosebleed stakes or online poker for that matter, commoners like you and I had no way of ever seeing such amounts of money changing hands at the poker tables. The blessing that these games bring to the industry is that they continue to draw interest even at times when there’s no televised tournament action and that they keep high stakes professional poker players in the lime-light. If there were no such nosebleed stakes on Full Tilt Poker, the only time we’d see Ivey or Antonius in action would be in the live poker events which they would have to attend as compelled by their contracts with Full Tilt.

What is the downside of this money moving at the high stakes tables though? If you’re a regular railbird at these stakes, you probably know a thing or two about that already. Before Full Tilt Poker introduced the $500/$1,000 tables, the steepest stakes one could play at were the $200/$400 ones. The problem with the newly introduced tables was that regardless of how well bankrolled they may have been at the lower stakes, most of the players who moved up to the new stakes were under bankrolled. It’s easy to see why that was the case when one considers that a deep enough bankroll for these tables would have to be a $20 million one. According to many of the very pros who play those tables, that could go up to $100 million. That there’s more than serious money though, and with the exception of two or three people, nobody from the poker world could afford to field such artillery. This is probably the reason why many of those who make the move to these ultra stakes can’t afford to hang out there for long. A couple of swings and they’re sent right back to $25/$50 (like Sami Kelopuro) to build their crippled bankrolls back up. A clear indication of the perils that these high stakes carry is that before Isildur1 came along, action at those tables had pretty much came to a halt. Despite the fact that their bankrolls couldn’t possibly face up to it, many of these players would probably move right up to $1,000/$2,000 if Full Tilt were to add those limits though.

The bottom line is, many of the online poke rooms have already capped their high stakes tables at $200/$400 to prevent the high stakes action from dying out altogether. Other than that though, as far as the popularity aspect of the game is concerned, ultra high stakes action has no downsides.

The Isildur1, Antonius and Sahamies show rolls into town

The past weekend was surely an eventful one for the nosebleed stakes railbirds at Full Tilt Poker. Isildur1 has been in the center of attention for quite a while now, with many of the specialists praying that he doesn’t get felted and that he keeps up the high stakes carnage. Sure enough, despite the beatings he’d suffered from Antonius, Isiladur1 didn’t back down one bit. Here’s a timeline of last weekend’s nosebleed action for which Isildur1 was the main catalyst again.
On Thursday, he took on Dwan (whom he’d turned into a trusted ATM a couple of weeks ago) and his nemesis, Patrik Antonius.

The early going was excellent for Isildur1. He was clearly on top of the wave and he was aiming to make the most of it. Not only did he mange to hit Dwan badly again, he did well against Antonius too. Cards just wouldn’t go the Finn’s way. Pocket rockets blew up in his face twice, costing him dearly each time. The first time, Antonius had Ac,Ah,5h,10d against Isildur1’s Jd,5d,10c,7c. The money went all-in on a flop of 10h,3d,2d, giving birth to a $402,987 monster pot. The As gave Antonius a set on the turn, but the 8d on the river filed up Isildur1s flush draw and the pot was shipped his way.

The second time Antonius’ Aces were cracked, Isildur1 made a straight on the river to take down the $346,997 pot.
Things were looking good for the Swede over at the Dwan tables too. The New Jersey Wonderkid had his pocket rockets cracked as well, this time for a $396,000 pot. The money went all-in on the river in this one, as Isildur1’s two pair made short work of Dwan’s overpair. Before he knew it, Isildur1 was up about 2 million on Dwan and Antonius, and things were looking great for him. He had finally managed to exact revenge on the Finn, and he even milked his favorite money cow in the process.

That’s when the day took a wrong turn for him. It takes a nutcase to crack a nutcase apparently, and the mystery Swede’s day turned sour when Ilari Sahamies showed up. The Finn quickly relieved him of about $1.5 million, and departed, happy with the day’s work.
In one hand the two played, the money went all-in on the turn. Little did Isildur1 know then that his two pair had already been doomed as it was up against Sahamies’ flopped set of sevens. The river card brought no relief and a $459,987 pot found its way to the Finn’s side of the table.
The hand which had worked so well against Antonius and Dwan’s pocket rockets, the two pair, turned its back on the Swede once again a few hands later. This time, the two were battling for a $439,997 pot, and he hit two pair on the flop. Sahamies proceeded to hit a bigger two pair (Aces and 3s against Isildur1’s Qs and 3s) to take down the pot.

Sahamies returned to the tables later and took Antonius for another cool mil, to round his Thanksgiving winnings to $3 million. Now there’s something he can truly be thankful for.
Friday saw a lull in the nosebleed action. The usual suspects must’ve been elsewhere taking a break from it all, as not much happened on this day.
Saturday however was a different story. Antonius was back, looking to get some of his money back from Isildur1. He had gotten used to cashing out from the Swede and he apparently couldn’t come to peace with the thought that the roles had been reversed. Unfortunately for him, the ATM was again out of order. He learned that the hard way, by dropping $1.5 million to Isildur and Sahamies, whose hot run continued.

One of the larger pots of the Antonius-Isildur1 session was a $230,000 one. The money went all in on a board of 8d,5s,3d,10c. Antonius held 10,6,7,5 for a two pair, but Isildur1 had A,10,8,6 for the marginally better two pair. The Jh fell on the river to seal the fate of the monster pot and to prolong Antonius’ losing streak.

Sunday was the day that Isildur would face off with his newly found nemesis, Ilari Sahamies. The Finn was back in action too, looking to milk the nosebleed tables a little more. In the beginning, everything seemed to go according to plan for him. He worked his way to a $1million profit against Isildur1, before the mystery Swede fine tuned his strategy engine and took all that back, plus a $1 million profit. The biggest pot of this session was a weird one. It landed in Ziigmund’s pockets though. Isildur1 had absolutely nothing in this hand, but an Ace-high, which proved to be no match for the Finn’s pair of Qs.

Another substantial pot, this time tipping the scale at $534,000 ended up in Sahamies’ possession too. This time, the Finn picked up quad Ks for the monster on the flop. It was all smooth sailing for him then as the large pot was guaranteed by the As full of Ks that Isildur1 secured on the turn.
Isildur1 then fought back though, taking down several similarly sized pots himself. Near the end of the day, Brian Townsend popped up too, and he took about $700k off Isildur1 before the day was done.

Post flop play – the key to successful poker

Everyone knows that peflop play is important, but post flop action is where the real poker skill shines. Preflop action is only important because it makes your post-flop decisions simpler. Obviously though, if you whip your preflop skills into shape, you probably won’t be a losing player anymore, or you’ll be a very marginally losing one. Good preflop skills will make it easier on you to handle the post flop action, and by virtue of that fact alone, your game will improve.

Post flop action is what good poker players excel at though. There’s a tendency among these players to neglect preflop skills in favor of post flop skills, which is not necessarily the right thing to do, but which can be explained reasonably: these players are in their element during the post flop action. They like to see many flops because that means they’ll drag many players right into their element, where their victims may not be as comfortable as they are. The bottom line about where you should focus is this: as a beginner, your goal should be to clean up your preflop act. That will help you move onto a different level of poker skill, and it will radically improve your game. Once you whip your post flop skills into shape though, seeing as many flops as possible becomes your goal, because that will offer you an advantage over your preflop-focused opponents.

Being a good post-flop player will obviously offer you a bigger edge than being a good preflop one. Here are some of the basic elements that define successful post-flop strategy. Mind you, playing well post flop is always simpler on paper than in real life. The factors that I’m about to discuss in this post will only be touched in general terms. The goal is to set you onto the right track rather than to turn you into a lean-mean post-flop playing machine.

Position. There’s nothing as important in poker as position. This goes for cash games and tournaments too. I know you’ve probably heard and read this a thousand times already, but one can’t iterate this enough times: do take position into account and do adjust your starting hand ranges, your calling range and your tight-loose balance according to it. Position is more important during preflop play than during post flop action, but it carries more than enough significance after the flop too. Think about it like this: you’re the first to act after the flop. You’re already uneasy about it, aren’t you? Being the last to act post-flop is just as reassuring and it gives you control over the betting round the same way it does before the flop.

Aggression. Although aggression is a major part of successful post flop play, you shouldn’t exaggerate its significance. In a world: aggression is not all there is to it. There’s a fine line between being aggressive and mindlessly aggressive. Contrary to what beginners believe about them and contrary to the image they sell at the table, good poker players are not wildly aggressive. Their aggression is selective and it’s therefore highly efficient, making them look like they’re unstoppable. If you are wildly aggressive, you shall expose yourself to traps your opponents may spring to bust you.
According to experts, there’s a gender thing in aggressiveness too. Men tend to be more aggressive than women in everything they do, and thus in poker too. This surplus of senseless aggression is supposedly something female poker players can and will exploit to their advantage.

Folding. The same macho attitude that drives some players to be senselessly and counter-productively aggressive, will slap the mark of shame on folding. After all, if you fold, you chicken out, right? Not exactly. Don’t let such childish ideas dictate your actions. And what if the other players believe you’re yellow? You may even turn that false table image to your advantage.
Sometimes however, the psychological aspects behind folding are more complicated than that. Say the same player bullies you out of 3-4 hands in a row. You begin to steam about it and before you know it, you’re on a mission: to “get” the bully and to teach him a lesson. Such impulse-based missions are extremely counterproductive for your performance though. When chasing after your nemesis, you toss your carefully weighed decisions out the window and begin to force Lady Luck’s hand. This usually leaves you more exposed to further damage though, so you’ll be hit again and again and before you know it, you’ll be tilting.
Now that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever go after a player and isolate him in order to cash in on his weaknesses. Things take a wrong turn though when your emotions barge into the equation.

Post flop- coin flips. I know you’re going to tell me that post flop coin flips carry a marginal EV+ (which is mathematically correct indeed because you chop the pot, which has dead money in it), but I’ll still tell you to avoid them. The problem with coin-flips is that you’re not always taking one when you think you are. Sometimes, what you initially think is a coon-flip turns out to be a lop-sided cruising for a bruising. If you factor those occasions in as well, your marginal EV+ will go up in smoke.

The above detailed post flop factors are generally valid for cash games as well as for tournaments. Some of them unfold in different ways in cash games and tourneys though. The coin-flip for instance is generally a good idea when you’re in the late stages of a MTT, while it’s generally not a good idea in cash games.

Legal online poker – First step taken?

I know this is not an event directly related to poker, but it could be a more important one for the online poker industry down the road than all the 6-figure pots played at Full Tilt Poker’s nosebleed tables put together. On December 3rd, the House Financial Services Committee held its first ever hearing concerning Barney Frank’s HR 2266 and HR 2267, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer protection and Enforcement Act respectively. Regarded by many as the first step the US Congress has taken towards the legalization of online poker and gambling, the hearing was described by John Pappas – PPA executive director – as a foundation of record rather than an actual step towards that goal. Joe Brennan Jr. of iMEGA also noted that there wasn’t any actual new ground broken in the matter, and that the number of congressmen present at the hearing was very low as well, but the fact alone that the hearing took place at all amid the debate about the health care and the general state of the economy, can be cataloged a small victory.

Despite the fact that the hearing was supposed to be focused on the two proposed pieces of legislation I mentioned above, it seemed more like a personal debate between Barney Frank and Spencer Bachus, the staunchest opponent of legal online poker and gambling. I suppose you know all about Frank’s viewpoint on the matter. He supports legalization so that regulation can be achieved, which would effectively protect the underage through the implementation of required measures and provide a new revenue stream for the federal budget as well. Bachus on the other hand, doesn’t believe that underage online poker and gambling is preventable at all, and he supports the UIGEA on account of its potential to protect the youth from online gambling’s potentially harmful side effects.

The two of them brought a series of witnesses to the stand, in order to support their arguments and/or to combat those of the other party. As far as the arguments war was concerned, I reckon it’s safe to say that Frank and the anti-UIGEA camp cruised to an overwhelming victory. Out of the seven witnesses brought forth, four spoke in favor of legalization and regulation. Michael Brodsky, the executive chairman of the horse racing site youbet.com was one of these witnesses. The other three were Samuel A Wallandingham, who represented the interest of bankers at the hearing (as you probably know, the brunt of the UIGEA’s implementation expenses falls on financial institutions), Malcolm K Sparrow, a Harvard University professor tasked with the study of the risks posed by online poker and gambling and Parry Aftab, the director of a non profit organization specialized in protecting children from potential internet-born harm.

Out of these four witnesses, Parry Aftab’s statement appeared to carry the biggest weight. He said that despite the fact he’d never have thought he’d ever support the legalization of online gambling and poker, he had grown to realize it was the only way underage gambling could ever be dealt with.
Keith S Whyte, the director of the National Council on problem gambling was one of Frank’s witnesses too. Though he represented a neutral point of view, he did make a few anti-UIGEA points too.

Jim Dowling, a previous anti-money laundering advisor to the white house, was one of Bachus’ witnesses. He stopped short of speaking out against Frank’s proposed legislation too, so that was a huge mark in the “W” column for the online poker industry too.

The only witness to speak up against HR 2266 and HR 2267 was Robert Martin, tribal chairman of the Morongo Band of mission Indians. The tribe has been trying to have online poker legalized in the state of California, so his statement wasn’t exactly watertight either.

When he said that Frank’s legislation would protect foreign interests against American ones, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee was quick to corner him. Frank pointed it out that Morongo band was not in fact against the law itself, they just wanted to be the sole beneficiaries of it. They wanted to do it themselves, they just didn’t want anyone else to be allowed to do it. Martin had no answer to Frank’s reasoning, and that jotted down another mark in the win column for the supporters of Frank’s bills.

While it’s obvious who won the war of words there, the question remains: how much was really achieved through the hearing? The session lasted under two hours, and the fact that very few of the 70 members of the House Financial Services Committee attended may suggest that there still isn’t enough interest in the matter. About 22 of the members appeared at one point or another through the hearing, and there were never more than 12 of them there at any one time.

In closing, Frank said that the Committee would take the matter up once again next year. That was obviously a sign that he was ready to continue pushing his bills, and that he did indeed view the current hearing as a mere step in a longer process. Let’s hope that the issue does get taken up again next year and that it gets sorted sooner rather than later. After all, the doomsday clock is still ticking for the online poker and online gambling industries in the US.