WSOP 2011 Gossip

We’re about halfway into the WSOP 2011 Series, and so far, things are looking good from just about any angle. There is no denial that before the Series got rolling, the Black Friday events coupled with Phil Ivey’s boycott had cast a long dark shadow over the whole thing. Fortunately however, all those apparently negative things look like positive developments in hindsight, at least from a strictly WSOP perspective. The Black Friday fiasco, although it had effectively crippled the online poker industry in the US, has created a kind of hunger among players which pushed them to attend more events and to cough up more in buy-ins. Event after event broke its previous attendance records, some by only a few tens of players, others by thousands.

Gossip-worthy events, the spice of such Series, abounded as well. By this stage, Phil Ivey’s bail out move is seen as just that by many. Others will simple ask you Phil who?
Here’s a brief rundown of some of the most entertaining and controversial moments of the 2011 Series so far.
The Poker Brat always steals the limelight wherever he goes, and that is especially true for the late stages of WSOP events. This year, after a long drought bracelet or even close-call-wise, Phil Hellmuth almost managed to grab his 12th piece of WSOP bling. Now, I know people feared that Allen Kessler’s bracelet win would bring about the end of the world, but had Hellmuth won his 12th bracelet, in a non-Hold’em event no less, we’d all have preferred the end of the world to whatever that would’ve meant.

Hellmuth is no doubt a talented player, although there’s one thing he seems to be even more talented at: being obnoxious and out-of-this-world conceited, especially if he has solid reasons to be that. We have Full Tilt Poker’s John Juanda to thank for averting a disaster potentially much bigger than a Tom Dwan bracelet win last year, and that was no patty-cake either. Juanda bounced back from a 3-1 chip handicap to deny The Brat heads-up, so it’s safe to say it just wasn’t meant to be for Hellmuth.

Talking about major disasters threatening the poker world: apparently, legend had it that a WSOP bracelet win from Allen Kessler – known in online circles under the amiable moniker “Chainsaw” – would rip a nasty gash into the good-old space-time continuum, upon which the existence of the universe itself is supposedly reliant. Kessler came close to achieving a deed of a never-before seen significance for the entire universe in the $1,500 PL Holdem Event. Fortunately for the universe and for all living things in it, Kessler – like Hellmuth – got denied in the final phase of his devious plan, and finished second to pick up $140k, which wasn’t a bad payday, not even for someone hell-bent on undoing the effects of the Big Bang.

There is no denial that the 2011 Series has been especially rough with PokerStars’ Daniel Negreanu. The Poker Kid absorbed one nasty blow (read bad beat) after another, and even though he is definitely one of the most charismatic and upbeat poker playing personalities out there, apparently he isn’t immune to nervous meltdowns/blowups either after all.
His Hellmuth-moment came in the $10k Limit Holdem World Championship event, where he had been doing extremely well before he ran into a straight flush for the cooler, and then took another nasty beat. He knocked over his chair, ripped his headphones off smashing them on the floor.
He did regain his composure soon after though, and picked up a new pair of headphones to head back into the heat of the green felt battle.

April 15 – Online Poker Will Never Be the Same

There’s little doubt that the events of April 15 2011, known henceforth as “Black Friday” in poker circles, have forever altered the online poker industry. Quite frankly, a move such as this has long been in the books though. I’m not going to play it cool and tell you that I saw all this coming. I was just as surprised as the next guy when I saw the news. However, in hindsight I remember hearing (and even writing) about PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker being left out of a potential regulation process as operators who were in direct violation of US law, more precisely of the 2006 UIGEA’s provisions.

The allegations against the 11 online poker executives who were indicted were not about that fact that they facilitated online play, or better put: they weren’t mainly about that. Rather, they were accused of money laundering and bank fraud. They had allegedly set up phantom operations which dealt in pet food and golf balls, disguising their clients’ transactions through these operations. One doesn’t exactly have to be a legal mastermind to realize these are very serious and indeed quite brazen offenses.

What’s done is done though and there’s no use crying over spilt milk, so the question is where to now? Is there a silver lining in online poker’s Black Friday? Does this mean that online poker will lie down and die? Hardly. All this commotion is really about the re-arrangement and the re-mapping of the power-balance within the online poker industry. There are certain interest groups which have been looking to bring down these online poker giants for a while and these interests are currently having a field-day. Look for them to swing into action soon. I’m not a good a conspiracy theorists but it’s kind of easy to see a pattern emerge here. US companies could never really stomach the fact that they were beaten to the online poker pie by foreign interests. From their perspective, sites like Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars were pocketing revenue off their turf. It has been obvious for a while that they would not idly stand by and watch the monies of the American online poker players siphoned away into some offshore account. They want to stick their hands into the cookie-jar, and with Full Tilt and PokerStars out of the way, they’re on the verge of doing just that.

In the US there are close to 20 million online poker players, many of whom are professionals. These guys are not going to go away. As a matter of fact, they’re probably looking to alternatives (such as Bodog) as you’re reading this. These guys are also more than willing to play in a legal and regulated environment, paying taxes on their online poker revenues. This is where the above mentioned interest group comes into the picture. Your best clue to seeing them in action will be the hurried passing of federal-level online poker regulations and laws. Once that stage of the operation is out of the way, companies that will be conditioned by licenses clearly meant to give US operations an unbeatable edge over everyone else, will emerge and they will begin to assimilate the PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker player base, stepping in and claiming the laurels assisted by none other than good-old Uncle Sam. Equal opportunities for all comers? Come on, you don’t believe in such gibberish, do you?

The bottom line is though that massive online poker rooms will re-emerge and players may be better off than they ever were before. Affiliates may be better off too and the industry as a whole will certainly be better off. Uncle Sam will be pleased too, his hand elbow-deep in the online poker honey-jar. It will be the second coming of the online poker revolution, and this time, nothing will be able to stop it.
How will PokerStars and Full Tilt fare? If Party Poker’s woes are an indication: not too well. Party Poker shouldn’t celebrate either though. They may be allowed back into the US market, but something tells me they will never regain their industry-leading status…

The complete story of the Bellagio robbery

You’ve probably all read the Bellagio robbery story in the news section of this website, and you’ve probably also read the piece about how the robber was eventually apprehended. What’s the full story behind these events though? Exactly what lead to the downfall of 29 year-old Anthony Michael Corleo, the son of a Las Vegas City judge? Here’s a deeper look.

When he jogged out of the Bellagio in December, with $1.5 million worth of casino chips, and – to quote Tony G – he got on his bike to ride off into the sunset with the dough, Anthony Michael Corleo must’ve already known that he just got a huge problem on his hands. Never mind the national attention that comes with the turf in this line of business: he hadn’t even completely pulled the caper, despite his Ocean’s eleven-like exit from the casino. He still had the not-the-least-bit tiny or insignificant problem of turning his haul into cash. Many experts and non-experts chimed in with various theories about how he could accomplish that, as the imagination of the poker and gambling world shifted into high gear. Unfortunately for Corleo, none of the floated theories offered him an easy and straightforward way to cash his chips in, and the sudden notoriety proved to be a huge problem for him ego-wise too.

After the robbery, he returned to his home town of Pueblo, Colorado where he started buying drinks to all his friends and generally being extremely generous with money he said he had won gambling in Vegas. The draw of Sin City proved way too hard to resist though, and he returned to the Bellagio, where he played and lost money, even on New Year’s Eve. His antics soon earned him high roller status and he once even stayed a week at the Bellagio by means of the comp points he had earned. The pressure of having to cash in the cranberries ($25k chips) got to him though and he started making mistakes. He first donated a chip to a Salvation Army bell ringer who later helped identify him. Then he took his chips online, and opened an account at one of the popular poker forums where he didn’t shy away from bragging about his caper. He befriended Matthew Brooks, a forum regular, and started exchanging private messages, phone calls and emails with him. As proof that he was indeed the “Biker Bandit” he even sent him pictures of two of the cranberries in his possession. He even admitted on one occasion that he was indeed the “asshole” who had pulled the heist.

Unfortunately for him, Brooks decided to share the information he obtained from him, and that’s what eventually led to his arrest.
The person with whom Brooks initially shared the information he had gathered on the Biker Bandit, was a Bellagio investigator. This guy set up a few meetings with Corleo, and the caper came full circle when he tried to sell some of the stolen chips to undercover LVPD officers.

Brooks took some flak on the forum for ratting the guy out, but he addressed such attacks in a statement in which he detailed his decision. He said he felt the need to share the information out of principle and that he wasn’t about to sacrifice the normalcy of his life for a strung-out junkie.

Corleo’s downfall wasn’t the first time a criminal plot got foiled by an online poker forum. Back when the UB cheating scandal was in full swing, it was an online poker forum post that raised awareness and that eventually prompted the right authorities to launch an actual investigation into the matter.

Live poker and sunglasses

Do you reckon that wearing sunglasses should be accepted as a mainstream practice at live poker tables? Do you wear sunglasses when you play and if so why? The only reason I’m asking these questions is that shades may soon be outlawed at the live poker tables (I bet you’ll still be allowed to wear whatever type and color you like back home in front of your computer), because – according to many – they spoil the game by allowing some of the players to hide behind this wall of partial anonymity.
The whole sunglasses at the poker table debate was started by Daniel Negreanu in a blog post of his in which he expressed joy over the fact that PokerStars’ The Big Game would not allow players to hide “like chickens” behind shades, through a direct rule addressing the issue.

Negreanu went on to detail how none of the top players who rose from among the online ranks wore sunglasses in live poker events. Tom Dwan, Patrick Antonius and Phil Galfond do not resort to such trickery indeed, and neither does Doyle Brunson or Phil Ivey. None of the greats feel the need to hide their eyes from their opponents, but does that mean an everyday Joe should be denied the option too?
After all, Stu Ungar wore sunglasses and Greg Raymer’s reptile-eyes spectacles have become something of a trademark accessory for the big man.
In what ways do shades create an advantage for beginners? First of all: sunglasses boost beginners’ confidence. They feel like they’re not out there naked, faced with the adversity that some of the world’s biggest poker players can bring upon them. I can certainly relate to this view. Even those guys who get used to staring down Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu over time, would certainly appreciate the refuge offered by the shades in the beginning.

Others say that the shades prevent their opponents from seeing when they look at them. That can be important in light of the fact that this way, opponents won’t be able to tell when our man gets a read on them. They basically allow a player to be much more stealthy at the table, kind of like an online player. As uptight and intimidated as they may be early on, as soon as the novelty factor wears off (and we know that happens pretty fast in live poker) people tend to relax. They catch themselves daydreaming at the table waiting for that hand which warrants some chips being pushed in to the middle. Shades prevent their opponents from being able to tell they’re daydreaming. This way, they will not telegraph the fact that they’ve just picked up a play-worthy hand when they finally do.
The advantages that sunglasses offer some players are quite obvious. Sure, they’re not for everybody for sure. A guy like Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu, gains a lot more by letting their opponents know when they look at them than by hiding their gaze. Incidentally, it is these very guys who have a lot to gain from shades being banned, who are against it.

The question of whether or not sunglasses should indeed be banned from competitions boils down to whether or not they threaten the integrity of the game. Many an expert readily admits that having one’s eyes hidden from his/her competitors does in fact facilitate cheating. With that in mind, I suppose I’ll have to back the ban myself, regardless of how cool sunglasses look on some folks at the table. Sunglasses (especially when combined with hoodies) don’t make good poker TV at all – as Negreanu didn’t fail to point out, so if we throw that into the balance as well, the decision is a relatively easy one.

WSOP – a look back at the bracelet events that are no longer around

With the WSOP’s November 9 final table almost upon us, it is time to take a look back at the events that resulted in bracelets for the lucky (and highly skilled) winners, including those that have been banished from the schedule of the world’s largest poker series.
This year, a total of 56 events awarded gold bracelets to their respective winners, spanning a selection of Holdem, Omaha and 7-Card Stud, featuring different betting structures and tournament formats. Because the WSOP is a living, breathing entity rather than a heartless collection of poker tournaments, it has been on a continuous evolutionary process ever since its inception. Various events were added, others were dropped. Various formats have been tried for the Main Event, some of which resulted in failures, while others stuck around.
For the 2010 Series, organizers had once again come up with a few changes to keep up with the public’s needs. One of those changes was the replacing of the HORSE format with an 8-game mix for the Player’s Championship. In order to make some of the Holdem tournaments more accessible for the masses, buy-ins had been lowered for them.
Every year in recent poker history, the WSOP has seen some changes. The Series consisted of only 12 events back in 1986. That number had climbed to 17 by 1999 and it continued to increase every year since. Some events were also dropped in the process though, and there’s no better way to conjure up some WSOP nostalgia than to take a look back at them, so here goes.

The Ace-to-Five Draw event was first introduced in 1971, when Johnny Moss won it for $10k. Ace-to-five Draw plays a lot like 2-7 triple draw, with only a few minor differences. It too is a lowball game, but straights and flushes count, so the best possible Ace-to –Five draw hand is the A,2,3,4,5. The event has had a bunch of noteworthy winners through the years, including Chau Giang, John Juanda and Men Nguyen. The very last such event was held during the 2004 edition of the WSOP, when Norm Ketchum won it for a prize of $84,500. Ketchum bested a starting field of 184 players, the third biggest in the history of the event. 1987 was the year when the event saw the most entrants (216) but that could probably be attributed to the fact that the buy-in was only $1,000 that year.

Fixed Limit Omaha is an event which saw its WSOP demise in 2003. First introduced in 1983, the Limit Omaha event last saw the light of a WSOP day in 2003. The introduction of the event was an obvious response to the newfound popularity that Limit Omaha had enjoyed in the 80s. All that came to an end when PLO took over. The first ever winner of a WSOP Limit Omaha event was none other than David Sklansky, who picked up $25,500 for his efforts. Eduard Scharf was the last one to win a Fixed Limit Omaha event in 2003. He took down $63,600.

Five-Card Stud was one of the most popular poker variants back in the 70s, when the WSOP started, so it was obviously included on the schedule. Despite the relatively large following it enjoyed, 5-Card Stud only appeared 3 times on a WSOP schedule. First introduced in 1971, the event was won all three times by Billy Boyd. The weird thing about the Five-Card Stud event is that Boyd is listed as the winner of the 1973 event, but according to the same records, there was only 1 entrant in that event. Could Boyd have won a WSOP bracelet simply by having entered an event?

The 2003 WSOP Main Event Final table participants – where they are now

The 2003 WSOP’s Main Event was undoubtedly one of the greatest moments in the history of the game. A true turning point, Chris Moneymaker’s 2003 win sparked the online poker crazy and pretty much single handedly turned poker into the global industry we know today.
Besides Moneymaker, there were other players at that 2003 final table too though, and while finishing at the final table didn’t quite mean as much financially as it does today, the rewards were still nice and many of the players involved went on to continue their careers as top-class professional players.
Eliminated in 9th place, and rewarded with $120k for his efforts, David Singer would probably be extremely disappointed with that haul by today’s standards, back then however, it turned out to be a driving force for him, as he started spending more and more time playing in online and live poker tournaments. One thing led to another for this talented player and following his WSOP final table presence, he amassed close to $4 million in tournament winnings. He made no fewer than 5 more WSOP final tables and won a bracelet in the $1,500 PLH event in 2008.

David Grey was the one sent packing in 8th place. His reward was slightly better: he picked up $160k, still rather unimpressive by the standards set by subsequent Big Dances. Unlike Singer, Grey had already had a WSOP bracelet before his 2003 final table presence. In its wake though, he too ramped up his tournament schedule and sure enough, he scored a second bracelet in 2005 in the $5,000 NL Deuce to Seven Draw side-event. Grey had been a relatively steady tournament earner before his 2003 Main Event sting, and he became even more prolific afterwards: he added another $886k to his already impressive tournament tally.
Young Pak finished 7th back in 2003 and since then, he’s pretty much disappeared off the map of prestigious live poker events. His tournament winnings had been relatively modest before his final table presence too at $34k, and they haven’t exactly turned northward afterwards either. He only managed to add $47k more, and his best post-2003-final table performance was a 246th place in the Big Dance in 2005.

Of all 2003 final table participants, Amir Vahedi was the one who faired the worst. He took down a quarter million dollars then, and he followed it all up with $2.2 million in additional tournament winnings after the 2003 Big Dance, but unfortunately he passed away in January 2010 due to diabetes complications. Right before his death though, he was regarded one of the friendliest and most beloved faces the game of poker had ever had.
Tomer Benvenisti, the 5th place finisher, had not been playing professionally before the 2003 WSOP. He had had no official tournament earnings and he didn’t really become successful after his $320k WSOP feat either.
Jason Lester, bounced in 4th place, was a high stakes cash game player. Just like Singer and Grey, he started playing in more tournaments after his final table stint. In 2010, Lester has been on something of a roll, finishing deep in several high stakes live events.
Dan Harrington, 3rd place man in the 2003 Big Dance, needs no introduction. For a player who has never been a full time pro, Harrington has done extremely well. The very next year (2004) he finished 4th in the Main Event. He also has several WPT final table finishes to his name. Most importantly, he is the author of some of the most popular poker theories and books.
Sam Farha (2003 runner-up), is also an established poker pro. A millionaire businessman, Farha has no fewer than 3 WSOP bracelets to his name, two of which came after his 2003 final table stint. At the time, he had already had a bracelet.

Chris Moneymaker, the winner, is one of PokerStars’ in-house pros today. Though many have doubted his skills over the years, he has proved his worth in several live and online events since. Though he hadn’t had a single cent in tournament winnings before 2003, he’s amassed more than 500k afterwards.

Overachievers and disappointments at the 2010 WSOP

The 2010 WSOP is (mostly) over and some players have obviously stolen all the headlines, while others – much better quoted – have disappointed bitterly. It’s not exactly rocket science to point a finger to the best performers, as well as to those who had promised, hyped, then failed to deliver.

Let’s start with those who brought something to the table. Frank Kassela. This guy has definitely been responsible for delivering some of the biggest surprises for layman observers this edition of the WSOP. In poker circles, Kassela had been known for a while before the WSOP, but he truly delivered a breakout performance that instantly put him onto the map for the entire poker community.
Kassela was the only player who managed to win 2 WSOP bracelets this year, and on top of that, he finished 3rd in the players’ championship event. He cashed six times including a final table, so he’s definitely a serious candidate for the “Player of the Year” title.
The only player who could rob him of the distinction would be Michael Mizrachi, who may yet win the Big Dance in November. Another guy who looked like he was going to snatch the POY title away at one point through the Series was Vladimir Schmelev. Unlike Kassela, the Russian came out of nowhere quite literally and first shocked the poker world by finishing second, behind Michael Mizrachi in the $50k player’s championship event. It’s true that he did not manage to get his hands on the gold, but he reached the final table in 4 more events, a more than genuine proof of his green felt prowess. The really impressive thing about Schmelev was that this was his debut on the US poker scene, and he managed to accumulate more than $1.14 million straight away.

When it comes to overachievers, the British contingent should definitely be given a collective award. At times, it appeared as though the Brits were going to take over the series and surely enough, they won no fewer than 4 bracelets among them and made several final tables. Pras Bansi was the one who spearheaded the British invasion. Neil Channing made a deep run shortly after. Steve Jelinek pocketed some gold too, and Richard Ashby and James Dempsey had excellent runs in several events too.
Now on to those who disappointed. Spotting winners is easy, because they’re all in the lime-light, but singling out those who stood out by simply not showing up, is a different kind of challenge. When it comes to not showing up, one name is definitely the top of the list: Joe Cada. The reigning WSOP Main Event Champ only played in 16 events, which in itself is quite surprising, but when one tops it off with the fact that he didn’t manage to even get close to cashing in any of these events, the situation turns downright dire.
Barry Greenstein was definitely another no-show, and on my part I’d say Daniel Negreanu’s WSOP run was extremely disappointing as well, but that may only be in light of the possibly exaggerated expectations I’d built up regarding the PokerStars pro. Then again, based on the same line of thought, Doyle Brunson, Mike Matusow, Annie Duke and Chris Ferguson would also have to be included among the let-downs.

It may be that this is a new time and age though and the WSOP window for the above mentioned names has closed. For Annette Obrestad though, that was certainly not the case. She was the poster-face of the series and there was a tremendous amount of expectation burdening her, to which it wasn’t exactly a surprise that she couldn’t live up.

In the wake of the 2010 WSOP

The World Series of Poker 2010′s Main Event has come to an end (or at least to a break before the 9 remaining players jump at each others’ throats again in November to decide the winner). The time to reflect on what’s been done and to look back at the accomplishments and disappointments is here. The story of the Mizrachi brothers would definitely have to go into the “accomplishments” column. The three of them embarked on a veritable invasion of the Main Event, and for a while there, it seemed like there was nothing that could stand in their way. Two of them did hit the rail following the bursting of the money bubble though. Michael, the oldest, the winner of the $50k Players Championship Event, did make it to the November Nine though, albeit on a short-ish stack. The fact that he’s a NL Holdem specialist though certainly makes him one of the favorites. The Mizrachi story is only one speck of color on the canvas of a Main Event which has apparently been about business only more than ever before.

In previous editions, tomfoolery was right at home in the main event venue. Folks dressed up in various costumes on account of having lost a prop bet, or just to shock. Who could forget Tom Dwan’s antics, or various folks dressing up in diapers, togas and who knows what else. This year, there was only one batman costume, and by Day 3, none of the non-poker celebrities were present at the tables anymore. Those who were left weren’t keen on fooling around, and thus the whole thing seemed a lot more sober than usually. The new “serious” image created by this year’s event was considered a plus by many of the experts though. With legal online poker looking more likely than ever during the past few years, poker needs this type of image, if it’s ever to pass as a sport rather than a game.
What poker does not need though, is the influx of playmates and porn-starlets used by various sites to push their brand. Women who played in past Main Events hadn’t exactly been looked at as top-notch competition either, but this year, the bar has been lowered to new lows and I’m not sure how well that bodes for the image of serious female poker players.

This year, the ladies made up only a meager 3%, down from last year’s 5%, and no woman made it to Day 7. The tough pros we all know and respect were there, and some of them did indeed manage to build monster stacks in the early going, but luck did not side with them, and by the time the field had whittled down to 270, only 2 women were left in contention. The last woman standing this year was Breeze Zuckerman and she was eventually eliminated in 121st place.
Another thing that poker probably doesn’t need is the bounty hunt that commences as soon as the field thins down a little. Agents of various online and offline poker interests descend upon the tables, making it quite impossible for the remaining participants to partake in a decent bathroom break. Such agents have been a nuisance in the past, but the situation appears to grow from bad to worse each year.
The attempts of the Harrah’s staff to announce the names and hometowns of each player as they busted out (after the field had been reduced to a set number), were quite obviously a feat well worthy of an achievement column somewhere too. Given the amount of trouble writing down some of the name of the players gives me, I can honestly say I feel for those guys.

A word on the WSOP final tables

This year, an interesting trend has surfaced at the WSOP. Unlike in past editions, instead of letting the field play down to the final table on Day 2 of most events, the organizers have decided for some reason to call off the action with several tablefuls of players remaining. The survivors would then return to action on day 3 and play down to a winner, which means that under these circumstances, the final table is barely recognized as a noteworthy milestone in the poker tournament. How exactly does that impact the overall show-value of the tournament? In years past, a select group of players would go to bed on Day 2 knowing that they’ve made a WSOP final table, an achievement the importance of which couldn’t possibly be downplayed. Making a final table at the World’s most prestigious poker series used to be reason to celebrate. People would make calls to friends, they would fly them in to assemble a noisy throng of supporters on the rail the following day. They would dress up, and generally instill a festive atmosphere on the final day of the event. All that is now gone…

How could one be expected to fly in relatives and friends with 20-30 players remaining in contention? It would be the ultimate cooler to leave the tourney in 30th place with all those people cheering on the rail. Looking sharper than usual at the final table is also a thing of the past. No longer will Gavin Smith show up wearing a suit and a hat to the final table. Worn-out jeans coupled with a T-shirt or a hoodie is all one will see at the final table these days. The moment has pretty much lost all significance as players are moved to the final table not even being able to give it a second thought.

Exactly what was it that made organizers introduce these changes? Could it be something linked to poker strategy? In years past, players could use the break before the final table to plot a strategy-approach. Over the course of the seconds day of action, and right before the final table was reached, players would develop a history with one another. Using that data, a skilled poker player could always make adjustments for the final stretch, that could mean quite a lot in the overall economy of the tournament.
Was it the organizers’ intention to disrupt such efforts and to deny skilled players the advantage they could grab this way? If that was indeed their intention, they’ve certainly overshot the mark on this one. Not only have they made it impossible for players to prepare for the final table, they’ve made it quite a bit tougher for them to play their regular A-game too. Day 3 usually kicks off at around 3 PM. That means the heads-up stage will usually commence at around 5-6 in the morning. Regardless of the number of breaks inserted in-between, this stretch is just way too much for a poker player to cope with. These guys need to focus on a level you and I may never have experienced. Imagine them doing that while overwhelmed with fatigue, dreaming about a cozy bed and pillow. That goes a long way towards explaining why there seem to be so many mistakes made by these otherwise more than capable players towards the final stages of tournaments.
Apparently though the explanation behind the weird shift in the schedule is a simple one: while the tournament structures have stayed the same as in past editions, the number of registrants has increased, thus the field is no longer able to slim down enough by the end of day 2.

WSOP Milestones

With the WSOP Main Event drawing near, it’s becoming more and more obvious which the most memorable moments of the series will be. Such “landmark” moments happen in high stakes poker tournaments all the time, but some of them are just a notch above the rest.
Take Men Nguyen’s bubble exit in the $5,000 PLO event. That’s definitely quite a moment, well worthy of the “most dramatic WSOP 2010 bubble” title. There were 46 players left in the game, and Nguyen had been feuding with Ryan D’Angelo for a while. He had a rather decent stack as he’d done pretty well up until that moment. After a preflop give and take, which cost Nguyen more than half his stack, the flop fell Qs,Jd,9s. Feeling pot-committed and trying to appear as menacing as possible, The Master shoved all-in. Holding As,Ah,9h,5h in his pocket, D’Angelo was faced with a really tough decision. After some time spent in the tank, he decided to make the call though and sure enough, it proved to be the right decision. The dealer spread The Master’s cards over the table, to reveal a stunning Ad,8d,4d,3c. Embarrassed as he was to be caught red handed on such an obvious bluff, Nguyen had nothing further to add.

As far as bad beats go, Danny Wong’s, in the $25k 6-max may not have been the most outstanding one, but it was certainly up there with the best of them. In less than an hour, Danny went from hero (chip leader) to zero (railbird), but it wasn’t like he could do anything about it. At dinner break, he was among those with large stacks, and less then an hour later, he was out, wondering how his top set could betray him in such an utterly unlikely manner. When Danny got all his chips into the middle, holding pocket 8s on a board of 8,7,3,9, everything looked perfect. Life was fine and the sun was shining as his opponent tabled pocket 3s for a dominated bottom set. The 3 on the river was like a nasty military-issue boot stomping onto a child’s sand-castle city. If that doesn’t hurt and make you want to cry foul, I don’t know what does.

Phil Hellmuth’s final table in the $1,500 PLO 8 or better event was certainly one of the milestones of this year’s Series too. It’s no secret that Hellmuth hasn’t really been at the forefront of the high stakes tournament (or cash game) action lately. The Ultimate Bet pro seemed to finally get things going in the above said event, but he eventually withered away, bounced in 8th place. His 12th poker bracelet once again drifting away in the mist of uncertainty, the poker world took little notice of the sorrow of a player whose fan-base is increasingly looking like a one-man operation.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there’s Allan Kessler. The outspoken tournament structure critic has finished in the money in no fewer than 8 events this year, an achievement which turned him into one of the most successful WSOP 2010 players, and a serious candidate for the Player of the Year title. Kessler’s highest finish was 2nd place in the $10,000 7-Card Stud 8 or better World Championship event, which earned him a $276,000 reward. With all the trash talkers and the controversial personalities taking up most of the spotlight, it is sometimes refreshing to see one of the good-guys score a few for the home team too.

The Tournament of Champions is back on the WSOP schedule. After the first couple of days of action, Mike Matusow leads the field, and even though it would probably be a long-shot to include him in the “good guys” category mentioned above, I’d still like to see him walk away with the gold for some reason.

Next Page »