8/16/10,
Leeann Tweeden Bats for the Armed Forces »»
The poker community knows Leeann Tweeden as the sexy hostess of the NBC late night television show Poker After Dark. Many may also recall her as the even sexier model who has posed for leading magazines like Playboy and Swimwear USA. But very few know that Leeann is the daughter of an Air Force mechanic [...] Read more...
Did I hear correctly this weekend that all three people who won the WSOP Main Event prize package in the BBT5 this past spring all took the $T on full tilt instead of playing in the Main Event?
Do people even want there to be more BBTs and more free stuff for us?
I mean, can this even be possible?
The best part about this is that people blew their effing tops for days on end when Al first announced earlier this year that the BBT Invitational was going to be just that -- an invitational -- extended only to those people that full tilt felt were a good gamble to actually use the money they graciously hand out to ungrateful bloggers every year to actually play in the actual World Series of Poker. Full tilt wanted the invitational because in the past people just would not use full tilt's funds to play in poker tournaments. They also wouldn't blog about the tournaments, even the few times when past BBT winners did actually play in the events they won prize packages to in the BBT.
One of the things I always try to teach my kids and the others around me is ownership of your decisions. If I decide to take a big risk and willingly don't use my seat belt whenever I drive 5 miles or less from my house, then you won't hear me complaining that my car was unsafe when I do get into an accident close to home and suffer worse injuries than I would have if I had chosen to wear the belt. If I decide I'm going to make a bunch of flagrantly racist or homophobic remarks in front of mixed company, then you won't hear me getting mad at someone who gives me legitimate crap for what I said being hateful and bigoted. And it's just as true in a poker context by the way -- if I decide I'm going to try to get it allin preflop automatically any time I find a pocket pair 66 or higher, and I do just that by pushing in 100 big blinds early in a big tournament and I lose a race to AK or AQ, you won't hear me complaining. I make a decision, and then I own that decision, for better or worse. This notion of personal responsibility is one of my defining qualities and something I focus on regularly, be it at the poker table or the table of life.
All of you people who gave Al endless, interminable shit for what was originally I think only around 50-60 players in the first BBT5 Invitational, you as a group need to learn to own your own decisions. It's gone on for years at this point, and I personally cannot believe it. We're bloggers for crying out loud, and the only reason full tilt ever came to us with prizes the first time around was for the marketing possibilities of paying for bloggers to play in and write about the biggest poker tournaments in the world. Instead, we as a group have repeatedly, consistently -- for several years now, amazingly -- given a huge, fat middle finger to full tilt and made them sorrier and sorrier each year about the money they have largely wasted on the BBT winners. Shit, bloggers have even won the money from full tilt in the BBT, and gone to Vegas and played with that money, and they still don't blog about it, not one whit! And don't get me wrong, I'm not judging anyone for any decisions they have made with respect to money won from full tilt or any online poker site -- but you're damn right I am judging those people for not using the money they won, and then for complaining to Al that they were not included in the Invitational the next time the BBT comes around.
Own. Your. Decisions.
If there is ever another BBT tournament series, full tilt should definitely, obviously, undeniably use an invitational format, at least for a big part of the determination of who wins the WSOP prize packages. And most of the hypocritical whining we'll inevitably see about it don't even deserve the time of day. Dickheads will post on their blog about not being included in the Invitiational like it's their job, but damn when they actually win the money, they and their blogs just vanish like a fart in the wind.
Without a doubt this is one of the most pathetic aspects of poker bloggers today. Read more...
It's really amazing what full tilt has done with the FTOPS. I know ultimately this post is going to read an awful lot like at least one or two other posts I have done here either 3 months, 6 months, 9 months or exactly a year ago, but what can I say. Full tilt keeps making the same mistake, and I keep suffering as a result, so you read about it here.
Go back just about a week right here and you can read all about how I was looking forward to sitting down to play some FTOPS tournaments for the first time in at least a year. I haven't been playing hardly any mtt's recently and the upcoming FTOPS seemed like as good a chance as any I would have to get back into the thick of things and to play for some real money. I was amazed in that post because I literally hadn't been looking forward to the FTOPS this much in a long, long time, maybe a few years even, and at the time if you had asked me how many events would I play in the series, I would have probably guessed somewhere around 7 or 8 tournaments total.
Instead, here we are on Friday, nearing the end of the entire tournament series, and how many events have I played in total? Just one. How pathetic is that? And it's not pathetic of me -- it's pathetic of full tilt, as usual. I mean, it's not like I ran out of money or "broke even" one too many times. And it's not like I've been too busy, or just haven't been interested in playing poker after all on these days. Much the opposite -- I've sat at my pc probably all but one or two of the last nine nights since FTOPS XVII began and played in poker tournaments. Some of them with buyins as large or larger than the corresponding FTOPS event that night! The FTOPS tournaments, on an almost nightly basis, just do not stack up to what else is available out there for the mtt player to partake in.
It's almost like full tilt is going out of their way to make the nighttime events bad, and/or to put the good events at times when Americans with day jobs cannot make the games. I mean, the very first event of FTOPS XVII was the standard series-opening $216 nlh event, which I played that same night as my FTOPS post referred to above. I lasted not more than 90 minutes or so, at which point I managed to run 15 outs into top set that turned into a boat before I knew what hit me. It was a fine time, I enjoyed playing for some big money, and although I did not at all appreciate the setup hand I took it in stride and moved on to bigger and better things that night.
But since then? Look at the events at night so far after FTOPS Event #1:
There was Event #4 on Thursday night, the $535 HORSE event hosted by Svetlana Gromenkova, truly one of the top five worst HORSE players I have ever bumped into on my travels in online poker. I mean, you can't get it in behind more frequently and make poorer poker decisions than this biatch seems to do all the time, be it in sitngos, FTOPS or anywhere else I happen to run into her. Anyways, I tried one quick satellite to this event -- Gromenoka sucked me out like the horse that she is on the bubble -- but I've had my blood boiling several times previously in this event over the regoddamdiculous play even for $535, so I did not make much of an effort as the combination of the donkey game with the large buyin just makes this not all that attractive for a guy with my game to play.
Then Event #7 on Friday night? Stud-8. Again, I've been playing hi-lo longer than any other poker game out there, but the thought of chipping in $216 to a pool for a bunch of chasedonkeys to go nutso when they only have a decent draw at a decent hand for one-half the pot, and then counterfeit me and win, it's enough to make my eyes bulge out of their sockets. And let's not forget, host Aaron Bartley is perhaps the only numbskull on full tilt that even gives the lovely Svetlana a run for her money in terms of cluelessness. So that one was a no-go.
As usual, the geniuses at ftp did not run any events on Saturday or Sunday night -- far and away the prime time to play for anyone in the United States -- even though they have increased their FTOPS schedule to include not one, not two but three FTOPS events on each weekend day. And yet still nothing later than 6pm ET. Sheer brilliance. That's strikes through five days and 13 events of FTOPS, with only one tournament I actually attended to show for it -- me, a guy who has the money and the desire to play, was actually looking forward and anticipating FTOPS this time around, and who has played and won in every single poker game FTOPS spreads. It's unreal.
Then on to this week, where Monday started with the 1k buyin nlh event, a format which I again attempted exactly one time to satellite in to, but which otherwise is just not worth the buyin for a guy like me to play against some of the best competition on the site. Plus, I knew there would always be Tuesday night this week, which was? A $535 shootout tournament. 3-way shootout in fact. Something that only a true and total moron would ever pony up his hard earned money for. If I won $160 million in the lottery I wouldn't bother playing a 729-runner shootout at $535 a clip. No way no how, that's got to be the worst nighttime tournament in a whole schedule chock full of horrific events.
Finally this past Wednesday night saw FTOPS Event #22, which I had already seen was holdem and thus I figured finally I would get to play another event. Or not. Turns out it was a $322 rebuy. I mean, come on guys!! I'm the best rebuy tournament player I know bar none, and I would not even consider ponying up what it would likely cost to buy a fair chance in that event. Of course I logged in Thursday night as well, and of course it was $216 stud hi. One of the donkiest, most cards-driven games there is, a game where I know for a fact any fuckhole with any two pairs will call down through the river regardless of what any other board is showing or the action from the other players. Not even considering it, sorry.
And here we are. Before I am home tonight, FTOPS Event #27 will be underway. 27 events in to the FTOPS, again an FTOPS that I was anticipating highly and looking forward to participating in. And boooom, one event I've played, way back in Event #1. And on tap for tonight at 9pm ET? Razz. $322 a pop. What a fuckajoke.
And for all you smartasses out there who want to critique my willingness to play such a broad smattering of games, let's be clear about one thing: I would play a regular nlh tournament at almost any buyin below the 1k. I would play a 6-max nlh event at the same levels. I would play any pot-limit Omaha format of any kind -- hi-low or PLO -- at almost any buyin. I would play any rush version of nl or omaha in the formats I mentioned above. I would play any heads-up event in almost any game at almost any buyin level. I would play a knockout event of any of these games at almost any buyin below 1k. I would even play that shorthanded limit holdem event they've run several times as part of FTOPS in the recent past. Basically, there's only 7 or 8 types of tournaments I wouldn't participate in as part of the FTOPS, and they've managed to screw us Americans so badly that those 7 or 8 events are basically the nightly FTOPS schedule over the past week and a half. It's just unreal.
It's no wonder really that everyone on the planet already agrees that full tilt has utterly butchered their FTOPS brand. The powers that be with the FTOPS are Just Plain Clueless. Read more...
Interestingly, a little over half of those who voted in the poll earlier this week indicated that they still believe that Tiger Woods will end his career with the all-time lead in major championships won, meaning that he would have to win at least five more majors in his still-young career.
While that number may sound high to many of you out there, to me it illustrates the the stark change in the public's perception of Tiger's golf abilities after the past couple of months. Obviously, if you had asked this question in a poll sometime in the summer of 2009, before Tiger's Thanksgiving night crash into a fire hydrant and all the shitstorm that ensued, the results would probably have come in around 95% of respondents believing Tiger would break all the time record for major championships in professional golf. That surprises no one. But what is a little surprising is that if you had asked this poll question just a few months back, after Tiger had been busted with all the cheating and the disgustery, after his scripted press conference just preceding his return to the game, and after he had announced that he would be coming back before the 2010 Masters, I still think you would have had probably 85-90% of voters who believed that Tiger's game would not be affected, or at least not be affected much, or not for very long.
What we've gotten instead, however, is a truncated season full of almost's and not-quites from Tiger Woods this year, with a few horrifying performances thrown in for good measure. After last weekend's debacle, the only question left for this season it seems is:
How will Tiger Woods fare at the PGA Championship this weekend? Let's see how smart my reading audience is:
In April 2010 the process of selecting appropriate women associated with poker for the Women in Poker Hall of Fame (WiPHOF) had begun. The selection is over and three women will be inducted into this august group on September 3 in a glittering ceremony at the Golden Nugget Casino in Las Vegas.
The first of the [...] Read more...
It was not too long ago that the professional poker player Phil ?The Unibomber? Laak broke the world record for endurance poker. His endurance skills will now come into play again because he was just involved in a major accident. The Unabomber had to be hospitalized with lacerations to his right eye and broken bones.
It [...] Read more...
The top three signs that Tiger Woods is completely and totally off his game.
1. Scores. Tiger Woods finished this weekend's tournament at WGC-Bridgestone at +18, a full 30 shots off of the lead, and ended the tournament in 78th place out of 80 players in the weekend's tournament. This marks Tiger's worst score in any golf tournament as a professional player, and his worst four-round tournament at Firestone in his career, a course where he has previously failed to finish in worse than 4th place at any time in his professional career. This weekend saw Tiger shoot all four rounds over par at a golf tournament for the first time in nearly eight years, and only the fourth time in his 15-year career, the first time outside of one of the sport's four major championships.
2. The Goatee. Those who watched Tiger or saw this highlights this weeknend noted that the goatee is back for the first time in a few years. Although Tiger has done this before, I felt like I could tell from watching him this weekend that this time the goatee was there with a real purpose: to spark a comeback, a rebirth. To convince the others he was playing against, to convince the fans, and, I sense, most of all to convince himself that something has palpably changed from his play over most of the rest of this year, which has already seen some of Tiger's most human-looking performances in an otherwise glorious professional golfing career. As I looked at Tiger's scruff around his mouth this weekend, I could not help but think back to when Michael Jordan cracked out the goatee when he returned to the NBA in Washington and tried to help make the Wizards a champion or at least a contender. At some point when the greats who never thought they could lose it, suddenly feel like they've lost it, they turn to a cosmetic change like facial hair, haircut, their clothes or uniform, etc. as if that is actually going to have some positive impact on their sports performance. And, as was the case with MJ a decade ago, it rarely ever works.
3. Attitude. More than just reading the box scores on Monday morning, if you actually watched Tiger Woods play this weekend, then you saw a guy who is wholly different from the golfer we have watched so many times step up in the clutch, whack the ball down the middle of the fairway 25 yards further than anyone else, and just blow away the field on Sunday, if not on Thursday. Tiger simply did not exhibit one whit of the perserverance, of the concentration, and most of all of that absolute focus and insistence on winning, that has made people like him, Michael Jordan, etc. so successful over their careers. For the first time that I can recall, Tiger was walking up to the ball on Saturday and especially on Sunday, barely taking any time to prepare, make a read, take some practice swings or anything, and just hauling off and wailing the ball. Most often into the crowd, off some trees, or wherever it may land. In many many years of watching Tiger do his thing, this is the first and only time I have seen him looking so vulnerable, and just generally so damned human.
It was almost enough to actually make me sad for the guy. Read more...
As far as manipulators go, Brett Favre is proving himself to be one of the all-time best. I mean, this is a guy who single-handedly ruined the offseason of his last few teams with the Packers, and now two years running with the Vikings as well. A guy who hasn't been to training camp in a good 3+ years even though he's started every single regular season game of all three seasons. A guy who talked the Jets into releasing him halfway through a two-year contract a couple of years back, just so (as he claimed) he could re-sign with the Packers and then retire in the yellow and gold, and then not two weeks later was talking about signing a new deal with the Vikings. So we are dealing with a manipulator extraordinaire here. But, if you can get past the way Favre continues to manipulate things to all work just the way he wants them, the selfishness, the pomp and circumstance involved in everything Brett Favre does all year long, what he just did over the past two days with the Vikings is actually pretty damn smart.
Think about it: Brett Favre knows he wants to play again, but he also knows that he has zero chance of even considering going to camp. He knows that decision is not and would not be taken lightly by his teammates, who are out there busting their humps doing twoadays every day in the heat starting this month. It's frowned upon by everyone in the NFL to skip out on camp and then arrive for the season to start. And, on top of his long-seen desire to avoid training camp, Favre also knows that his recently-operated-on ankle is still hurting him.
So what does Favre really want to do? Favre wants to tell Brad Childress that he would like to play football in 2010, but that he isn't sure if he'll be able to play on his injured foot this season, and even if so, exactly when he'll be able to play. The problem is, even John Madden would have to take Favre's schlong out of his mouth for a few minutes to say what a dick move that would be for Favre to do to the Vikings, basically telling them, "I'm the best quarterback in the NFC if I play, but I don't know if or when I can play this year. But don't necessarily go get someone else (as if it isn't too late for them to do that already), because I really would like to play this year and I hope that I can." Given the way Favre has handled his future in the NFL over each of the past five or six seasons at this point (the last few with the Pack, the Jets season, and now two with Minnesota at least), for him to bust out with that kind of a put-off and totally eff up the Vikings' entire 2010 season hands-down like that would be just terrible, and Favre knows it and knows that even his fading teflon image would not withstand that kind of a middle finger to his team.
So what can Favre to do to get what he wants, and yet not be ridden out of town for doing it? How can he get the people of Minnesota, the fans, Brad Childress and the rest of the Vikes' coaching staff, and his teammates all to allow him to just come back to the Vikes whenever the hell he wants and not even be mad at him for doing it? Is there even a possible way to get that outcome?
Sure is: Retire first.
That's right. Don't make it too official or anything, but send some text messages to a few choice players that imply that you're hanging it up. Make Brad Childress deal for 24 hours with the thought of a 2010 season with Tavaris Jackson at quarterback instead of Brett Favre. Make each and every one of his teammates face the reality of busting ass this year for likely a crappy team with no one with the chops to lead on the offense. Force every Vikings fan in Minnesota and around the country to accept that this nucleus's window is closed, their run is over, and the team will go back immediately to being an afterthought and an also-ran in the NFC playoff picture. Then you come back a day later and tell them that you are willing to play after all (after the team offered him $7 million in guarantees and incentives on top of the $13 million Favre was already slated to earn in 2010), but that you just don't know when yet, and suddenly the guy goes from being a goat to being an absolute hero to everyone associated with the Minnesota Vikings organization.
It's the oldest trick in the book, really. Get everyone's expectations so totally beaten down, their hopes to hopelessly crushed, and then you can spring on them the news that is still the same exact horrible thing you're doing to the team, but only now it will seem like an improvement instead of a rooking. In fact, play your cards just right, scare 'em enough with your retirement talk, and those people will suddenly think your 2010 plan is just plain awesome.
So you gotta hand it to Favre. Sure, his arrogance and his egotism are unrivaled by basically anyone in his sport. Maybe all sports in general even. But the guy just showed us all again that when he is truly willing to pull out all the stops, Favre knows how to get what he wants as good as anyone in the spotlight today. Read more...
Poker babes have an affinity for reality shows. Annie Duke acquitted herself fabulously on Celebrity Apprentice. Then Tiffany Michelle and Maria Ho paired up for The Amazing Race, where they did not fare as well. The latest to join the reality television bandwagon is poker babe Beth Shak. A report in the New York Post [...] Read more...
Does anybody out there really believe that we won't see Brett Favre donning a Minnesota Vikings uniform at some point during the 2010 NFL regular season?
The only thing I can say is that, while I know some perfectly nice Vikings fans myself, it is only fair that Minny fans have to deal now for two seasons with what Green Bay fans had to deal with for what, Favre's last four seasons with the Packers? I mean sure, he only officially "retired" two other times, but how many other years did he tell the team he didn't know if he would play next year, and then go on to string Packers management along for months on end?
Odds in my view are:
25% Favre is retired. For good.
50% Favre returns to quarterback the Vikings in mid-season, with the team's offense non-existent and the season on the line, once his ankle is feeling better.
25% Favre announces this week that he will return to the Vikings once the team offers him more money, more prestige, and most of all after he gets his name all over Sportscenter for another couple of days.
So, 3 to 1 that Favre comes back to the Vikes this year at some point. Some retirement. Read more...
Not a ton going on lately. Just work stuff really. It’s been a great few weeks post-WSOP to just relax, take it easy and not be running around all the time. I’ve been eating most of my meals at home and I’ve kept it extremely healthy. Obviously I’ve also being going to CrossFit Las Vegas a lot and I’m enjoying it although I do have some reservations about it (I’ll get into that down below).
First, with work stuff, we’ve had a tough week or so with PocketFives. We did a few things to make the server go faster and it obviously broke a bunch of stuff, somehow. So while hopefully most users never noticed anything, we did have a lot of problems on the site. We still have some problems lingering but most of the important ones are fixed. It has set back a really cool feature that we were about to launch so I’m a bit frustrated by that. That being said, IT work always comes with setbacks and bugs so it isn’t like it’s totally unexpected. Hopefully that new feature will be out next week.
Getting back to CrossFit, I need to explain something about how it works in order to make this point. Most of the workouts are timed and you start as a class. So the fastest people finish first and so on down to the least fit people. Now given the makeup of a CrossFit class, most of the people are super fit and they blow through a lot of these workouts pretty quickly (not easily, but quickly… they have high work capacities). But I’ve noticed a few people beating me who really should not be beating me. They’re pretty average athletes, not in any sort of special shape, etc. Not that I’m a great CrossFitter by any means but it didn’t make sense that these same few people (about five of them who I thought shouldn’t have been beating me) kept finishing workouts ahead of me.
The other day we did a workout where we did front squats, push ups (with strict form and you had to lift your hands off the ground at the bottom of each one to prove your chest was on the ground — try it sometime, it’s much harder) and a 400 meter run. We did that, I think, 3 or 4 times. So the first round I notice that one of the suspects was out the door and on his run WAAAAY too fast. I didn’t count his reps because I was too focused on my own stuff but when I saw him run out the door I was like, no way did he just finish his first round of squats and pushups. So after I got back from my run, he was finishing up his front squats (not sure if he did them all) and he got down into his pushup position. I was doing my front squats and it was easy to keep an eye on him so I counted his reps. He was supposed to do 15. He did four good ones, two poor ones, laid on the ground for a sec, then got up and sprinted out the door! What?!? That wasn’t even close to what he was supposed to do.
Anyway, over the last week or two I’ve started to keep an eye on some of the other people I suspected of not really being able to beat me. Pretty much the same thing. Not quite as bad as 6 out of 15 but a TON of stuff like doing 18 instead of 21, 10 instead of 12, etc. No wonder I pass people on the runs, they can’t shortcut that part. And no wonder they can’t deadlift much (basically impossible to really cheat on that without putting your back in harm’s way). Contrary to what you might think, this doesn’t bother me. I was happy to discover this because it makes me feel better about finishing near the bottom on a lot of workouts. I’m actually finishing in the middle and only the long-time CrossFitters are really crushing me (as they should). So this was good news. Now that I know I can throw out the times of certain people I can focus more on my own workouts which is really what I’d like to be doing … I just had to know why I wasn’t stacking up and my curiosity got the better of me.
On another note, I’ve noticed more and more people on Facebook with their photos app removed. Or at least they are hiding me (and probably others obv) from seeing photos they’re tagged in. I find this to be an uneven level of sharing. It’s the same reason why I usually turn down random friend requests from people (I get a lot of random poker people who I have never met adding me, not sure if that happens to everyone or not) if they don’t have a picture of themselves as their profile picture. After all, this is Facebook — hence it’s meant to have your real picture there. So I’ve recently decided that anyone I come across without a photos app installed is going on my list of people who won’t see my photos app either. I’m also seriously considering taking a break from Facebook and hiding my profile for a bit. I’d just like to see how much more I would get done with it gone for like a month or something. I don’t have anything against the concept of Facebook. I actually really like it. But it is a productivity drain and I wonder what I would do with my extra hour a day or whatever it adds up to.
I still need to post that P5s party report. It’s been over a month since the party so I think it’s way overdue.
You know what? For the first time in a long, long time, I am actually mildly excited about the FTOPS. FTOPS XVII we're up to already, and I believe it starts this week, on Wednesday night August 4 to be exact. The opening event is as usual a standard $216 buyin no-limit tournament that you are likely to see me sitting in on Wednesday evening.
In the past, I've spent many a night trying to outlast my opponents in full tilt's quarterly mtt series. I've had FTOPS series where I've managed to participate in 9 or 10 of the events, which back when I started playing used to constitute around 2/3 of the total events in the series. I specifically recall cashing in five FTOPS events in one series way back when, which I am still reminded of whenever I bump into my stack of identical black FTOPS hats that full tilt sent me during that series, which was probably a good three full years ago or more by now.
As the FTOPS has expanded, however, and as it continues to arrive every three months and thus cheapen somewhat the value of the FTOPS franchise in my eyes, I have found myself playing in the FTOPS less and less. This decision of course is not meant to injure anybody or designed to be done in protest or anything, but rather I have just not been nearly as interested as the FTOPS has become more and more accessible to everyone, and as running into a gold jersey at my table on full tilt has become more and more commonplace at the limits I play. And most of all, full tilt has not done what I would call a good job in updating the tournaments that comprise the FTOPS. Over the past few quarterly series, I have found myself only interested in playing in two or three of the 25+ events in the entire series, either because the timing is off (as my longtime readers know I will only play in the nighttime events), or because it's not exactly my dream when I wake up in the morning to play razz for a $322 buyin with a bunch of shizzheads who can't even spell "razz" and that only has a 150k guarantee, or to play a $216 limit holdem chasemonkeydonklefest with a 250k guarantee and that will slowly deteriorate into effectively push-and-pray no-limit play with very low Ms by the time the final table rolls around. Meanwhile, there's still no high-buyin heads-up tournament as part of FTOPS, the site that lets you "play with the pros"? No $500 heads-up event or something? Come on, full tilt.
Anyways, this is not a post to slam on full tilt for what has gone down with the FTOPS. Rather, this is to say that I might actually have some interest in playing in some FTOPS events over the next couple of weeks, which is the first time I have said that in at least this year, if not longer. I cannot have participated in more than one or two total FTOPS tournaments so far out of about 60 this year spread over two series, and yet, this time around, I'm actually looking forward to getting involved and might even be willing to play an off-game in order to get my mtt junkie fix.
You see, for those few of you who don't already secretly watch every table I ever play at online, I really have not been playing mtt's lately. For a good long while, actually. I mean, of course out in Vegas in early June I was Mr. MTT. I played mtts for probably about 60% of my total time awake in Las Vegas over four days, and another 20% was spent playing cash poker as well. But as I've written about a couple of times since returning from the desert earlier this year, even though I had some great success at mtt's while out in Sin City, since then I have had a lot of trouble getting mentally up for playing in tournaments. And don't get me wrong -- I've still been playing a fair amount of online poker. Not nearly as much as when I am on a major mtt bender like seems to have been the case over maybe 60-70% of the time over the past few years, but I've been playing a fair amount of poker despite what has been an extremely hectic life both personally and professionally. Basically given all the things going on with me right now, I have been limiting myself to very short stints, things like brief cash sessions, or most commonly recently, turbo and even super turbo sngs. I've done this before, gone through a period where I am burned out on mtt's for a time, and I always come back to the good old fashioned large-field mtt, which will always be the most challenging form of poker to excel at in my book. But lately I just haven't been feeling it, and I bet I haven't played in 10 true mtt's over the past two full months if I had to guess.
But when I saw this week that FTOPS is back, something stirred inside me that I haven't felt for a few months now. A twinge, an urge. Nothing more than an inkling really, but the feeling was there and it was real. The beast is coming out of his slumber. I am pretty sure he wants to play in some of these FTOPS tournaments.
And what kind of a degenerate poker player would I be if I didn't let the beast have what he wants? Read more...
Oooooof. Don't let the mainstream media fool you -- this was not a good weekend for "Inception". Sure, by Sunday night "Inception" had barely edged out Steve Carrell's "Dinner for Schmucks" -- another movie I can't even believe somebody made -- for its third straight week of the top movie of the week honors. And yes, after three weekends the flick has grossed over $190 million worldwide, meaning that Chris Nolan and everybody else involved with the film is pretty much happy from a financial perspective. This thing has made back the studio's investment in it and then some, and there is something to be said for that regardless of the actual quality of the underlying film.
But, back to this past week's performance for the movie, the truth behind the spin you're seeing is how close that battle this week really was for "Inception" to hold on to the top spot for one more week, after less than three weeks of release so far in the U.S. After busting out with just a shade over $100 million in sales in its first week of release, Inception's box office dropped by more than a third in its second week to $65.6 million, reflecting the less than stellar word of mouth for the incomprehensible pyschodrama. But it was this third week -- once all the diehard fans who already knew they would see this movie no matter what have by now gotten out there and seen it -- when the real dropoff occurred. By Week 3, this is when you're basically looking at a few stragglers who haven't had any free time yet to get to the theater, but mostly otherwise it is a word-of-mouth audience. Third- and fourth-weekers are mostly comprised of people seeing a movie for the second or third time (who would ever pay $12 more than once to be confused by a blithering idiot?), and people who might have skipped this like most films but instead heard from someone they trust that it was worth seeing. Word of mouth is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to a movie either becoming an icon of pop culture, or being forgotten in a few months when the next "blockbuster" hits theaters. And on that front, "Inception" is, of course, failing fast. In its third week, the movie took in just over $27 million in gross receipts, reflecting a drop of around 60% since week 2 and now nearly 75% since its first-week gross.
Now I know there are you smart-alecks out there who are going to try to insist that this is a very typical performance for a great movie, I don't know what I'm talking about, etc etc etc. So let's just back this up with some facts as always, and then you can go on your merry way blowing the movie, mmmmkay?
Let's start with "The Matrix". I'm picking this movie because it is one I have heard compared to "Inception" several times by several people, and even the movie's creators have cited "The Matrix" as a critical inspriation for much of the filming and the direction. "The Matrix" opened to a paltry $10 million gross in its shortened first week of release, but then exploded by over 330% to over $41 million in Week 2 as people started talking about how this movie changed their world view forever. By Week 3 there was of course a dropoff, but only of 26% compared to Week 2 as "The Matrix" raked in over $30 million in its third week of release, as word of mouth was incredibly strong for the sci-fi thriller. The dropoff in Week 4, again mostly a word-of-mouth audience -- was even smaller, just 22% from Week 3's take to $23.4 million. While "Inception" saw its audience tumble nearly 60% from Week 2 to Week 3 as the have-to-see-it crowd ran out of steam and the word-of-mouthers avoided this thing like the plague, "The Matrix" continued to roll on strong, never seeing a weekly drop of over 31% in a non-holiday week until Week 16, and never once in its entire run in theaters recording a week-to-week drop in gross receipts of greater than 51%. So people kept talking up "The Matrix" no matter how long it was out, no matter how many times they had seen it, until they took it out of the theater for good, period. Nobody, meanwhile, is talking up "Inception" in macro terms, and sales are plummeting fast after just three weeks in theaters.
Now let's compare "Inception"'s early run to another summer blockbuster from this year, Despicable Me. This is a kids' movie, and a decent one I would say (I saw it with K and M a couple of weeks back), and so far after three full weeks of release this film has grossed almost the exact same amount as Inception so far in around $190 million, so it seems as good a comparison as any. In Week 1, "Despicable Me" took in $85 million, and in Week 2, $54 million, for a total dropoff of 39%, actually a little better than "Inception"'s dropoff from Week 1 to Week 2. But, move to Week 3 when word-of-mouth takes on an increasingly key role, and Despicable Me still made $37 million, far more than Inception in Week 3, and more than that, a dropoff from Week 2 of only 28.4%. "Inception"'s 60% plunge from Week 2 to Week 3 looks more and more telling the more you compare this to other similar films' box office performance. People just don't like this movie as much as the entertainment media would have you believe.
Let's also look at a few other similar-genre movies to "Inception" over the past several years, in addition to The Matrix. "Minority Report" from Summer 2002? 37% drop from Week 1 to Week 2, 44% dropoff from Week 2 to Week 3, 42% drop to Week 4, 38% drop to Week 5, and just a 30% drop between Weeks 5 and 6, as once again you can see the power of word of mouth and its impact on movie grosses after the first couple of weeks. Now, "Inception" hasn't had four or five weeks of data to cull yet, but let's just say that after plummeting 59% from Week 2 to Week 3, sophisticated watchers of movie trends know what this means, and it ain't that sales are going to double in Week 4. And what about "Vanilla Sky", a movie I never saw but which is also often mentioned as a similar type of movie to Inception? Now, "Vanilla Sky" only grossed just over $100 million total in the U.S., but looking at its weekly receipts, once again there was a 33% dropoff from Week 1 to Week 2, but then only a 14% drop from Week 2 to Week 3, and there was never any weekly dropoff of greater than 57% in the film's entire 18-week release run in the U.S.
So it is clear to see that, no matter what the studio or the entertainment media will try to throw at you this week, those out there calling "Inception" the movie of the year simply don't have the backing of, you know, the people who decide on such things. Sure plenty of people saw this movie based purely on the trailer, the stars and the advance summary as always during the first couple weeks of release, and yes the studio has made its profit and is happy with the film from that perspective. But once those blind moviegoers had paid their penance and made their sacrifice to the movie gods in paying to see the movie in the first couple of weeks, the dropoff this week has been dramatic by almost any movie's standards. 60% fewer people seeing "Inception" in Week 3 than in Week 2 is not good news no matter how you slice it, and it belies the fact that people are objectively not running home in droves and telling all their friends that they have to see this new movie, it's so amazing, etc. They're just not. Instead, moreso than any similar movie in recent memory, the weekly gross figures indicate that audience members are strongly rating this flick a "skip" in talking with family and friends once they've seen it.
Oh, and by the way, "Avatar"? Over $137 million in gross in Week 1, and then amazingly up 7% in Week 2 to over $145 million. Avatar didn't drop below "Inception"'s Week 3 take of $27 million until the middle of the third month after its release, and the week after that its gross dropped only 7% between Weeks 10 and 11 if you can believe that. An amazing 6 of its 32 weeks have seen weekly gross increases from the prior week's viewing, and the film didn't lose more than 30% of the prior week's number of viewers for two consecutive weeks (like "Inception" in Weeks 2 and 3) until Weeks 14 and 15 after release. When a movie is truly great, the people will continue to see it over and over again and to tell their friends to do the same, and you can really see it in the numbers. Read more...
8/1/10,
HR 2267 Not Good For PokerStars and Full Tilt »»
Now that the euphoria of the passage of HR 2267 in the House Committee has died down, experts are examining the fine print and opining what this means for the online poker industry. Joe Brennan Junior of iMEGA pointed out one of the most significant amendments. He said, ?No one who took a bet or [...] Read more...
8/1/10,
HR 2267 Not Good For PokerStars and Full Tilt »»
Now that the euphoria of the passage of HR 2267 in the House Committee has died down, experts are examining the fine print and opining what this means for the online poker industry. Joe Brennan Junior of iMEGA pointed out one of the most significant amendments. He said, ?No one who took a bet or [...] Read more...
I saw "Inception" the other day, the hot new movie du jour starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Juno. This is a movie based on an interesting premise, that there are people who can chemically enter the dreams of a target and trick the person's subconscious into giving away crucial secrets that they would never give away if they were actually awake and consciously asked. The movie then goes on to ask, would it be possible to "plant" an idea in someone's mind that was not actually generated by them themselves, but yet is believed by the person to be their own idea, their own conclusion? Could you cause someone to make a key decision in their life at your will by getting inside their subconscious through a shared dream, and yet do it in such a way that they believe the idea was consciously generated by themself without ever recognizing the idea for the foreigner it would actually be while swimming amidst all the other original thoughts and ideas in the other person's brain?
Unfortunately, the premise was the only thing cool about this movie. "Inception", when it boils right down to it, was Chris Nolan (director of the last Batman movie, Memento and several other mediocrely-good films)'s half-assed attempt to create a big seller around nothing more than an interesting premise. Nolan and the writers really believed that nobody would pay attention to the story if they started with this interesting premise, and threw in a little Leonardo as eye candy. There is just no limit to how stupid Hollywood thinks we are. You, me, every single one of us out there right now, someone in Hollywood is scheming up about 10,000 new and inventive ways to trick you into giving them your money under false pretenses right now. And "Inception" was one of the biggest ploys so far this year.
The story in this movie was so unbelievably stupid that I heard they turned down the writers of Lost for being too focused on logical consistency. The Heroes writers were far too grounded for "Inception", believe me. The story is so full of holes it's almost like watching the "Kill Bill" movies for the first time -- you're not sure if this is intentionally trying to be comic-bookish or if it really just missed the mark. Unfortunately in the case of "Inception", they weren't trying to make a spook of a sci-fi action flick -- they were actually trying to make the sci-fi action flick itself.
But the similarities between this movie and all the problems of the last couple of seasons of Lost really are shocking in a way -- not in the story lines themselves, but in the way that logic and reason and continuity of storylines is just removed entirely as a consideration. The need for rational or even comprehensible explanations for almost anything is completely devoid in this movie. The movie never really explains how or what is actually being done when you hook a needle up to your arm and inject some chemical and some crazy machine in the middle immediately puts you all into the same shared dream. They do more or less nothing to describe or explain how on earth someone in the real world can "create" the dream which all the "extractors" and the target person are going to share. They merely posit that every fake dream has a creator, and then they go and find Juno and make it be her, and she just "creates" layer upon layer of dream. The similarity to Lost here is the way that the movie takes absolutely key plot points and simply leaves them out entirely, and acts like they aren't even doing anything out of the ordinary while they do it. What? This doesn't make even the least bit of sense? I guess you must not be smart enough to understand it then, ever think of that hmmmm? It's unreal.
But the biggest similarity of all to the last two seasons of Lost when it comes to "Inception", and ultimately the thing that will cost this movie any chance of having actual good buzz among its audience, is that the writers had such a huge ejaculation writing all the twists and turns of this movie, all the dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream plot sequences, and all the and mind-fucks that everyone knew were coming since about 5 minutes in to the movie, that in the end what you're left with is a basically unintelligible story. And -- how do I say this while still retaining your respect -- let's just say that I'm pretty much the smartest person sitting in the theater whenever I go to the movies, so it's not like I just can't keep up or something. If I watch your movie, and 20 minutes in I don't even really know who is doing what and where and when even though I'm sitting right there watching it, then guess what? Did I suddenly turn into a legal idiot when the lights went dim? Or maybe does your movie just fucking suck balls?
There's not a person in America who wasn't thinking far before the halfway point in "Inception" that they were totally lost. And I don't mean the kind of "lost" that gets all cleared up with the big reveal at the end like in The Village or Sixth Sense or something. I mean the kind of lost like, well, like Lost, where they literally had to run a "pop up video" version of Lost on a rerun every single week for the final two seasons just so that the viewers had at least some clue of what the shuck was going on. Because the writers did that absentee of a job when it came to reeling themselves in and being sure to tell a clear, coherent story.
Ultimately, the writers of "Inception" and Lost suffered from the exact same fatal flaw: it is obvious that they themselves had no fucking clue what the shit their show was actually about. Forget us not being able to figure out what the hell was happening -- the fucking writers didn't even have any idea in the end. And the downfall of Lindlecuse (notice how already those two smug assfuckers have more or less disappeared into the limelight?) will likely go very similar now to that of Chris Nolan, who with this effort in "Inception" screamed out to everyone's face that Batman was just a lucky break where he got carried by one truly incredible performance from Heath Ledger. Just like with Lost, the hubris is just incredible of someone who actually thinks that they can fool the viewers by presenting not even a half-assed story and trying to pass it off as "arty" or "out of the box", whatever. That move has never worked, and I see no reason to believe it ever will.
Make a great movie, with a fabulous story top to bottom, and excel at all the little things, and people around the world will see it in droves for weeks and weeks and weeks as we saw recently with "Avatar". Make a shit movie and put a heartthrob fanboi star in it to sell to little girls, and people will see it for a week or two until everyone hears how truly stupid of a job you did.
Folks, "Inception" was definitely not even a 2 out of 10. I'll give it a 1.1 out of 10, without a doubt among the ten worst movies I have seen in the theater in the past decade. Read more...
So after sitting quietly and alone on the sidelines for I'm sure many more months than he and his brilliant agent expected, and after recently surviving rumors that he would be forced to join the NFL's worst team in the St. Louis Rams, beleaguered wide receiver Terrell Owens announced this week that he will be playing for the Cincinnati Bengals. The announcement has come among much fanfare and speculation, with fellow Bengals wideout Chad Ochocinco commenting that he gladly "hands over the reins as the team's #1 receiver" to TO, and also questioning how any defense in the NFL is going to even approach trying to cover the Bengals with their new-found passing offense.
To which I answer with one word: Easily.
Let me begin my pointing out, both to Ochocinco and to anyone else who might be experiencing temporal confusion: this is not 2003-2005. Back in those years, a young, brash wide receiver in Cincy averaged over 90 receptions, over 1300 yards and nearly 10 touchdowns a season over that three-year span. During those same three years, a young and equally brash wide receiver in San Francisco and Philadelphia named TO averaged, on a 16-game equivalent, over 90 catches, nearly 1200 yards and 12 touchdowns in his own right. At times over the past decade or so of NFL play, each of Johnson and TO has looked downright unstoppable, and either one of them could have laid as good a claim as anybody in the league to the title of the NFL's best wide receiver.
But that was a long, long time ago now. After being run out of San Francisco, run out of Philadelphia and then eventually run out of Dallas, TO spent 2009 playing all 16 games for the Buffalo Bills, posting just 55 catches for 825 yards and 5 touchdowns. Each of these key production figures for a wideout rated as TO's lowest in his previous ten years of full-season play. To say that TO dropped off a bit in Buffalo last year would be a tremendous understatement, especially given that he failed to catch more than four balls in all but three of the team's games last season, including ending his streak of consecutive games with at least one reception after TO busted out with a big bagel in a 20-point drubbing at home by the eventual Superbowl champion Saints in Week 3 of 2009.
Meanwhile, Ochocinco, who is working on just his tenth year in the NFL as opposed to TO's 14 years of service, has also seen his numbers drop off dramatically over the past couple of seasons. The past two years have basically seen career lows for Ochocinco in both receptions (53 and 72 in the past two seasons) and yards (540 and 1047). All of this is to say, make absolutely no mistake about this whatsoever, but these two guys are both on the downsides of their careers, probably well on the downsides given the trend in each's numbers.
And this is where my feeling comes from that this supposed "match made in heaven" is going to quickly look more like one made in hell than one made up high in the sky. I mean, starting with TO, as I mentioned above and as is common knowledge among any NFL fans out there, TO has ended up feuding and eventually splitting with every single quarterback he has ever played professional bar for. Every single one, period. That's just what he does. And does anyone out there think Carson Palmer is suddenly a guy with sufficient intestinal fortitude to stand up to the onslaught from TO? Did Donovan McNabb, a guy with far more NFL success than Carson Palmer? Did Tony Romo? Didn't think so. And neither is Carson Palmer, of that you can be assured.
Moreover, TO has never in his career played on a team with another big-name, big-talking wideout since back in the days with Jerry Rice in San Fran. And how did one work out? TO spent his last few years as a 49er complaining that Jerry Rice was overhyped, that Rice got too many balls thrown his way (mostly at TO's expense), and that Rice wasn't nearly as adept at the position overall at that point in their respective careers than was TO. So that one didn't work out. In Philly, TO was the only answer in the passing offense, and we all saw how that one ended up with TO doing push-ups in the driveway of his New Jersey home on Sundays instead of playing for the Eagles. In Dallas there also was no other big-name wideout, but TO couldn't even live with the specter of tight end Jason Witten, and again ended up causing a rift with the quarterback that led him out of Dallas and eventually to the frozen tundra of Buffalo, New York last year. So now I'm supposed to believe that TO is going to find a way to peacefully coexist with Chad Ochocinco, who himself has never been good at dealing with another big receiver on the team such as was the case back in 2008 when TJ Houshmahblahblah came out of the woodwork and essentially took the #1 receiver mantle away from Ochocino in that year? Come on. This whole move, especially on this scandal-ridden team, is custom made to be a disaster.
The other thing about the TO signing that gives me more than a little bit of concern is his contract, which has widely been reported at a $2 million base salary, with six different incentive payments each worth an additional third of a million dollars if TO attains them. Rather than focus on team wins and losses to trigger the incentive payments, or on the offense as a whole or even just on the passing offense of the whole team, the incentive payments in TO's contract will pay him 333k if he reaches 60 receptions in 2010, and another 333k for 100 catches. He will receive 333k if he scores 9 touchdowns on the season, and another 333k for 13 tds. TO will get 333k if he catches balls for 1000 yards on the year, and another 333k for 1300 yards receiving. All of these individual statistics, while in a vacuum all generally good indicators of a wideout having a solid season, are going to I predict cause problems and direct conflicts of interest with a guy who has time and time again proven himself to be self-focused and self-centered to an unbelievable degree.
I mean, can't you just see it now? TO is sitting at 50 catches in Week 12, he's got four games left in the regular season, and then Carson Palmer has a bad game and TO gets just one catch on the day. Suddenly he is still 9 receptions away from his 333 thou with three games to go. What do you think TO is gonna be doing all through that next week? When he's not yelling to the media about how he is under-utilized by his team, he's going to be right up there in Carson Palmer's ear, complaining about not getting the ball thrown his way enough and actively lobbying for more attention. When a guy has proven himself to be as selfish as TO has over his career, giving a guy like that an incentive-laden contract is just begging for him to return to his former self-aggrandizing ways.
Just don't let the Bengals come running to me to complain about how "there's no I in team" when TO starts squawking about not getting the ball thrown his way enough in 2010. By signing TO to join wideout Chad Ochocinco in Cincinnati, the Bengals are making their bed with two of the most flammable, outspoken and trouble-makey figures in all of their sport. Now the Bengals will have to lie in it. Read more...
7/28/10,
House Committee Clears Anti-UIGEA Bill »»
The House Financial Services Committee on July 28, 2010, passed the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act by a vote of 41 in favor and only 22 against. This bill number HR 2267, is also known as the anti-UIGEA bill because it seeks to overturn the provisions of the UIGEA and set up [...] Read more...
Here is a post I wrote around 8am morning after stumbling back to my room in a drunken stupor on the third night of my trip to Las Vegas last month. I had forgotten all about writing this post and really about this story until I was reading through my saved posts the other day, and when I saw it, it all came rushing back to me. This experience really weirded me out when it happened last month, and I remember being confused if I was just really drunk or if this guy was actually saying some effed up shizznot to me. Unfortunately, at this point I am pretty sure it was the latter.
*******************************
Last night at some point when I went to check in the rest of the chips I had outstanding and get back cash, there was a hugely long line at the cashier's cage and of course it seemed like the dude in front of every single cashier line was getting a marker, redeeming some coupon, getting travelers checks cashed, etc., so none of the lines were really moving at all. I was pretty hammered and when I heard the guy behind me literally swear out loud, "GodDAMNit what the hell takes these fuckers so LONG?", I just had to turn around to ask him if he had a plane to catch or something.
When I turned around though, I saw this short old man, wearing a very obvious toupee and just generally looking very dishevelled, lowly, and just generally sad. Instead of the quippy line I had been all prepared to deliver, I just kinda shook my head at him like yeah, these lines suck what can you do. He then takes this immediately as an intro and starts talking to me about what assholes the MGM is for all the games they are running. I kinda laughed, since of course nobody is making him or anyone else play any of these games, and since people do things like smoke, play the lottery, etc. all the time that are basically really dumb decisions over the long-term but which people choose based on short-term gains, so really what's the difference anyways in the end. But he continued on, and this is where things started to get a little weird.
"These assholes", the old man commented to me, "they run these games that take your money, that ruin people's lives."
"No shit," I responded, "But then why do we keep playing?" My question was delivered lightly, jokingly, matching the tone I had read in the guy's first comment to me. But then he turns back to me, lowers his head like he's telling me a secret, and whispers to me very quietly, "I'm not kidding. I've been coming here for 18 years, and I've lost around $50,000, my house, my wife and my kids all because of the gambling."
"Hmmm. Fifty thousand?" I asked, hopefully. I mean, not that losing 50 grand at gambling -- or at anything, for that matter -- is cool or should be acceptable, but at the same time, 50 grand lost over 18 years of play, I mean that's only under 3 thousand a year, which is hardly enough to ruin someone's life, family, etc., and certainly should not necessarily be enough to cause someone to lose their home.
"No," he replied, "I said four hundred fifty thousand dollars."
"Wow. That's terrible" was all I could think to say. I was dumbfounded. Here was a guy, talking to a complete stranger in the literal middle of the night at a casino, and explaining just minutes after meeting me in line at the cashier that gambling has ruined his life. Literally. But then it got even worse.
He continued, "Now I have a marker, I owe MGM 8 or 10 grand now. After going through all that $450,000, after losing everything I had, now I had to borrow money from the casino, because of course I need to keep playing." That last part about needing to keep playing was uttered in a very matter-of-fact tone, as if it would make all the sense in the world to me why he wants to keep gambling after losing everything that mattered to him in the world. To me, it was one of the saddest things I could have ever learned about a perfect stranger.
"Anyways," he went on, "I have no way I'll ever pay MGM back the 10 grand I owe them now. I just got cleaned out again tonight, I don't have the money to satisfy my marker right now, so I'm going to clear outta here and head back home. If they let me borrow some more money, I'll keep chasing it for as long as I can, but as soon as they come for me, I know I'll never be able to pay back this money to the casino."
"So they why let yourself do it?" I asked, genuinely interested in the answer as, even though I love to play some poker and have spent hundreds of hours in casinos in my day playing any and every game they have to offer, I simply could not conceivably imagine of being in his situation and making these same decisions when faced with the choice.
"I got nothing else left," he told me solemnly. "This is all I have."
As I stood there, realizing maybe for the first time in the conversation just how dead serious this guy was, he went on with the most chilling part of the whole story, and the reason that I went right upstairs and made sure to write all this down, because it really spooked me.
"So when the MGM won't let me borrow any more money and eventually come for me to pay them back, I know exactly what I'm gonna do. I have a huge lake out back behind my house a ways, and I have the exact spot picked out where I'm gonna drive my truck right in, and end it all. I'll never let those bastards get one dime outta me after what they've done to my life. When the casino credit is gone, I'm gonna end my life and that will be that."
Now I know I was pretty sloppy, but I swear to you this guy was 100% serious. I could see it in his eyes. I'm not at all sure if he'll actually have the balls to do it when the time comes, but I am sure of two things: (1) the casino will stop giving him credit very soon, since has no means to ever pay them back, and (2) the guy definitely intended to kill himself to get out of his troubles once that happened, as he stood there in line at the casino cage at 3am on a random weekday late-night. He meant it, I assure you. He very calmly right into the eyes of a total stranger and matter-of-factly told me his plan to kill himself, one which he had actually put some real thought into and had been visualizing for some time.
As I mentioned I more or less blocked this whole conversation out of my head until being reminded of it when I read this half-written post the other day, so I thought I would get it out there while the memory is still fresh returning to my mind. It just boggles the mind that an activity like gambling that can bring as much joy as it does to as many people as enjoy it safely, can also be capable of leading to such fantastic and unbelievable ruination and despair in the hands of the wrong people or the wrong set of circumstances. Just how serious this guy was when push comes to shove, I suppose I'll never know. But I'll tell you one thing -- ever since I left Vegas, I've been afraid to look up news stories if anyone in the area recently drowned by driving their car into a lake, and I won't be performing that search anytime soon either. Read more...
PokerStars is one of the leading online poker rooms. Last week online players discovered a bots ring operating at that site. A bots ring is a set of computers programmed to play poker that participate on the games at online poker rooms pretending to be human players. This is not allowed at any online poker [...] Read more...
No, this isn't a post about me bouncing back from a bad streak lately. The poker has been fine just lately actually, with a couple of winning days in a row after a few stinkers that I'd much rather forget ever happened. But no, the rebound I wanted to talk about today was in the popularity of poker in general in this country, and really around the world, which somehow to me seems to be flying largely under the radar out there in media land. Poker is back, baybeeeeee!
The World Series of Poker had a huge year in 2010 as far as I'm concerned, and yet for some reason nobody seems to be talking about it. I mean, as many people have mentioned whenever this topic comes up with respect to the WSOP, things in the world are not good right now, economically speaking. Way fewer people are employed, asset prices across the board have deflated dramatically over the last few years, and entire nations are preparing around the world for austerity measures that will dampen economic activity and put in a measurable crimp in growth for a long time to come.
And yet, in the midst of all of this economic and financial ugliness, the 2010 WSOP shattered participation records across the board. This year 41st annual WSOP crushed on its way to setting a new overall attendance record with just over 71,000 total entrants through all events including the Main Event. The previous record number of participants, set in 2009, was 60,875, so we are talking about an increase of more than 10,000 players, or close to 17% from just last year, which was itself a record. Seventeen percent! In one year! From an all-time record! In this economy!
Now, to be sure, comparing these records over long periods of time makes little sense since there were so, so far fewer events back in the day than there are today, and of course so, so far smaller a number of people actually played the game well enough to even consider competing for the big money. But I mean, how much better of a comparison can you get than the last few years? To be clear, what happened at the WSOP in 2010 has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the number of events. We had 56 bracelet events in 2010, 56 events in 2009, and 55 events in 2008, so the difference in number of events is hardly significant. But, across more or less the same number of events over the past three years, attendance at the poker world's greatest spectacle has quietly skyrocketed, surging from 58,250 in 2008 to 60,875 in 2009 and now to just over 71,000 in 2010.
WSOP attendance is up 22% over the past two years, we just put together the largest live poker tournament of all time other than the 2006 Main Event in the 2010 WSOP ME with 7319 entrants, and about three-quarters of the events on this year's WSOP scheduled attracted more participants than the corresponding events in last year's WSOP. And this, again, in the midst of one of the worst global economic outlooks perhaps of our lifetimes. The arrival of Tom Dwan on the scene seems to have re-energized interest in poker on tv -- in particular High Stakes Poker which really seems to be striking a chord with the poker-on-television audience out there -- and the passing of the regulations governing enforcement of the UIGEA this summer seems to have had no effect on the ability to get money into or out of the major online poker sites, which themselves are setting new records yearly in terms of annual participation and rake fees paid.
After a few-year hiatus to be sure after UIGEA was first passed, poker is booming once again. Wonder how long it will be before everyone else starts realizing it? Read more...
The hearing for bill HR 2267 was held before the House Committee on Financial Services on July 21. HR 2267 seeks to legalize online poker and online casino gambling in the United States and put in place a regulatory mechanism for the same. Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has for long been in the forefront as [...] Read more...
I read a story the other day about chopping up the prize pool at the end of a big mtt, and it reminded me of something that I have been through a couple of times myself and which I've seen other bloggers address in their blogs from time to time as well: the bragadoccio that goes on in chopping negotiations at the end of big tournaments.
Let's go back a few years first, to the first time I won the 50-50 tournament on full tilt. I distinctly recall as we got down to the final 3 or 4 players remaining, discussions of a chop were raised by one of the players (possibly me), and a fairly active debate ensued before we ended up throwing in the towel and just playing on. One player in particular -- the guy who was a close second in chips at the time behind only myself -- was very difficult to get involved in any chop, because he simply was not willing to give up hardly anything from the top prize amount. Why, you may ask, since he was not even the chip leader at the time? Because, as he repeatedly explained it to everyone else still alive in the tournament, he was the best tournament player remaining and thus, despite his non-chip-leading stack, he actually had the best chance of winning the tournament outright.
To be honest, I dismissed this as the ranting of pompous-ass douchebag, opted to decline any further chop discussions shortly after I heard it, and went on to win the tournament and the 11k first prize. And to tell the truth, I didn't really think about it again. At the time I definitely remember being very taken aback by another player at the table trying to take advantage of the others remaining in the tournament by his unjustified claim of being "better", but that part of the story quickly faded from my memory as is often the case when you throw in 11k of cashish to help wash away the negative memories.
Fast forward now to last summer, at the final table of the $540 Venetian Deep Stack event where I recorded my largest ever poker tournament score. With eight players left at the final table, an older Asian guy a few seats to my right with the 5th place stack (admittedly, 3rd through 5th were all fairly close at the time) suggests we consider chopping, and then proceeds to be far and away the biggest barrier to getting a chop done because he insists on getting at least $35,000, which was roughly the average of 2nd and 3rd place money according to the payout schedule for the tournament. I calmly asked him how he can possibly expect to get nearly 2nd place money with a 5th place stack and eight players remaining in any tournament, and he just as calmly fires right back at me, "Because I'm the best player at this table." Immediately I heard those deja vu bells going dingalingaling in my head and I was immediately reminded of my experience when discussing the 50-50 chop a few years earlier.
Once we got down to six players left at the Venetian -- after the cocky Asian dude had busted in 6th place and stormed off in anger with his 9k payout -- we tried to chop, and once again we tried when five players were left, but at this point with angry Asian man gone, it was the chip leader who held up our chances of a chop, and he unabashedly informed us as he insisted on about 150% of the second place payout to agree to a chop that he has several five-figure scores this year online in poker tournaments and that he knows he is the best, most experienced player at the table and thus would not be willing to settle for something much less than the first-place payout which he in his own warped mind claims to know he is going to win anyways.
Every time I have heard someone say this in mtt chop discussions, my immediate reaction is total revilement. It's seriously repulsive to me for one person to tell three or four other guys who have just made it through 20+ hours of no-limit, one-mistake-and-you're-dead poker that he is definitively better than they are and that he therefore deserves the lion's share of the remaining prize pool. I mean, by definition everyone who is left in the final few spots of a large mtt has performed great over the course of the tournament and is clearly playing great poker. Poker tournaments are so much based on in-the-moment decision-making and trends that ultimately I don't even think there is much to be said for "overall tournament skill" in the context of discussions around chopping up the prize pool in a single particular tournament. Plus, and this is just my opinion here, but I think you come off sounding like a total and complete goofball, pompous, horse's ass if you tell a bunch of guys who've been battling it out in the same game and have survived with you for days on end that you are somehow "inherently" better than them and thus deserve more consideration. Does anyone ever fall for this line?
With me, ultimately the proof is in the pudding. Because, make no mistake about it, at every final table I have ever been at, ever -- including major online series like FTOPS and UBOC, $200 weekly online majors, nightly online events and otherwise, as well as several live events in casinos around the U.S. -- I haven't just thought I was the best player there, I've known I was the best player there. Every single time. And if you read here often then you know I am always willing to discuss a fair chop given how luck-based late final table can be in the largest mtt's. And yet, you won't have caught me dead ever even trying to argue to anyone that I deserve more than my fair share of the prize pool according to my chip stack, because I somehow have some extra skill advantage over everyone else. In a discussion about how much to chop a prize pool by, that just doesn't seem like a relevant consideration to me.
The bottom line from my viewpoint is simple: Perceived poker tournament skill differential can make a lot of sense in deciding not to chop and instead to play it out for all the marbles. If you think you're better than everyone else, then play the tournament out, and win it. Take the first prize money that you believe your superior skill will bring you at any final table. But once you've decided to entertain the thought of a chop, the larger stacks will simply need to give up money to the smaller stacks if they wish to secure one of the larger payouts, or the notion of a chop will never work no matter how good the individuals involved think they are. Something about trying to agree to a chop only if it steals money from others in favor of you because of your alleged superior overall poker "skill" just rubs me the wrong way. Read more...
I’d just like to get the word out that I removed a bunch of links on my sidebar. I took down links for the following:
1) Inactive blogs. No point in linking to a blog that hasn’t had a meaningful post in months.
2) People who have stopped linking to me.
I left everyone else. If you have a good poker blog that is not on blogspot.com or wordpress.com and you want to swap links, feel free to get in touch at natarem@gmail.com. I can’t guarantee that I’ll agree to a swap with everyone but I have plenty of room on the sidebar and not a ton of blogs there.
Wow I am on a miserable run lately on the online poker front. My live poker game is as good as it's ever been -- I've mentioned before here that I remember not all that long ago the first time I ever played one of those daily holdem tournaments in a casino, I was so nervous, I got bounced early on a race I didn't need to take on at the time, and I distinctly remember thinking at that time how I would be lucky to ever even make the top 20% of any live casino tournament in my life. Fast forward five years or so, and I've won some solid coin in live events in Vegas, and more than that, I've won three different daily casino tournaments while just goofing around so far this year. But online, the past week or so has been absolutely brutal.
It's happened to me before. More times than I can count, really. In fact, truth be told, this downswing isn't even close to as bad as the worst it's ever been. But for the past few weeks, I just can't win anything I play. I've barely touched the mtt's over the past couple of months -- not sure why, although I do seem to recall having a similar period after returning from Las Vegas last summer, so maybe I burn out a little playing so much poker over four days that I literally see pocket pairs and flop-turn-river whenever I blink my eyes, I don't know. But I've been mostly playing turbo sitngos lately, and damn the variance on those things is just sick. Especially when you play a lot of turbo heads-up.
Oh, and a lot of super turbos.
I can't help it sometimes. I realized a long time ago that online turbo tournaments are a style that I can play realllly well, and to this day it is clear whenever I play turbo events that at least half the people at the table -- be it sitngo or mtt -- honestly do not understand the kind of adjustment that needs to be made in order to have long-term success at this pace. Sitting around and waiting for a big pocket pair might work in this one instance if you get lucky, and sure it might make you some money for a week or two while you run good and get just the right situations just when you need them, but over time it's a far losing strategy in turbo tournaments, and quite simply you should not be playing turbo if that is the plan going in. Anyways, these guys might get lucky against me in a given event or three of course, but in general I am at a major skill advantage whenever I'm playing in a turbo tournament structure online.
Narrow that down to heads-up turbo sitngos, and the skill advantage is even more obvious. Now granted, in heads-up play, it is also concurrently harder to take advantage of that skill differential because the play can be so automatic throughout, but at the same time it is just painfully easy to see the deficiencies in the games of most heads-up players at the stakes I tend to play. It's just them and me, and no one else to focus on or to complicate the analysis and make it harder to make moves, etc. And amazingly, if you take it a step further and play the super turbo heads-up sitngos, it is sad how much almost every single person dumb enough to be playing in these rake machines is truly totally out of it when it comes to strategy for these things.
If you play turbo heads-up sitngos at anything above micro stakes, I'm sure you've noticed the autobots who automatically min-raise every single time they act first before the flop. From start to finish, without deviation, every single time. And never a real raise, always just a min-raise. It's such an exploitable strategy, and once I've noted them, I'll usually just kick it back up 4x their raise on a reraise with air right there, they will invariably fold, and then I will instantly show them my trash. These auto-minraisers are such clowns, I will steal their minraise 7, sometimes 8 or more times in one turbo sitngo that lasts 7 minutes. It's unbelievable the free chips that are available over the long run from these people who think they've figured out the way to beat the games. It's so awesome, really. But the best part of all is, even in the super turbo heads-up sitngos, there are idiots who still are out there min-raising every single pre-flop when they act first. Minimum raising, when starting with ten big blinds and with 3-minute blind rounds. How can you not love that?
So yes, as I'm sure the snarkers out there are thinking, why am I on here writing about this instead of playing those super turbo min-raising idiots right now this very second? The answer of course is that I've been playing the super turbo heads up sngs for hours a day over the past several weeks, and yet I don't have anything good to show for it. Lately the variance has just been on the ugly side over and over and over again. Yes I'm getting in ahead with the same consistency as always, but when you're playing in super-turbo land, getting allin pre with A7s vs K9s is not just commonplace -- it's around the best you can really realistically hope for if you're the A7s guy. That's why the variance is so sick in these things. Cuz you're really coming out there and just trying to get it allin preflop with a 60-70% advantage and hope you get your worth out of that situation over the long run. But 59-41 or 63-37 is just not all that favored to be able to avoid getting beat with some actual regularity when you actually play it out, something I've always known but which is so easy to forget until you go through one of those rough patches that mathematically have to happen if you play this game enough times over a long enough period of time.
Over the long run, I've performed fairly well in the turbo and super turbo sitngos that I have played. But lately, 64 percenters and even a few 80 percenters have just not been holding up their end of the bargain. And it's been probably the most annoying few weeks of poker that I've experienced in a year or more. Read more...
First, congrats to all of the members of the November Nine. As far as I can tell, four PocketFiver’s made it to the November final table: JRD312 (John Dolan), PBJaxx (Jason Senti), $JMONEY$ (John Racener) and subiime (Joseph Cheong). Oddly enough I met Jason Senti in person just as the main event was starting. I was meeting with the guy who runs BlueFirePoker and Jason happened to be there as well. The three of us talked for a little while and I have to say that Jason is one of the nicer poker players I’ve met. I’m really happy for him and I hope he can come back from being the short stack.
So I’m really just recovering from a really tiring June and July. I went on a family trip to a few national parks (Zion, Bryce, Grand Canyon) in late June. We went with a company called Backroads which leads active group trips all over the world and the focus of our trip was hiking and biking. We made up four of about twenty people in the group so it was a pretty big group. This wasn’t our first Backroads trip: back in 2006 I went to the Canadian rockies with my family and Backroads. And my family has done a bunch of other trips with them. So we’re obviously happy with the job they do. It’s really nice because they organize and book everything and they make it easy to just focus on the hiking, biking and sightseeing. Everything else is taken care of.
Our trip started out in St George, UT where we met up with the guides and the rest of the group. We then drove up to Zion National Park which looks like this:
We did our first hike in the afternoon in a river canyon called “The Narrows”. It mostly consisted of walking up a river that ranged from ankle depth to above waist depth. At certain points the current was somewhat strong so they gave us a walking stick to help stabilize. Here’s a picture of me walking in the narrows:
It was a great hike because Zion is quite hot in late June and the water was the perfect thing to keep you cool. We went a few miles up and back but it was slow going because of the water and slippery rocks. I would recommend it although for me it was one of the not-so-exciting hikes on the trip.
For me, the best hike was the next one: Angel’s Landing. It’s a very well-known hike both in Zion and throughout the National Parks system. It is one of the deadliest trails in all of the US National Parks but it also offers some amazing views. Not to mention a nice sense of accomplishment at the top. So I decided to go up it. Here’s a view on the way up:
You can see the road below snaking through the Canyon. I’m not sure of the elevation at this point but I believe it was about 800 feet down to the valley floor. And it was a sheer drop off of the edge.
This kind of gives you an idea of what the last part of the hike was like. It was “chain assisted” with no guardrail and a very very long fall down. The goal was to get to the top of the hill you see in this picture:
And it was 800 feet down on one side, 1200 feet down on the other. The natural land bridge to get over to the summit was not wide at all and the rock was a bit sandy which made it kind of slippery at points. Here’s a shot looking back across the land bridge:
That picture is a little deceiving because it’s hard to tell what is part of the land bridge and what is part of the opposing cliff wall. The land bridge is actually hundreds of feet away from the cliff wall to the left until, towards the back, it starts to come together a bit more. If you look really closely you can see some specks on the cliff — those are people making their way to the top of Angel’s Landing.
And here I am, at the top.
In total, it’s about a 1.5-2 hour hike from the road to the top. I would recommend a lot of water if you do this hike and even more when it’s hot out. But you certainly don’t need to be an experienced hiker to make it to the top (I never hike anywhere, unless walking from a Vegas casino self-park counts). One of the cool things about this hike is that you can leave Vegas in the morning, get to Zion, do the hike and be back in Vegas that night (shaniac did this exact thing a few weeks ago). It’s a long day but it’s a fun way to do an awesome hike.
After Zion (we did some more stuff there, including some biking, but no point going over every little thing), we headed to the Grand Canyon. This was my first time seeing the Grand Canyon from the ground so I was pretty excited. I’d seen it from planes at least five times but that really isn’t the same. Here’s a shot I took from the front of the van on the road. The van in front of us is the other Backroads vehicle with the bikes on top:
The total ride was about 3.5 hours but we broke it up with a lunch stop so it went pretty quickly. We did a short intro hike, saw the Canyon and then the next day actually hiked a bit into the Canyon. It is a full day process to get to the bottom (and obviously to get back out too) so we only went really a small fraction in. We used the North Kaibab trail (the only trail on the North Rim into the Canyon) and we went about two miles out of a total of fourteen to reach the Colorado river. But two miles in and two miles out managed to occupy a good portion of the morning. Here’s a picture of myself and my mom at the lowest point we made it to:
The hike back up from there was kind of rough given the heat and all but I enjoyed the challenge. I want to go back and do a rim-to-rim hike (usually about three days if you aren’t rushing) so now I just need to find some people to go with. I’d do it with a group but I don’t want to be the only person that I know in the group. Unfortunately most poker players consider walking around the Amazon room to be a lot of exercise so I probably need to find hiking people from a different area of my social network. We’ll see how that goes.
The next day we did another hike, this time along the rim. Here’s a picture of me about a foot away from a 3000 foot drop. I know it looks far in the pic but I really did not have any interest in getting any closer when I was out on the ledge.
And after our Grand Canyon tour, we headed back up to Utah to see Bryce Canyon. I’d heard amazing things about Bryce so I was expecting some awesome stuff. It didn’t disappoint. It was formed by some process involving erosion, stronger/weaker rocks, etc. I didn’t really pay much attention to the how. But the place was awesome. It is made up of a bunch of rock towers called Hoodoos. Hundreds or thousands of them. Here’s one of the funnier looking ones:
As you might imagine, that hoodoo is frequently compared to ET. The park itself looks like this:
There are just tons of hoodoos and various ridges carved away by erosion over a very long period of time. At one point, this was part of a sea that divided what is now the United States and I guess this is the eroded former sea floor (or at least that’s how it was explained to me).
Lastly, this is the path that I took back out of Bryce Canyon when I was finishing up my hike in the Canyon. A lot of switchbacks at high elevation leads to a ton of out of breath people. I passed a ton of people who were huffing and puffing pretty hard on their way up. CrossFit actually prepared me pretty well for the hiking and biking. I was never strained, sore or in trouble at any point during the whole trip.
Anyway, after a bike ride the following day, we went back to St George and I drove back to Vegas. It was a great trip and even though I only gave you the brief highlights I highly recommend checking out all three parks if you ever have a chance.
On the twelfth day of the WSOP 2010 Main Event, the 7319 entrants were whittled down to the final table of nine players. This group has traditionally come to be known as the November Nine because the final table will resume only in November. The last elimination was especially grueling. It took almost six hours [...] Read more...
Is it really a wonder how the country's worst professional sports franchises get to be (and stay) the worst?
Billy King to the Nets. How the hell did that guy ever get a job again -- any job, in any industry -- after what he did in Philly?
Ed Wade to the Astros. How the hell did that guy ever get a job again -- any job, in any industry -- after what he did in Philly?
Unless you want to quickly become the literal worst franchise in your entire sport, stop hiring known, proven, unabashed losers who don't even acknowledge what losers they have been thus far in their careers. And for crying out loud, stop hiring people that even the stinkpile known as the Philly sports media has kicked to the curb! Read more...
7/13/10,
I Don't Generally Believe in Public Hangings, But... »»
OK so with the silliness of The Decision now behind us for another few months until the 2010-2011 NBA season kicks off, and with the major league home run derby set for Monday night this week, I thought now is a good time to revisit my 2010 Major League over-under picks that I posted back on uesday, April 6 of this year. Below is a list of each team in the majors along with my over-under prediction for that team's total wins in 2010, using the Vegas lines as of the start of the 2010 baseball season. For each team I will take a look at how my prediction is faring so far at the halfway point, and how many wins each team is projected to finish this season with.
Arizona Diamondbacks: Under 82.5. With 34 wins so far in 89 games, the D-Backs are on pace for around 62 wins on the season, and should easily come in Under the number as the rest of that division is just too good for the former expansion team.
Atlanta Braves: Over 85.5. Now here is one that I got right (so far) but I did not realize how much, as I figured the Braves to just barely clear the 85-win threshold. Instead they are dominating the NL East so far in 2010, on pace for 96 wins and an easy Over for the year.
Baltimore Orioles: Under 74.5. I knew the Orioles would be bad this year, but 29 wins in 88 games so far? That's on pace for 53 wins and a final record of 53-109. Easy win here for me on the Under.
Boston Red Sox: Over 94.5. I got sucked in and took the Over on this one despite it being a real high number, and the Sox have not quite performed to expectations yet this season. Still, with 51 wins so far, the team is on pace right now for a total of 94 wins, which makes this one wide open in the end despite technically a loser as of this moment in time.
Chicago Cubs: Under 83.5. I was not scared when I took the Under here, but Lou Piniella's team has been worse than I thought nonetheless so far this year. The Cubbies are on pace for 71 wins and another disappointing performance for the fans in Wrigleyville in 2010.
Chicago White Sox: Over 82.5. Here was one that I identified right away as a low number, and so far the team has won 49 out of 87 games, putting them on pace for a 91-win season and easily clearing the Vegas number for 2010.
Cincinnati Reds: Over 79.5. This was one of the fashionable out-of-nowhere picks before the 2010 season, and the Reds have not disappointed, currently being on track for 88 wins and currently leading the Cardinals in the NL Central, a division it looks more and more like the Reds will be claiming this year due to a very favorable second half schedule for Cincy.
Cleveland Indians: Under 74.5. I knew very little about the Indians in the pre-season this year, but I knew enough to take the Under even on a low number like this. The team is currently the second-worst in baseball, on track to nab a total of 62 wins in this year's campaign.
Colorado Rockies: Over 84.5. Here's a team that I also thought had too low of a number, although they started off slow but are coming on strongly of late in the very competitive NL West. The team is currently on pace for 90 wins and should surpass their Vegas number for the second straight season.
Detroit Tigers: Over 80.5. I thought the Tigers would make a good run in the wide-open AL Central, and so far they're holding their own and are on pace for another 90-win season.
Florida Marlins: Under 80.5. This was I thought one of the tougher picks heading into the 2010 season, but I opted to go slightly under since the rest of the NL East seemed to be improving this year. So far the Fish are on track for 77 wins and another close win for me with an Under pick.
Houston Astros: Under 74.5. This was another gut-check pick, with a known horrible team facing a terrible line, but something told me to still go with the Under. So far it is 36 wins in 89 games for the 'Stros, leading to a prediction for just 65 total wins and another easy Under victory.
Kansas City Royals: Under 71. Here is one that I really did not feel comfortable with, but I still went Under despite the Royals having the worst line in baseball heading in to the 2010 season. So far the team has 39 wins, putting them on track for a total of 71 wins, which for now will count as a win-push here at the halfway evaluation point.
Los Angeles Angels: Over 84.5. I had to go with the Over for the Angels who were facing their lowest expectations in about a decade in Vegas's eyes this past Spring. So far the team is right on track, with 47 wins by the halfway point and tracking for a 2010 win total of 84 wins. I'll count it as a loss for now but obviously this is another one that is wide open at the halfway point.
Los Angeles Dodgers: Over 84.5. Like their counterparts the Angels, I thought this number was just a bit too low for a Dodger team with a great manager and coming off two mid-90s seasons in a row. Trouble with the ownership and the breakdown of some of the best players has kept the Dodgers in the race through the halfway point, and so far the team is on track for 90 wins and another victory for me, although the team faces the worst second-half schedule in baseball and would not surprise me by making me sweat this one out in the end.
Milwaukee Brewers: Over 80.5. I took the over here, reasoning that the Brewers would find their way to finishing .500 by season's end. But so far that's not what's happenhing, as the team is currently on pace for just 73 wins and another disappointing season in Milwaukee.
Minnesota Twins: Over 84.5. The Joe Nathan injury shortly before this season began definitely threw a bit of a wrench into things for this team, but in the end I went with the best coach probably in the major leagues and took the Over in what I knew was gonna be a dogfight. So far after a bit of a hiccup heading into the all-start break, the Twinkies have won 46 out of 88 games, putting them on pace for a total of 85 wins and an ever-so-slight victory for my Over pick so far, despite clearly being another one that may come right down to the wire in late September.
New York Mets: Under 81.5. Although I thought a finish around the .500 mark was likely for this year's Mets team, I had to go with my heart and take the Under here. The Mets are going to beat this number, as they currently sit on track for 88 wins and a good shot at their first playoff appearance in 5000 years.
New York Yankees: Over 95.5. Despite the silly-high number, I took the Over with this year's Yankees squad, which has down well despite dealing with some early pitching woes that looked to possibly threaten this pick early on. As of the break the Yanks lead the majors with 56 wins, and are on pace to total 103 wins and fairly easily surpass the Vegas line again in 2010.
Oakland Athletics: Under 79.5. I went with the Under here back in April, expecting a mid-70s finish for a not-very-good As team in 2010, and so far the team has proven me right, heading for a 78-win year.
Philadelphia Phillies: Under 92.5. I picked the Under on the Phillies for the second straight year, and so far my concerns about the rest of the East's improvements are proving true. Still, the team is holding its own despite some annoying injury situations, tracking currently for 87 or 88 wins, but a bit under what it will take to make this number in 2010.
Pittsburgh Pirates: Over 69.5. I hate these picks, as they throw the worst number in the world at you and you end up doing what I did this year, picking a horrible team to go Over just because the number is so dumb. Then am I surprised when the Pirates are on pace for just 55 wins in 2010? Ugh.
San Diego Padres: Under 71.5. Along with the Mariners, here is probably my most spectacular f-up of my over-under picks for 2010, as the Padres have surprised everyone by leading the NL West pretty much wire to wire so far. With 51 wins already by the break, the Fathers are on track to win 94 games and post their best season in a while in San Diego.
San Francisco Giants: Under 82.5. I took the Under here based on my expectation that the Dodgers and Rockies would beat up on the rest of the division, but in the end the Giants are much closer to these teams and are tracking better than I expected. With 47 wins at the break, the team is currently looking at a 86-87 wins in the 2010 campaign and is a few games ahead of the pace to beat its number by season's end.
Seattle Mariners: Over 83.5. I will never understand how the team with Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez could be as bad as the Mariners have been so far in 2010, but despite my solid confidence that this team would finish Over, the Ms are tracking for an anemic 64 wins this year.
St. Louis Cardinals: Over 88.5. I took Over 88 wins for the 2010 Cardinals as I expected this team to run roughshod through its division, but in the end it is the emergence of the Reds that is hampering my Cards pick from being in good shape. With 47 wins at the break, this year's Cardinals are on pace for 86-87 wins, but they will need to pick up a couple of games on that pace to avoid going Under by season's end this year.
Tampa Bay Rays: Under 89.5. I liked the Rays for mid-80s in wins this season, but I had to take the Under since to go over would require this young team to post 90 wins in the division of the Yankees and the improved Red Sox. Instead, the Rays have been at or near the best team in baseball all season long, and are currently on pace to win 99 games and easily beat the Vegas line for the year.
Texas Rangers: Over 84.5. I immediately picked the Rangers as an Over candidate as I find this team to be consistently underrated by the Vegas sharps in season over-unders these past several years. Once again the team is looking solid -- on pace currently for 92 wins -- and with the trade for Cliff Lee last week, this one should be an easy lock for Over in 2010.
Toronto Blue Jays: Under 70.5. I got the Jays pretty much wrong also, although the team has been faltering of late and may well end up giving this line a run for its money. As of right now, though, the Jays are still on pace for 80 wins and way ahead of the 71 they will need to make the Over on the season.
Washington Nationals: Under 70.5. Despite all the buzz and everybody picking the Nats as on Over this year, I went with the Under on the thinking that the NL East would be better and they would have a hard time improving 14 games over their 2009 total win performance. So far at the break here in 2010, the Nats have 39 wins in 89 games, on track for 71 wins. So this one will count as a loss for now, but it's another that is going to come right down to the wire in my view.
So, after picking exactly 15 overs and 15 unders heading into the 2010 MLB season, here at the halfway point I am looking decent once again. By my count I currently win on 17 of my picks and lose on 13 of them, which is right around where I ended last season as well as I recall. But right, I count just two teams I am currently winning (Royals and Twins) which are close enough to realistically move to losses by season's end. Meanwhile, there are five teams I am currently losing but which I expect to be real close at the end -- Boston, Florida, the Angels, St. Louis and the Nats. If you figure I can pick up one or two net winners among those 7 wide open chases, then I'll be looking at another solid year of MLB over-unders here in 2010. Read more...
For the life of me I am still trying to figure out why LeBron thought that narrowing his choice down to five teams, then the free agency magical mystery tour coming through Akron and Cleveland, and then the one-hour televsion special on national tv to announce his decision, were all the right way to handle his free agency decision in the end.
I mean, the more people look into it, the more it is coming out that these three players actually made this decision two years ago if not more, starting when they all agreed apparently back in 2006 to make sure their current contracts all expired at the same time after the 2009-2010 season. Then in the Summer Olympics in 2008, each of Wade, Bosh and LBJ agreed to try to play together -- likely either in New York or Miami -- in 2010 when they had all designed their contracts such that they would be simultaneous free agents.
Then a few weeks ago came the report that the three met up recently in Miami to discuss the possibility of playing together on the Miami Heat. That report was denied, of course, but here we are. A few days ago then, Wade and Bosh announced that they would sign with the Heat.
Are you going to try to tell me that LeBron did not already know what team he was going to play for? I mean, I'm sure there are always contract contingencies to be worked out, but the biggest one of those is pretty much always the money, and in the NBA that is not likely to really be a big sticking point given the fairly lockstep salary structures for the top players.
So I ask again, if LeBron knew two years ago or more that he would be heading to the Knicks or the Heat to play with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh, then why did he stage this whole magic mystery free agency tour and include teams like the Nets, the Clippers, and even the Knicks at this point once he knew that team wasn't rich enough to sign all three players?
Wouldn't this just have been easier if he had just announced a month or two ago like a normal person that he has decided to sign with the Miami Heat for next season?
While I don't have much to question in LBJ's ultimate decision to join those two players in South Beach, I just can't shake the feeling that LeBron handled this whole thing in just about the worst, least intelligent and least strategic ways imaginable. Now, although they love him in South Beach, suddenly LeBron James is a largely hated figure in Cleveland and basically all through his home state, an amazingly in the three largest media markets in the country in New York (Knicks and Nets), L.A. (Clippers) and Chicago (Bulls) as well. Why do that to yourself?
Who is advising this kid on the decisions he is making? Read more...
That's the new nickname for LeBron James btw -- LBJ. It's better than The King or whatever, and frankly anything we can do to take that moniker away from the clown president of the 1960s is a good thing in my book.
So the LBJ business in an absolutely full swing here, as anyone could have predicted once LeBron announced that he would reveal his future plans during the first ten minutes of a nationally-televised program on ESPN at 9pm ET on Thursday night. It's an unprecedented step, and one that will certainly be a fitting end to the spectacle that has been the 2010 LBJ Free Agency Tour. With five teams officially in the running according to the James camp -- the Bulls, Heat, Cavaliers, Nets and Knicks -- and with the money essentially pre-determined in each case given the salary restrictions in the NBA, tonight's decision is expected to be mostly about where LeBron feels he can best win a title. Or make that titles. The thing is, with so much uncertainty still going in the NBA right now, it can be very difficult to really figure out exactly where that means he is going.
One thing is for sure in my mind, and as far as I can tell, I may be the only person on the earth who sees this so clearly: LeBron is straight up making clowns out of the media right now, and he (or his camp) is doing it on purpose. Right now anybody can click over to espn.com and see the top story that LeBron is leaning towards the Heat. There is little doubt that the whispers all through Thursday will be about LeBron going to Miami, heading right up to shortly after 9pm when all will be made known. But I listen to a good three hours of sports radio every day given my commuting situation, both local New York shows as well as national shows like ESPN Radio, Mad Dog Radio and Fox Sports Radio, and I can tell you that without a doubt, three days ago, the Bulls were said to be the clear frontrunners in this thing. Word was leaked that LeBron was very impressed with the Bulls' moves this offseason, including the hiring of the Celtics' longtime defensive coordinator as the new head coach, and now they have added Carlos Boozer as well this morning, and LeBron was said to absolutely believe that his best chance to win many titles lied in Chicago.
Then move ahead to Tuesday, just two days ago. After all indications from LBJ's camp on Monday pointed to the Bulls, suddenly we woke up on Tuesday morning, LeBron announced that he would have this 9pm media special on Thursday to announce his decision, and LeBron's camp leaked whispers that he would be broadcasting from within his home town of Akron, Ohio. Suddenly, it was obvious to everyone -- including mostly all of those same people reporting that Chicago was the frontrunner just a day earlier -- that LeBron was staying with the Cavs.
Then there was Wednesday, again just one more day later. Early in the day it was leaked by a couple sources close to LBJ that he was leaning towards the Knicks. Then LBJ's people let it be known that espn had booked the Boys and Girls club in Greenwich, Connecticut from 7-10pm ET for the press conference. So suddenly not only was LeBron not broadcasting from his home town or from Ohio at all, but he was coming to the New York City suburbs to make his announcement. Anyone who listens to sports radio like I do knows that on Wednesday, LBJ's camp made it such that all the whispers, all the gossip, all the signs were that he would be coming to New York.
So to review, on Monday LBJ's camp clearly indicated a lean towards Chicago. Then on Tuesday his people manipulated the facts around his media announced to clearly suggest a lean towards Cleveland. Then on Wednesday, additional facts were made known along with a few reports in well-placed New York sports media sources from sources close to LBJ that James was leaning towards the Knicks.
And now I'm supposed to believe that LBJ is leaning towards Miami on Thursday? Are you kidding me?
All these idiot reporters are showing is what mega effing pawns they are for the people who control them. You ever hear that old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well here it is in action. LeBron's people clearly have spent this entire week making a new city the alleged favorite for LBJ to go to every different day of the week. They're laughing about it, right now they are, I guarantee you. They're probably sitting around a table in a plane somewhere drinking a bottle of Dom Perrignon, reading the espn.com homepage and watching SportsCenter over and over and over again. This week has been media manipulation at its silliest, and somehow, some way, the morons in big positions in sports media in this country don't see how plainly they are being played.
LeBron is most definitely not "leaning towards" Miami right now, not any more than he was "leaning towards" Chicago on Monday, Cleveland on Tuesday, or New York on Wednesday. Miami is a major attraction for LBJ just as those other three cities are, and he will be making his final decision probably up until late this afternoon or early evening if I had to guess. Here's a quick rundown of each city's chances given what I think I know:
1. The Nets. There is absolutely no reason for LBJ to ever go to the Nets. They are playing in Newark or some shit for the next few seasons, they have no real strong NBA history or tradition, and they'll always be the also-ran to the Knicks in New York, and about 7th or 8th down the list in popularity of sports teams in NY metro. And worst of all, while teams like the Heat, Bulls and Knicks have all signed some big free agents over the past few weeks to help attract LBJ to play there, the Nets have somehow managed to just sit around and sign nobody, while most of the big prizes have by now been claimed by other teams. In fact, just about the only possible reason to think LBJ might ever consider going to the Nets is that his people who have so blatantly clowned on the media this week have deliberately avoided any mention whatsoever of the Nets. By this point the Nets are such a clear fifth wheel in this race, that the only chance they could realistically have is if LeBron was always going to go there and just wanted to shock everybody by deliberately ignoring them all week just to throw off the scent. Odds of LBJ to the Nets: 2%.
2. The New York Knicks. The big pro's for going to the Knicks in LeBron's eyes are first and foremost that he has always loved New York City, has secretly always dreamed of playing in Madison Square Garden on the country's biggest stage, and has even sort of told people over the years that he would love to play here someday. In addition, the team has been so bad for so long at this point, that even a modicum of success there would make LeBron the most loved athlete in a town that is getting close to losing its longtime sports icons in Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. If LBJ can win even a couple of titles in New York, he will basically be an all-time basketball legend for centuries, hands down. No other city can necessarily make that kind of a promise. Also, LeBron wanted the Cavs to bring Amare Stoudamire to Cleveland to play with him two seasons ago, but the Cavs would not despite LBJ's repeated expressions of his desire to play with the guy from Phoenix with the surgically-repaired knee. And make no mistake, the Knicks' just having signed Stoudamire this week to a 5-year, $100 million contract is at least as much to get LBJ as it is to get Stoudamire, and I am sure LeBron has not lost his desire to play with one of the best big men in the game today. The big con's for LeBron to come to New York, however, are that the team is pretty damn bad right now, and they have been run ineptly for a long, long time. The owner has shown a penchant for making poor decisions with respect to team management, and has shown absolutely no competence whatsoever for bringing in successful teams to run his franchise over time. Current Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni certainly has not wowed anybody during his two years at the helm either, leading two sets of crappy players to give up around the midway point two years in a row for the biggest embarrassment in all of the NBA. Odds of LBJ to the Knicks: 28%.
3. The Chicago Bulls. The pro's of LBJ going to the Bulls are simple and obvious: Derrick Rose, more or less the best young point guard in the game today, plus now Carlos Boozer has been signed up for the next several years as well, meaning LeBron is guaranteed of a solid core of great NBA players for the foreseeable future. Throw in some of the young stars on this team as well and you have got arguably the best all-around team to give LBJ a shot to win a title right away. Some argue that the aura of Michael Jordan in Chicago might also be an attractive challenge for LeBron to try to return the title to the Windy City, but I think overall that has got to be seen as a negative by James if not by his camp in general. I mean, Chicago is pretty much the only city in America where Bron could go and average 33 points per game over the next two years and win back to back titles, and still not be considered the best player on that team in this generation. From one egomaniac to another, I say the recent success of Michael Jordan in Chicago is the big thing weighing against LBJ's decision to start the next phase of his NBA career there. Odds of LBJ to the Bulls: 18%.
4. The Miami Heat. The Heat of course were the subject of that rumored, then struck down, and then reconfirmed story from last weekend on espn.com that reportedly had LBJ meeting in Miami with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh to discuss the three players uniting for a run at a few titles down in the land of South Beach. Obviously, the huge plus in LBJ's eyes of this move is getting to play with two bona fide NBA stars in Wade and Bosh, both of whom have indicated this week that they will sign with the Heat and would even consider signing for slightly less than the maximum to get all three players down there. Miami is ultimately the only team in America that has the financial wherewithal to sign three players like Bosh, Wade and LBJ -- thanks mostly to getting the Larry Bird exemption for Wade's contract -- and that along with the very real possibility of Pat Riley coming out of the owners' box and back down to the sidelines to coach this team are without a doubt a huge attraction for James and his camp. There are not many negatives to making this decision, as Miami is without a doubt one of the handful of funnest cities in the country, and a great place for LeBron to see and be seen. The two possible con's that come to mind are first, that the Heat will literally have only four players signed to contracts once they bring in Bosh, Wade, LeBron and get rid of Beasley (point guard Michael Chalmers is under contract for this year already). The rest of that team would have to be stocked with basically a bunch of NBA minimum guys in order to afford paying what these three stars would require, and that maybe a source of frustration at some point against other deep teams in the playoffs. And the other negative -- although not one that I bet LeBron would be willing to put much stock in sitting here right now up in his plane dousing himself in champagne -- could be that it may be more difficult than it seems for LeBron, Wade and Bosh to play together. It's not just about sharing the ball, although that could be a problem since Wade and LeBron in particular are both used to getting so many touches in every single game they play -- but also sharing the spotlight. Right now, the Miami Heat are Dwayne Wade's team, and they have been for some time. There's no way of knowing if LBJ would ever be able to break through that tradition and take over leadership of the team in the way that Wade has. LeBron may not deal with being second fiddle to Wade all the time, and Wade might not deal well with it if LeBron comes in and takes over as the clear leader of the team either. Ask yourself this: what's going to be going through LeBron's mind in the middle of next season if Wade is averaging 31 points per game while LeBron is averaging just 22? It's definitely something for LBJ to think about at least in making the most important decision of his career so far. Odds of LBJ to the Heat: 31%.
5. The Cleveland Cavaliers. The argument to stay with the Cavs is as easy as any of those on this list: It's his hometown, and they are his team. They've always been his team, and LeBron is still at heart strongly an Ohio boy. Oh, and his team had the best record in thre regular season this past year in the East -- better than the Bulls, better than the Celtics, and better than the Magic. Better than everybody. With LeBron, the Cavaliers are already proven to be the best team in the East, it's his hometown team, and on top of all that they can pay him the most money under the Larry Bird salary cap exemption. So why leave? It is unclear if LeBron believes he can win under that ownership and management team anymore. LeBron clearly does not want to go through any more seasons like his last two in Cleveland, and I think it was clear to anybody who watched the 2010 NBA playoffs that by the end of the conference semis, LeBron had given up. You could see it on his face, and you could see it in the way he played in those last two games. LeBron has serious doubts about the Cavs as a franchise right now. On top of that, LBJ would not even return Tom Izzo's calls, even one time, when Izzo was considering taking over the team's "reins" (you assidiot) a few weeks ago, which in my eyes definitely signified a lean away from returning to his hometown team. Ultimately I think the Cavaliers are the easiest team to explain if LBJ decided to go that route, and it might also be the slight sentimental favorite among NBA fans who are not fans of the particular teams or cities involved. Odds of LBJ to the Cavs: 21%.
We will know the answer tonight around 9:05pm ET on ESPN. Read more...
I may have failed to mention this last week, but I figure by now you guys are used to the routine, as the Hammer Family has gone to the beach for the July 4 holiday at least ten straight years and hopefully will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. So that's where I've been for the past few days, although under different circumstances I probably would have posted a few times during the vacation, or at least mentioned here that I would be disappearing for a few days. In reality, however, my wife and I had a very sad thing happen in the family where a very, very close relative suffered a life-altering injury out of nowhere around the middle of last week.
I got the word when Hammer Wife called me in tears at my office, having heard the news via an emergency voicemail left by a friend of the family. Although (of course) my work made it impossible for me to extricate myself a day earlier than the vacation I already had planned, we basically dropped everything and left for the beach a day early (where the accident also coincidentally occurred). As I look back, I guess I didn't have time to post before breaking my balls at work for 24 hours straight and then jumping in the car for the solo ride down to the beach to meet my family who had arrived the day before.
In a nutshell, we spent the week in and out of the hospital, visiting, worrying and just generally helping out where we could, but it really made the normally festive and relaxing July 4 week not a fun one for anyone this time around. One interesting aspect of the weekend was how we handled it with the Hammer kids. M and K are at interesting ages with respect to this, as K, like the baby obviously, is just barely too young to really understand that the person may never be exactly the same again after the emergency last week. But M is pretty much just old enough to start to get it. Hammer Wife and I really went out of our way to keep the gory details from both kids, and even though they had to join us at the hospital on two separate days because of circumstances this week, in the end we decided not to bring them upstairs to the room, preferring for them not to experience the image of this person so different from how they have always seen them in the past. Only time will tell just how much M really understands and appreciates what exactly happened this week with one of her favorite people in the world.
So innocence was spared for some at least this weekend. But what about our feelings? The grown-ups, I mean, and not necessarily just the old ones. I mean, to be honest, the fact that this happened to a formerly-no-real-medical-problems, trim, incredibly healthy-eating person of course freaks all of us out. How could it not? I eat generally like crap and for sure don't have even one-tenth of the fake food that this person keeps at the house almost exclusively -- imitation butter, egg beaters, fake tofu cream cheese, fake turkey lite sausage, extra special light peanut butter that has literally zero taste at all, etc. -- and although I may be a bit younger, I don't exactly consider myself a spring chicken at this point in my life by a long shot. If this person can suffer such a horrifying accident, then it seems for sure it could happen to any of us. Myself? Without question. Probably, even.
Instead of a real vacation and a time to get away from the things that weigh on me, this past week turned out to be one of the first times I've been literally forced to sit and ponder my own mortality while also being deeply concerned about the mortality of a close family member. I always knew I've been lucky to be able to say I've gone this long and gotten this old without ever having to deal with something quite like this before, but now having been through just the beginning of this situation I realize for the first time just how incredibly lucky that is. Maybe it's ok that I must be about 50 or 60 percent below my long-term expected value results at poker -- between my family, my health, and the life I've been privileged to lead so far in my time on the earth, I'm still running way way good in the end. Read more...
And more than that, when you add in the way LeBron has spoken about "the team he goes to next", the Tom Izzo stuff when LeBron would not even return one phone call to his potential coach in Cleveland, and now this meeting of three young stars in the NBA in Miami on the weekend before free agency begins, it is just looking more and more clear that LeBron is not pining away to stay in Cleveland. He is definitely looking around at his options, and he is definitely interested, so this is not going to be the easy road for the Cavaliers that many supposed pundits were predicting just a few weeks ago, that much is clear at this point.
Anyways, when I first heard this story, my immediate reaction was basically "No way all three of those guys could play on one NBA team!" When Chris Bosh himself was asked about that possibility last week on ESPN Radio, he described it as a fantasy, as "PlayStation type stuff" to use his words. But then I started thinking about it, and I'll be damned if it does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
From a talent perspective, it does seem like it could be a little bit crowded on the floor with Bron, D-Wade and Bosh all in there. But then you think about the other great teams of the last several years, and when it comes right down to it, they've all got two if not three bona fide all-star type of players on their team. Whether it's been Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Nene, or Shaq, Kobe and Brian Shaw, or Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, or Kobe, Gasol and Odom, there almost always seem to be three big players on each of the great teams of the past generation or so. The most recent Celtics team seems like the closest comparison, although even that threesome fails to capture the amount of talent and skill that would be the floor every night with LeBron, Wade and Bosh on the court, especially with Pat Riley at the helm. But despite what could sound like a lot of potential clogged lanes and ball hogging, the three players all do kinda play different positions, and in its own way I can almost see the three working together. D-Wade brings the ball down the court, LeBron steps out and takes that first pass, he dishes it off to Bosh on the inside. Bosh looks for the shot, finds D-Wade back out at the top of the key, who fakes the shot and instead throws the perfect alley-oop to LeBron who is streaking in from the opposite baseline from where he started the play. I really can see it, the more I think about it.
The other side of things is the finances, but strangely Miami is basically the one place where the money could actually work. Wade can be re-signed by the Heat and he can get a Larry Bird exception so his money does not fully count against the team's salary cap. The Heat could then sign Bosh and LeBron to multi-year contracts at or near the max, and the three players could unite in Miami -- one of the top few funnest cities in America by most counts -- and make a sick run for the NBA title. And don't even act like Pat Riley would not be out of retirement and coaching that team within how many seconds of the signings? 5? 1? 0.1? Lord knows that slick, pompous Riley must be fuming as he sees Phil Jackson -- who took the reins from Riley's Lakers team in the early '90s and has never looked back, winning 11 of 20 NBA titles while Riley has toiled in the Heat front office for the past several years -- winning year after year after year, all while assembling teams with clearly more talent than anybody else in the league.
Obviously nothing is set in stone yet by a long shot, and LeBron hasn't even begun fielding the offers he's going to be seeing in spades starting on Thursday at midnight. But the fact that LeBron has shown absolutely zero interest in helping his former team in Cleveland secure LeBron's services in the future, while at the same time making plans for a three-way powwow with two fellow NBA stars halfway across the country is to me very telling. LeBron isn't not interested in dealing with his free agency yet at all. He just doesn't want to deal with the Cavs.
I have a hunch that the next few weeks are going to change the NBA more than any few weeks in the sport's history. Read more...
I had an interesting experience with chopping a tournament recently, and I wrote this post at the time but am just completing it now. Earlier this year I played in a no-limit tournament in a casino with a large poker room where they regularly run tournaments. It was a $200 buyin event, and it was fairly small, more like a multi-table sitngo than an actual mtt, with I believe 58 entrants, give or take a few. Long story short, I end up at the final table with around an average stack, and then I pick up a couple of big hands, run a huge bluff, and before you know it I'm sitting in 2nd place with just a few players remaining. For some reason, I never seem to be able to bust out the third place guy when I am heads-up, and the same held true here as my opponent across the table knocked him out to come into heads-up play with me with him holding about a 2-to-1 chip lead.
2-to-1. It sounds like a big number. I mean, it means he had literally almost twice as many chips as I have. In this thing I think there were just under 600k total chips in play (approximately 58 runners and 10k starting stacks), so it was something like 370k to 210k as we started to play, and you could just tell this guy thought he was killing it. The look on his face said it all -- he kind of knows how to play the game, but in truth he cannot believe he is sitting here playing heads-up for the $2150 first prize. He's played so well, it's never been in doubt for him today, and now he's come into heads-up with a monster stack. He is the best player in the casino on this day, and he just knows it.
Which is why, when I suggested that we discuss a chop, the guy chuckled. Out loud. He wasn't really being a dick I suppose -- he just honestly thought he had this in the bag and wasn't really considering doing any kind of a chop. The top two payouts were scheduled to be $2150 for first and $1350 for second, so he looks up at the tournament board on the closest television screen, considers the payouts for a minute or two, and then turns and offers me a chip chop. Meaning, we add up each of our percentage of the total chips in play, and then divide up the remaining prize pool according to that ratio.
Now, in theory I am not against this approach, but the bottom line is that it really only works well when you're heads up if the two stacks are fairly close. I mean, if the guy with 55% of the chips wants 55% of the prize pool, there might be some logic to both players agreeing to that split, since the chip leader will secure the "win" and the largest share of the prize money despite having very little actual advantage in the final result by virtue of his slightly increased chip stack. Meanwhile, the underdog will secure close to 1st place money in his own right, while holding less than half the chips in heads-up play and probably in line for more like a third of the total prize pool for the top two spots if left as is. In my case, I had already told my opponent earlier at the final table that I was not opposed to a chop based on our chip counts, but again that was at a different time, with still multiple players left at the table, and with very different chip stacks. At this point, I explained to the guy that applying this formula would lead to a ridiculous result, and he started getting belligerent with me. In fact, he would so not listen to what I was trying to say that we ended up having the TD run the numbers on the chip chop so that we could have them right in front of us to help make explanations and negotiations easier.
In a nutshell, with payouts of $2150 and $1350 scheduled to go to the top two finishers, I was already guaranteed to win at least $1350 with no chop at all. However, I had 210k chips to his 370k, giving me roughly 36% of the chips in play, while my opponent held 64%. This would mean that, if we chose to do an exact "chip chop", he would take 64% of the total $3500 prize pool for the top two spots, and I would take 36%. This translates to a chop of $2240 for him, and $1260 for me. The guy just kept arguing and arguing that he was crushing me, he had twice as many chips so he should just twice as much of a payout if we chop it up. Finally, when the TD literally wrote the numbers down and put the paper right on the table in front of me and my opponent, I tried to show him why it makes less than zero sense for me to agree to the chip chop: I would guarantee myself less money ($1260) than I was already guaranteed under the tournament's original payout schedule ($1350)!!
When finally confronted with the numbers right in front of his face, it seemed to finally start to sink in with this guy that there was no way I was going to agree to a straight chip chop at a time when he had a bigger percentage of the total chips than the payout schedule awards to the top finisher over 2nd place. It would literally never make sense to agree to this kind of a chop in this situation -- as I tried to explain to the guy, I wouldn't agree to a straight chip chop even if our stacks were a little closer, such that I was guaranteed $1350 for 2nd place is it stands, but with a chop I could guarantee myself slightly more, say $1450 or something. For only a lousy extra hundred bucks, I would much rather push allin blind on the next five hands and try for the quick random double-up or die trying and take my $1350 in the first place. For this reason, and of course due to the fact that I knew that even at down 370k to 210k, I was just one double-up away from a huge chip lead of close to 3-to-1 myself, I told the guy after finally getting my point across about the chip chop that I would be willing to agree to chop the remaining $3500 only for $1850 for him and $1650 for me, or else we should just play it out. He kinda sneered at me and said "let's shuffle up and deal then!". And so we did.
First hand, I found KTs and, really not caring much at this point, pushed allin before the flop. He folded. On the second hand after the failed chop, my opponent raised it up 3x before the flop, and I instantly pushed allin again when I looked down to find A8, also suited. He thought it over for a decent while with a pissed off look on his face, and then eventually folded his hand again. I pointed out to him that, with the blinds having just escalated yet again a couple of hands earlier, that I was now probably close to 90% of his chip stack if he wanted to just agree to an even chop of $1750 each. Insulted, he immediately rebuffed my offer and we dealt out a third hand. AJo for me, and I pushed allin once again, and my opponent folded with another frustrated look on his face.
As the dealer mixed up the cards for the fourth deal, I saw my opponent's eyes drop down to my stack, then back to his. Having already prepared for this moment, I let him know that I was now just 20k behind him in chips, meaning that we were currently sitting at approximately 300k to 280k. I once again urged him to agree to an even chop, and as the dealer set to start the deal, he blurted out "OK, I'll take the deal, let's just chop this up!" I confirmed we were splitting the payout evenly, and he agreed, commenting that "it just doesn't make sense to play it out at this point". A sentiment with which I totally agreed, don't get me wrong. But the guy cost himself a few hundy by not agreeing to a more fair chop just four hands earlier.
I've seen this happen many, many times at final tables of mtts, both live and online, at really all buyin levels. Invariably, the guy with the biggest stack at the table -- and this phenomenon is generally worse with the fewer the number of players remaining in the tournament -- but the biggest stack pretty much always feels entitled to more of the prize pool than he probably deserves. They always seem to feel like their chip lead is insurmountable, this despite the pressure of the blinds on the short stacks, the low Ms across the board, and the resulting tremendous influence that luck will have on the final results. In my experience, ranging from chopping up the $3 buyin mtt's on pokerstars way back when and all the way up even to my final table at the Venetian Deep Stack last summer with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line -- the top stack almost always overestimates his chances of winning the tournament and rarely ever wants to give up enough to make a chop worth it for the other players.
Similarly, as surely as the big stack will overestimate his chances of winning the tournament outright, I am also not sure I have ever participated in discussions to chop at a final table where the proposals are for the most part rejected by the shortest stacks, in particular when there are more than two or three players remaining in the event. Just as the big stack never seems to be willing to give up enough from the first prize money, the group as a whole never seems to be willing to give the short stacks enough to get them out of the same situation I was in with this guy at heads-up earlier this year. And if the stakes get big enough, this phenomenon with the short stacks is only magnified. Take my Venetian final table last year, for example -- I distinctly remember several failed chop discussions happening in that thing, starting from probably with 8 players left and going on all the way down, pretty much after every single bustout. And mostly every time, the remaining short stacks were not even close to agreeing to what was being proposed. Sure, with 6 players left, 6th place was slated to pay probably about 9k, and the chop being proposed was offering 11k to those players with the shortest stacks, and 11k is appreciably better than 9k for sure, both in percentage terms as well as absolute terms. But, when with one lucky double-up or one pocket Aces these guys could immediately jump to a stack that would put them in line for a 20-30k payout let alone a shot at the 101k first prize, why would they agree to give up potentially 100k in lost wins just to secure an extra $1500 or $2000 right now? The bottom line is, most of the time, the short stacks with multiple players left don't agree with this, and they won't.
As I have discussed (and shown) here several times in my day, I am always willing, if not looking to, chop a tournament when the stacks are shallow, the blinds are soaring and the stakes are worth caring about. But any chop will need to make sense to all the players involved, and invariably the greatest pressure points are focused on the extremes -- the largest and the smallest stacks remaining in the tournament. The bottom line is that, since the winner typically nabs such a huge percentage of the prize pool in his payout, the guy with the chip lead will by definition have to be by far the guy who gives up the most absolute dollars in any big chop, and typically those give-ups will flow mostly in absolute terms to the smallest stacks remaining in the event, who will need to be adequately compensated for giving up a chance to get back into the thick of things for the top payouts. Ultimately with experience I have learned that no chip lead is nearly as safe as you think once you're down to short-handed play with small Ms and a lot at stake, but unfortunately not everyone you run into at your average casino final table will have much (if any) understanding of this important poker tournament concept. Read more...
Well I was going to write today about how hard I've been working at my job lately, how incredibly tedious it can be sometimes and about how I just have to persevere even though I work harder than anyone I know a lot of times and often with relatively little to show for it. But then this tennis match came along and made me forget all about my day-to-day complaints about anything.
Well, let's go back a step first. The World Cup actually became damn interesting on Wednesday morning. I was off site and unable to really enjoy it, but I did get to listen through most of the game on my commute into work yesterday, and the tension levels -- and the corresponding level of interest in the game -- was just incredible. As we stayed tied at 0-0, and with England grabbing the early 1-0 lead over Slovenia, everyone listening or watching the U.S. - Algeria soccer game knew that either one of two things could happen -- in fact, needed to happen -- for the U.S. to make the Round of 16. We either needed to score a goal, or we need Slovenia to score a goal. Either option would get us through the Group and into the next round, but as the U.S. missed chance after chance after chance, the tension just grew and grew for U.S. soccer fans all around the world. As someone who thinks most soccer players in this country are huge dorks and certainly doesn't give a crap about the sport or its success here, I have to admit, it actually got really interesting to me. As the time ticked away and England grabbed their victory, our game entered stoppage time and we knew at that point it had to be us, and when Donovan was in the right place after rushing the net on the offensive drive to put back the easy rebound, I will admit something I won't ever probably admit to again: I screamed. Out loud. I was in my car and I actually rolled down the window and screamed. It was that exciting.
Anyways, originally this post was going to be a whine about how hard I've been working, but then after the World Cup actually found a way to make me interested, then they were going to be the topic of today's post instead, and I was already imagining writing it in my head. But then this tennis match happened.
59-59? I mean, is that for real? I had to watch SportsCenter just because I had to make sure it wasn't just a typo. A typo repeated all over every sports ticker on tv, internet site and media outlet this side of TASS. I had to watch just so I could see what 59-59 looks like on the scoreboard at Wimbledon.
It's pretty rare that something comes along and shatters an all-time record by this much. I mean, this is like the equivalent of someone showing up and hitting 125 home runs in one year, or someone in the NFL throwing for 90 touchdowns in a season. So you take the longest tennis match ever played in the history of the sport, and then add 66% to that. And that's just how long the match is so far. These two guys are still tied. At 59 games apiece in the crucial fifth set.
Tell me something -- is there any way we can just give them both the victory, and let them take on the next opponent in the tournament as a tag team? They can alternate playing by games or something. I mean, who do you think is going to be more fatigued in this one? The guy having to play every game against two men who are alternating games? Or each of the two guys who can barely walk let alone run or swing a racket, having to play every other game against a well-rested young guy who has played only one match in the past two days, not three full matches (at least)?
It's either that, or just make the winner of this match this year's overall Wimbledon champion, and go ahead and award the trophy and everything right there after this thing ends today. Hopefully! Read more...
While channel surfing early last night, one of the HBO's was showing what I think is a greatly underrated comedy of the last decade -- "Dude Where's My Car?". Now I am no kind of Ashton Kutcher fan -- I've never once watched That 70s Show and have never seen Punk'd -- and I don't exactly love Sean William Scott either (though he has been funny in several movies, come to think of it), but "Dude Where's My Car" is a seriously funny movie. There is something about that scene with the back tattoos that makes me able to watch it over and over and over again, and like many of the other good comedies of the past decade, most of the scenes in this flick are are actually pretty damn funny stuff.
Anyways, in watching this movie for the first time in probably five or six years, it occurred to me how much this is actually "The Hangover", but long before "The Hangover" was ever made. Not that "Dude Where's My Car?" invented this move either necessarily, but basically the movie begins with these male friends waking up the morning after a crazy party, totally hung over, their place completely trashed, and not remembering anything about what they did last night. In both films, however, the friends quickly notice that something is missing that they urgently need to find. In "The Hangover", it's their friend who is about to get married, while in "Dude", it's their car (duh). But in both films, what ensues is a hilarious misadventure that involves the friends working backwards from whatever clues they are able to find about what they did the night before, eventually ending up in finding their missing thing that they so desperately need.
What's especially interesting to me is some of the details that are eerily similar between the two movies. Like, both crazy nights involved the friends throwing around tons of money and being all crazy at a strip club. One of the first places the protagonists end up in both films is the strip club, where everybody seems to know them even though they have no clue who any of these people are. In both movies, one of the friends -- who has a wife ("The Hangover") or a girlfriend ("Dude") hooks up with a smokin' hot chick (in "The Hangover" it is Heather Graham, and in "Dude" it is Kristy Swanson) during the night of which they have no memory whatsoever. And, in what has to be the strangest coincidence of them all, in both movies, the friends actually inadvertently stole a bunch of money from a sexually ambiguous person who pursues them throughout the plot. In "The Hangover", it's that crazy Asian guy who also played the doctor in "Knocked Up" for those of you who watch all of these kind of movies, only in "Knocked Up" he was a regular guy, whereas in "The Hangover" he is an oddly effeminate, very strange-talking gangsta type. In "Dude", it's that Rene Russo look-alike stripper who stole 200 grand from her club and apparently gave it to the friends to return to her later, which they never did. It is hard to ignore this obvious parallel between the two movies, and frankly I find it hard to believe that the writers of "The Hangover" were not at least subconsciously influenced by having seen "Dude Where's My Car" previously. The plot commonalities are simply too great to ignore.
Holding rag aces or an ace-rag simply means you were given an Ace and another card that is lower than 10. You can call A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9 rag races. In short, ace-rag is an Ace coming with a low kicker.
Now how do you play an ace-rag hand? It will be a very common mistake for inexperienced to get very confident with their hand because of the ace that they are holding. Most of the time this gets them into trouble.
One good rule for rag aces is to consider to fold them always since they will rarely win big for you. More often than not, you will end up losing money because you will be out kicked.
If you want to consider playing the ace and the low kicker, wait for a top pair on the flop. Watch out though for another opponent who raises before the flop because most likely they out kick your cards – and you’re on your way out of the casino broke.
Here are some tips on how you play rag aces:
You can only win small pots even if you get a top pair. There might be another player who has a worse kicker but most likely he will not put much chips into it unless he is true Donkaments.
It can be a profitable scenario but it is also a rare one that you make two pairs after the flop but you will be head on against someone who has a better kicker. The chances of being profitable are very slim.
You can bet it out if you are holding an ace-rag but there can be another player who has a better ace making you doubt your hand or there will be an opponent who has a lower kicker who eventually folds his stand. It is still a small pot for you in the end.
As you can see, what we highlight here is that rag aces do not win you big pots. It does not work miracles for you on the poker table. Even with a two pair, it can be a losing battle in the long run. Drill it in your head, an A6 that you hold will not be better when someone holds an AQ before you see the flop. Save yourself some chips and fold.
Razz poker is the most popular lowball poker game, it’s certainly the most popular Lowball poker game in the online poker world. Razz is also the R in H.O.R.S.E which is the third game in the H.O.R.S.E rotation. It is alsoread more…
Razz poker tips and Razz poker strategy can be hard to find online, even though over recent years the game has grown significantly in popularity. This article will cover some of the most important Razz poker tips which will hopefullyread more…
Full Tilt Poker is giving everyone a chance to win a free $50 cash bonus, whether you?re a new player or an existing one. The Fast $50 Bonus Offer comes in celebration of Full Tilt Poker?s latest innovation in onlineread more…
3/3/10,
Get Sit & Go Madness At Full Tilt Poker »»
March isn?t only about March Madness. It?s also about Sit & Go Madness. At least, that is if you?re a player at Full Tilt Poker looking for some exciting action and big money bonuses.
3/3/10,
Betfair Poker LIVE! Poker Festival Adds Stop In Tallinn Estonia »»
You may recall PokerStars? recently successful Nordic Poker Festival. In that same vein, popular online poker room Betfair has announced that the newest stop on its current Betfair LIVE! Poker Festival?s march across Europe will be Tallinn, Estonia.
As the newly inaugurated PokerStars North American Poker Tour (NAPT) and United Kingdom and Ireland Poker Tour (UKIPT) are well underway and making new poker champions for the history books, another PokerStars venture in sponsored live major big money land-basedread more…
2/25/10,
Full Tilt Online Poker Series XV Results »»
The Full Tilt Online Poker Series XV has come to an end and there are a whole slew of players many thousands of dollars richer, not least of whom is JackQKA who won the $2.5 million guaranteed FTOPS XV Mainread more…
PokerStars 2010 Spring Championship of Online Poker Schedule Released
The annual PokerStars Spring Championship of Online Poker (SCOOP) is returning, scheduled for May 3 ? 16, 2010. The 2010 SCOOP will be comprised of 33 events, and promises at least $36read more…
