Keeping Score When I was a kid I watched a lot of baseball. Collected cards, scored the games, bought yearbooks, and all the rest. Loved it. Then other stuff came along that had the effect of lessening my interest considerably. Stuff like free agency. Huge salaries. Girls.
Before all that, though, I’d always get a copy of Bill James’ Baseball Abstract each preseason and read and reread the sucker all year. James is a long time baseball writer who specializes in various kinds of statistical analyses. James called his discipline “sabermetrics” (after the Society for American Baseball Research or SABR). Was responsible for all sorts of innovative ways of analyzing players’ performances, including inventing certain stats like “runs created” and “power/speed numbers” and the like.
I was scrounging around in the attic yesterday looking for those Abstracts. Came up empty, though I’m sure they are around somewhere. Hope I find them, as there should be a dozen or so complete sets of cards in the near vicinity, I’m guessing. I wanted to find the one with an essay proposing a new kind of box score, one that provided more detailed information than the relatively sparse ones we used to get in the sports page every morning. (Box scores have changed considerably since then, partially because of James’ influence, I think it is safe to say.)
Looking online I’m seeing the article I’m looking for was probably the one titled “Project Scoresheet.” Besides introducing a new kind of box score, James was also hoping to recruit fans from around the country to help compile data from all games in a more thorough way than was being done in the early 80s. (This was way before the internet, dontcha know.)
After a bit more hunting online, I see that James’ “Project” indeed was successful and continued through 1991, after which James joined a group called STATS, Inc. (“Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems”) that tracks statistics for other sports, too. He also apparently was hired by the Boston Red Sox a few years back as a consultant.
Why was I interested in such stuff? Well, I happened to have grabbed Mike Caro’s Caro’s Book of Poker Tells off the shelf the other day and as I was rereading I found myself recalling James’ Abstracts.
Caro and James have certain qualities in common, I think. Both are analytical thinkers, and both in their writings can be found time and again explicitly trying to be iconoclastic or innovative or whatever adjective you want to use for someone who is not satisfied with simply rehearsing “received wisdom.”
 In fact, as those of you who have read the Book of Poker Tells no doubt recall, Caro (like James) there introduced a new kind of “box score” or way of recording poker hands. In the book he explicitly (vainly?) expresses a desire that his “MCU Poker Charts” become “universally accepted” as the standard for conveying a poker hand. (“MCU” stands for the fictitious “Mike Caro University” from which emanate all of Caro’s seminars, writings, etc.) If you click on the picture you can see a larger version the chart, if yr curious.
The charts work well enough in the book, although obviously they never really came close to becoming the “standard” for recording and conveying all of the information from a poker hand. In fact, they are probably too busy and non-intuitive, although when reading the book one gets used to them easily enough. No surprise, really, that the “Charts” never really came close to becoming any sort of standard.
 In fact, one kind of gets the feeling Caro himself didn’t really have a lot invested in the idea of the “MCU Poker Charts.” I can’t find them anywhere on his website, nor are Word documents with the charts available on planetpoker.com (as even the most recent edition of Caro’s book promises).
I like Caro and would be one of those who’d argue he’s made significant contributions to poker over the years, the most significant being the way he helped shaped players’ awareness and analyses of physical tells. Them “Poker Charts,” though, are somewhat less significant, although I’ll give Caro some credit for drawing attention to the fact that when reporting poker hands one needs to be as thorough as possible.
Meanwhile, if you happen to remember Bill James and/or are (or were) a baseball fanatic like me, here’s an interesting 60 Minutes piece on James from last August that partly focuses on his role with the Red Sox:
On Player of the Year Awards Some of you may have heard or read about how John “the Razor” Phan was named Card Player’s “Player of the Year” for 2008. Phan also finished atop the 2008 POY list over at Bluff Magazine, thanks to his having earned over $2 million in prize money this year.
In addition to making several final tables, Phan won a couple of bracelets at the WSOP in 2008. I had the chance to cover the final table for one of them, Event No. 40, the $2,500 Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw event. I wrote a couple of posts here about that final table.
One was back in late June, just after it took place. In that one, “2008 WSOP, Day 27: Cheers,” I wrote a bit about Phan’s ordering 10 cups of Corona once they had gotten down to three-handed. The other post, “Thriving vs. Surviving: John Phan & David Sklansky at the 2008 WSOP, Event No. 40 Final Table,” was written back in August after I’d returned, and there I contrast Phan’s aggressive style at that final table to the decidedly more conservative one employed by Sklansky (who’d finish sixth). Check ’em out, especially if you happen to be a Phan fan.
A few weeks ago I listened to Scott Huff talk about player of the year awards on Big Poker Sundays (the 12/18/08 episode). There Huff talked some about Phan and how his manner at the tables -- lots of deliberation, lots of confrontational table talk -- rubs some players the wrong way. Huff was more interested, though, in discussing POY awards and their value, generally speaking.
Huff suggested Card Player was the “gold standard” when it comes to player of the year awards, since “they have the most . . . scientific system for figuring this out,” although he admits “it is still flawed.” I’m not sure how “scientific” it is, but Card Player does certainly employ a fairly complicated rubric to assign points for its player of the year. And it is probably safe to say CP’s POY award is probably the one of which the majority of poker players and fans are most aware.
For last year’s award, Card Player only counted single events with at least $250,000 in the prize pool, or events that were played as part of series in which the overall prize pool for the entire series was $750,000. At least 60 entrants had to be playing in a given event for it to be counted, and the buy-in had to be at least $300.
That meant all of the big ones were in there -- the WSOP, the WSOPE, the EPT, the APPT, the Aussie Millions, and so forth. There were also many smaller events included, too, although when it comes to assigning points CP gives more for higher buy-in events and for events with more players. There was also even a provision in there to include online events in which the prize pool exceeded $5 million. Off the top of my head, I know the Main Event of PokerStars’ World Championship of Online Poker (played in September) had a prize pool of over $10 million, so it must have been included. There may have been one or two other online tourneys with big enough prize pools in there somewhere as well.
If you’re curious, you can sort through the entire Card Player 2008 Scoring Criteria by clicking here.
The system over at Bluff is similar insofar as players get points according to three main criteria: their finish, the amount of the buy-in, and the number of entrants. However, unlike Card Player, Bluff limits the number of tournaments it considers to just the big series: WSOP, WSOPE, WSOP Circuit events, WPT, Wynn Classic Tournaments, EPT, APPT, Aussie Millions, and the Monte Carlo Millions. Here’s the Bluff system, if yr interested.
I should add that both magazines include non-hold’em events in their rankings, too. That meant Phan’s Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw bracelet win did help him, although the majority of his cashes and deep runs came in NLHE tourneys.
 Getting back to Huff’s commentary, the Big Poker Sundays host went on to make a couple of other, broader observations about POY awards. I thought both points were fairly provocative, and since I am curious to know what others think about them, I thought I would share Huff’s points here.
The first observation has to do with the “flawed” system currently used to determine POY. In response, Huff suggests an alternative method. “I would like to see it polled much like college football (minus the BCS),” says Huff. “I would like to see a poll of the people that are working in poker as journalists who follow and cover the tournament circuit. You know, people like B.J. Nemeth. People like Gary Wise . . . . Even people like Dr. Pauly. People who are around this all of the time, voting on who they think is deserving of the player of the year. And then also have the players vote on their peers.”
Huff goes on to say he doesn’t know how such a system would be weighted, but he thinks this polling method for determining the best player of the year would be preferable to the “scientific” method of assigning points currently used.
Such a poll would be quite interesting, I think. However, as much as I respect folks like Nemeth, Wise, and the good doctor, I think even they would tell you their own votes for player of the year would be of limited value. I know for a fact that Nemeth has spent a lot of time thinking about different ways of determining POY -- in fact, last summer he shared some of his thoughts on this very subject with me. While I won’t go into any of the details of Nemeth’s ideas here (which are terrific, by the way), I will say none of them give any weight at all to his own opinion or “vote” on who the player of the year should be.
Dunno about Wise or Dr. Pauly, but I would guess they, too, would be suitably humble about their own abilities to say who is the best player they’ve covered this year.
Huff’s other observation was to point out the relative value of POY awards. He thinks they are important, and thus improving the system for determining player of the year “would give even more legitimacy to an award that I think is necessary when we’re trying to still promote poker as a sport, and trying to get people to watch it.”
Huff is on to something here, I think. He maintains “the more statistics that we have, the more accessible those statistics are, the more sense that they make, and also being able to tell people out there in the general public who are watching poker as entertainment, to be able to tell them this person is definitively the ‘best player in the world for this year’ as far as tournaments are concerned, is an important thing.” Huff acknowledges that some would disagree with his view, but believes that “as a fan of poker” such awards do, in his opinion, serve an important purpose.
He’s probably right that POY awards do have the ability to excite the interest of casual poker fans -- i.e., those who watch poker on television much as they would any other sport, and are therefore interested in following certain players and learning how they rate against one another.
Even so, I don’t think a poll of journalists and/or players is going to be the way to make such an award more “legitimate” or give it a more prominent status than the relatively modest one it currently enjoys, even among the most ardent poker fans.
Leaving the PLO Party Last month I alluded a couple of times to my having endured a downswing at the pot-limit Omaha tables. Really came down to one horrific week, kicked off by a single, enormous pot (the largest ever for me) that I lost when a river card that gave me aces full also happened to give my opponent a straight flush. Followed that with some more misfortune, compounded by poor decisions and other tilty behavior.
Having felt as though I’d momentarily “lost the plot” (so to speak), I decided the best course was just to pull out a big chunk of my online roll, leaving myself a few hundy each on PokerStars and Full Tilt, and take a short break to refocus. I slowly made my way back and played break even poker for the last part of December, though still wasn’t feeling particularly confident about my decision-making or reads. Ended the year just shy of my best-ever total (2006), a record I’d have easily broken had I avoided that bad patch.
January 1 dawned and sometime that afternoon I rejoined a PLO game (6-handed, $25 max. buy-in). After an hour or so I was down a bit, rebought and built back up some, then lost what amounted to about a $70 coin flip.
If I remember the hand correctly, it had folded to me in the cutoff and I raised pot (85 cents) with J-9-7-7 double-suited (spades and hearts, I think). The button called, as did both blinds, then the flop came    . The blinds checked to me, I bet the pot, and it folded back to the big blind who reraised pot.
That he’s flopped a straight is pretty much a given. But I also know I have a monster draw here and am probably a favorite. Best case is he has a random 8-6-x-x hand (or maybe 6-3-x-x) and no redraws, meaning I am actually about 2-to-1 to win the hand. Worst case is he’s flopped the straight and has a better spade flush draw; there I am a little shy of 40% to win.
If I were writing a 2+2 book, at this point I’d inject a couple of pages of math to justify my decision to gamble here. If I reshove, there’s no way he’s folding -- that is, I’m guaranteed to be playing for my whole stack (about $35 at the time). In the book I’d go on about how there was a 40% chance he had the straight and no redraw, a 30% chance he had the straight and a higher flush draw, a 20% chance he has just a flush draw, and a 10% chance he’s bluffing. (Actually, there’s no way he’s bluffing, but they always include the 10% for bluffing so I will, too.) And then I’d have a table showing (.67 x .40) + (.38 x .30) + (.32 x .20) + (1.00 x .10) = .268 + .114 + .064 + .10 = 0.546 or 54.6% and thereby justify my taking the gamble.
I mean, hey, if I take this proposition 20 times, I stand to win 11, right? (Silly stuff, I know.)
Of course, I ain’t thinking any of that crap. I’m thinking this guy thinks he’s cute check-raising me, and there’s no friggin’ way I’m stepping aside. Besides, I’m probably the dadgummed favorite. Reraise pot!
Indeed, he’s only got the straight without any spades in his hand. But I miss out, and lose the pot.
Oh, well. I found another table and played some more, winning back a little, then losing a little more. Then I realized something.
I wasn’t enjoying myself. Not at all.
Imagine you’re at a party, say one of those where you were sort of obligated to go but didn’t really know anybody all that well and probably would’ve skipped it if doing so wouldn’t have made you feel guilty afterwards. Say a work colleague invited you, and you couldn’t get out of it.
Now let’s say the night before the party you develop some sort of unpleasant sinus infection. Not bad enough to cause you to miss work, but nevertheless requiring some heavy duty medication to keep you on your feet. You make it through the next day all right, during which you see your colleague and reassure him you’ll be at the party.
After a bit of hassle finding the place, you finally arrive and it isn’t until you walk in the door that you realize you cannot drink thanks to the medication you’ve taken. (Sometimes you ignore such warnings, but you know tonight you won’t be doing so.)
 An hour passes. Everyone is having a terrific time. There’s imported beer, red and white wine, and a dude in the kitchen is mixing drinks, too, for anyone who wants ’em. One couple even brought some sort of homemade liqueur called limoncello that takes a month to make, uses lemon rinds, water, sugar, and Everclear or something. After another hour a few of the ladies have begun dipping into that, the drink’s potency evidenced by the fact that one of them keeps telling you when she passes by that she likes your hat.
The music is loud, mostly focusing on pop hits that came just a few years after you last listened to or cared for such stuff. You’re trying to have a good time, getting to know a few folks via brief, shouted conversations here and there. At some point you are standing there with your glass of water realizing you’ve been cornered by this one dude who keeps pointing at you with his Heineken bottle.
What is he saying? Seems to be going on about how 41 states cannot balance their budgets and who’s gonna ask for a bailout next and can you believe how the cable companies screw us and he’s been looking into six-month CDs and oh MY GOD WHAT AM I DOING HERE?
That’s sort of how I felt sitting there at the PLO table on New Year’s Day. Just wasn’t diggin’ this party no more. So I left.
Probably a good idea, given the size of my now smallish online bankroll. Went over to the $0.50/$1.00 limit hold’em tables and had fun passing chips back and forth. Began winning, too (making it more fun, natch).
Have stuck around at those tables for the first few days of the new year, and I think I’ll probably remain in that neighborhood. For a while, anyway. The music is quieter. Most appear to be having just soft drinks and coffee.
Gotta let this medicine do its work.
False Start Been watching a lot of football over the last few weeks. Saw one particular bowl game the other day, the Kentucky-East Carolina one. The Liberty Bowl, I think. A close game (won by Kentucky), and thus interesting enough to see through to the finish. Even so, I had to disagree with the color commentator when he suggested near the end that the game’s competitiveness proved that 34 bowls aren’t too many.
By that time -- late in the fourth quarter -- I had already long decided I was watching a sloppily-played football game. All apologies to Wildcat and Pirate fans, but those were two fairly middling teams going at it that day. Everything about the game was below average -- the play, the coaching, even the refs. Especially the refs, actually. Several horrific calls, some made despite lengthy consultation in the replay booth. In fact, the winning touchdown -- a returned fumble by Kentucky -- came on a play in which the refs missed the fact that the defensive tackle recovering the ball had his knee down prior to his game-winning jaunt down the sideline.
Like I say, to me the poorly-played game seemed pretty strong evidence that having 68 of 119 eligible teams playing in college football’s post-season -- well over half -- is a bit much. But that’s not the topic of today’s post.
I read somewhere once that in football the “false start” is the most frequently called penalty, causing something like 20% (or more) of the flags thrown. Offensive holding is a close second, I believe.
False starts are frustrating, of course, particularly because unlike most penalties, they are often “mental errors” that could have easily been avoided had the offender -- usually an over-eager lineman -- listened to the quarterback’s signal more closely and/or possessed the mind-body discipline to prevent himself from moving an instant before the ball was snapped.
In poker, I think the “false start” is probably a fairly frequent occurrence as well. In fact, if we really scrutinized our play and gave ourselves “penalties” for all of our missteps at the tables, I’d bet “false starts” would make up a significant percentage of our overall “yardage” lost.
Most of you probably know exactly what I’m talking about. You sit down and at the beginning of your session play in a manner -- usually less carefully -- totally unlike your usual, controlled game. Playing that way partly stems from just being excited about rejoining the game, and having some impatience about getting involved early. So you play hands you might normally have passed without a thought, make a few rash calls or raises, and before your seat is warm you’re already searching the playbook for what to call when it’s first-and-fifteen.
I wrote a post a couple of New Year’s Days ago called “Getting Off to a Good Start” in which I talked about something Barry Tanenbaum, author of Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy, had said on a podcast regarding the importance of winning the first hand one plays in a given session. You can read the post to see the full discussion, but the gist is that Tanenbaum recommends players “Always Start Slowly,” meaning essentially to avoid marginal situations and try one’s best to win that first showdown.
Doing so has at least a couple of benefits. For one, it affects how others perceive you, giving you what Tanenbaum calls a “winning image.” By winning that first showdown, you perhaps have given others reasons to respect your bets later on, or maybe to fold to your bluffs or semi-bluffs. Secondly, it affects how you perceive yourself (I think), adding to your confidence in much the same way that initial first down encourages a football team to believe they can move the ball even further.
Tommy Angelo also makes a similar point in Elements of Poker in a section titled “Take the Blind or Post Behind?” Angelo, who plays both limit and no-limit hold’em, says he now always waits for the blind to come around in limit, and only sometimes will go ahead and post from the cutoff in no-limit. He provides a bit of mathematical analysis of the issue, then talks about how he eventually came to realize the huge difference caused by this seemingly innocuous decision.
By posting from the cutoff, Angelo found himself getting involved in hands -- often aggressively -- that he normally wouldn’t be playing if he hadn’t already committed some chips to the pot. “It’s hand number one, and already I’m inviting instability,” was Angelo’s revelation. “It’s the difference between jumping in and settling in,” he continues. “It’s the difference between being afraid and being feared.”
By waiting for the big blind -- something he now always does in LHE -- Angelo realized he reduced variance (or “fluctuation”) and thus minimized the possibility of early tilting. In other words, starting slowly helps him, like Tanenbaum, avoid false starts.
After my lengthy, sometimes-thrilling, sometimes-abusive, year-and-a-half long relationship with pot-limit Omaha, I’m finding myself starting to play more limit hold’em again, and so have been trying to get back into the LHE mindset over the last few days. Had kind of a “false start” to the year, though, when I indulged in a one-night fling with PLO on January 1. I’ll share more about that tomorrow.
Meanwhile, let’s all try to limit those flags and play a good, sound game out there. As that philosopher of the gridiron Knute Rockne once said, “build up your weaknesses until they become strong points.”
The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 11: Poker Chip Draw New year, and a new episode. Click here to listen and/or head on over to the show’s blog to read more about it.
This one begins with a very cool song by Lorne Greene (of Bonanza fame) called “Five Card Stud.” Seriously, the show is worth downloading just to hear this song.
The main feature this time is an episode of the old radio show The Cisco Kid called “Poker Chip Draw.” Also, over on the show’s blog I’ve embedded an old episode of the TV show, if yr curious about such things. One of the first (or perhaps the first) shows filmed in color, I’ve been led to understand.
Since it is the new year and all, I find myself making all sorts of plans like everyone else, and one of them involves the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show. I have an idea I might be able to get onto a regular schedule whereby I produce a new show once every two weeks. I know I’ll be able to do it here at the start of the year, anyway, and hope I can keep it up as the year progresses. We’ll see.
Thanks once again to everyone who has listened to the show thus far and special thanks to those who’ve sent along comments. As I’ve said before, all feedback is especially welcome, and if anyone has ideas or suggestions, send me those, too. You can comment here, on the show’s blog, leave a review over in iTunes, or send an email to shamus at hardboiledpoker dot com
Hard-Boiled Poker Year in Review (3 of 3)Here’s the last of the three recap posts, this one covering September-December. The first discussed January-April, and the second May-September.
September
 This was the month I got involved with live blogging the World Championship of Online Poker for PokerStars. Made for an especially busy two-and-a-half weeks or so (I was essentially working two full-time jobs during that stretch). Was fun and satisfying, though, and I’m glad to say I’ve been able to do a few other writing gigs for Stars here and there since then.
As was the case during the summer with PokerNews, the WCOOP job again found me working with some terrific colleagues, making it all the more enjoyable. Looking back, I see there were a few WCOOP-related posts peppered in there during September, my favorite probably being Deal and Shuffle Up (9/17) in which I recounted some not-so-smooth negotiations at the end of one of the events when the players were trying to figure out a chop.
September was also the month of the first-ever PokerListings’ Run Good Challenge in which yr humble gumshoe run good and, as it happened, done good. In the first event, I bubbled, finishing fourth. You can guess my bustout hand in the title of the post chronicling that one: In Which It Is Demonstrated Why Jacks Are Sometimes Called “Hooks” (9/8). Came runner-up in Event 2 -- Lucky Man (9/15) -- then managed to take down the third one -- Running Good: Ace-Trey = 1st in Event 3 (9/22). That qualified me for the final where I finished fourth behind Amy Calistri (3rd), Michele Lewis (2nd), and Change100 (1st). The story of the final is told in Ladies Night: PokerListings Grand Finale (9/27).
Fired a few “shots in the dark” in September. In one, Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? (9/9), I speculated about what it would be like to play poker against an earlier version of oneself. In the other, Listening (9/12), an excerpt from Eudora Welty’s autobiography inspired a brief meditation on paying attention to others (and oneself).
There was yet another bill proposed in Congress, which I wrote about in First Step for H.R. 6870, the Payments System Protection Act of 2008 (9/19). If yr really interested in looking back over all the legislative posts on HBP from the year, you can click on the category “law” to access those posts. Or check out a post in early October (mentioned again below) that collects all the different UIGEA-challenging bills. Click through on the 9/19 post, though, if you wanna see the cool “I’m just a bill” Schoolhouse Rocks clip again.
Late in the month, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear made that move to try to block 141 online gambling sites from his state, something I wrote about in Kentucky Gov. Wants to Block Online Gambling Sites: Does He Have a Hand? (9/24) and again in Running on Empty (9/26). He’d get there, actually, although that one is now in limbo on appeal.
Finally, I revisited the issue of the poker media and its role -- well, specifically, Card Player magazine -- in a post titled On Poker Mags (Redux) (9/29). There I get on the magazine’s case a bit for what seemed an insincere explanation for their having whitewashed the Scotty Nguyen $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. fiasco.
October
 On the last day of September, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission delivered a presser that stated 1994 WSOP Main Event champion Russ Hamilton was “the main person responsible for and benefiting from the multiple cheating incidents.” Wrote about that a bit in Hamilton, UltimateBet, & the WSOP (10/1).
As stated above, Bill Collector: Senator Introduces Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act of 2008 (S. 3616) (10/6) summarizes all them UIGEA-opposing bills in one handy place. And while we’re on the subject, The Terrible Twos for the UIGEA (10/13) uses the occasion of the second anniversary of Bush’s signing the UIGEA into law for some “big picture”-type speculatin’.
Along with all of youse, I was still watching the WSOP on ESPN in October (and still waiting for that dadgummed final table to play out). Wrote one post mid-month about that, One (More) Time: Reliving My Last Day Reporting on the 2008 WSOP (10/15). A few days later I complained a little about the fact that we were all Still Waiting (for the WSOP Main Event final table) (10/21).
Reported on Kentucky Governor Beshear’s surprising success in that suit against the online gambling sites in Kentucky Takes It Down (10/16), then cheekily reflected on it a little more in Chance, Though Not the Only Element of the Franklin Circuit Court, Is the Element Which Defines Its Essence (10/17), although that latter post is really more about my not-so-hot showing in the LeTune Challenge.
Living to Work, Working to Live (10/23) was another “shot in the dark” inspired by a famous essay by the mystery writer Dorothy Sayers. The essay isn’t about poker -- it’s about work and its place in our lives -- but I tried there to apply some of her ideas to poker.
The month concluded with a real treat, The Hard-Boiled Poker Interview: Dennis Phillips (10/29). Had a very enjoyable 20-minute phone conversation with the then chip-leader of the WSOP Main Event, just about all of which is written up there in the post.
November
 Month began with rumblings that the U.S. Treasury Dept. might try to finalize those UIGEA regs soon, as in before the Bush administration had moved out. Shared that rumor in U.S. Treasury Dept. to Finalize UIGEA Regs in November? (11/1). About ten days later, the rumor became fact, and I wrote about the long and winding road that got us to that point in Endgame: UIGEA Regs Finalized (11/12). Some are saying this doesn’t mean all that much in a practical sense, and in fact the Obama administration could come in and quickly undo all sorts of things done here at the end of the Bush regime, including the UIGEA. Still uneasy about the whole mess, though.
The WSOP Main Event was finally completed. I wrote one post analyzing the nine players -- 2008 WSOP Main Event Final Table Resumes Tomorrow (11/8). I also wrote a few more posts in there about the goings-on as the FT played out, though I’ll just point to one reflecting once again on the decision to delay the sucker, Was It Good for You? (On the WSOP ME Final Table Delay) (11/11).
A post titled Getting Down to the Nuts & Bolts (11/19) actually brings together a number of different issues/concerns. There I tell about a discussion I had with a non-poker-playing work colleague regarding the UIGEA, which then leads to some thoughts about how many people view poker and/or gambling. The origin of the phrase “the nuts” is also explained in this post.
Harrah’s Sports and Entertainment Director of Communications Seth Palansky stated on Gary Wise’s podcast in November that two of the “November Nine” had been offered guest spots on major network talk shows (The Tonight Show & Ellen), and both had turned down the opportunities. Story kind of fishy, actually. In any event, in The Secret Struggle of the Starmaker (on Marketing the 2008 WSOP Main Event final table) (11/21) I reflected on Palansky’s claim.
As always, there were a few posts about my own play (“on the street”) scattered here and there. And Bingo Was My Name-O (11/6) shared a funny anecdote from the online tables (involving some chatbox hilarity). Also, the second Run Good Challenge cranked up near the end of the month, and I told about my non-cash in the first event -- as well as what happened after I busted -- in LOL Shrinkaments (Run Good Challenge 2 Underway) (11/24).
December
 60 Minutes finally aired its report on the Absolute Poker/UltimateBet insider cheating scandals on the last day of November, so we were all buzzing about that as December began. I started the month writing a couple of posts responding to the segment: On 60 Minutes’ “The Cheaters” (12/1) & More on 60 Minutes “The Cheaters” (12/2).
Then I wrote a response to Mason Malmuth’s strange commentary on the Two Plus Two Pokercast that, as far as he was concerned, the most important issue brought up by the segment was Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles’ prominence in the piece potentially bringing inordinate attention to the NeverWin Poker website. Kind of a weird, narrow-minded response (I thought) that utterly failed to appreciate what was genuinely significant about the report. In any event, judging from all of the comments, my post Silver Lining? (12/3) certainly appeared to stir the pot a bit.
Got my calendar screwed up and missed the second event of Run Good Challenge 2. Made the third one. Didn’t cash, but wrote it up nonetheless in Run Good Challenge 2: Breakin’ It Down (12/8).
A rumor surfaced in December that the WSOP was thinking of doing away with rebuy tournaments. In Rebuy! (12/11), I explained why I oppose such a move.
In This Book Might Be Out of Your Range (12/13), I tell about a new eBook that has just come out, a poker strategy text by Cole South and Tri Nguyen, for which the authors are charging a whopping $1,850. I am not making this up.
The Ultimate UltimateBet Post (12/16) falsely claimed to be the last UB-related post I would write for a while. There you’ll find me linking back to all of the other UB posts from the past year. Of course, I’d have to write about UB again later in the month after UB-spokesman Phil Hellmuth was shipped the pot in a game of heads-up LHE on the site in which he held the worst hand! See Honey, I Was Supposed to Lose That Hand! (12/20) & Ultimate Coincidence (12/22) for more.
PartyPoker co-owner Anurag Dikshit surprisingly pleaded guilty to violating the 1961 Wire Act, essentially helping create the groundwork for a precedent suggesting online poker is, in fact, made illegal by the old law. Not cool. I wonder about the man’s motives in Can Someone Explain Dikshit to Me? (12/17).
I’ll wrap this up with reference to a book review of Tommy Angelo’s Elements of Poker (12/26) which I finally got around to reading here at year’s end. Angelo’s book was published in December 2007, so didn’t make my little catalogue of poker books from 2008. Have to say I recommend Angelo’s book before all of those, though. Particularly to readers of this blog, I’d think.
Speaking of, thanks again, everyone, for helping make for a terrific 2008! Hard-Boiled Poker Year in Review (2 of 3)Happy 2009, all. Everyone feeling chipper this morning? Continuing on with the recap today, this time looking at May-August.
May
 As the month began, we all heard the news -- 2008 WSOP ME Final Table Rescheduled to November (5/1), an announcement which prompted me to draw an analogy with Luigi Pirandello’s famous experimental play in a post titled Nine Players In Search of a Final Table (5/1).
The announcement also inspired a brief history of the World Series of Poker and its marketing, The WSOP Main Event: Birth, Build Up, Boom . . . Bastardized? (5/5). In kind of the same vein, a week later I wrote another editorial of sorts talking more broadly about television and game shows, Television & Poker; or, the Search for a Happy Medium (5/12). Perhaps one of the few poker blog posts this year in which Marshall McLuhan comes up.
When the WSOPE schedule was announced later in May, I noticed that the WSOPE Will Take Place Before WSOP Is Over (5/23). I’d discover later that Harrah’s/WSOP hadn’t really considered that fact at all when they decided on the final table delay.
Early in the month I asked Is PLO the “Game of the Future”? (5/6). It was certainly the game of my (immediate) future, as pot-limit Omaha did end up being my primary game for 2008. However, earlier in the year I was playing a lot of stud games, too, and chronicled one “crazy ass Stud/8 hand” in Seven Dwarfs & Seventy-One Big Bets (5/14).
The UltimateBet story continued to develop in May, as evidenced by a few posts: Report on UltimateBet Cheating “Scheme” Due Soon (5/6); Multiple “Super-Users” Cheated On UltimateBet (5/16); UltimateBet Cheating Scandal Finally “News” (Sort of) (5/23); and UB Owns Up (Sort of) (5/30). Check out those parenthetical qualifiers in the latter two titles. “Sort of” indicates a trend when it comes to news about UB, wouldn’t you say?
Just before taking off to Vegas to help cover the WSOP for PokerNews, I wrote my three-part series on “Sartre’s Gambler” in which I examined that short passage in Being and Nothingness in which Sartre uses a gambler as an example to illustrate a point about existentialism: (Part One, Part Two, & Part Three [all 5/20]).
Finally, the month concluded with my flying out and getting settled for seven weeks of poker reporting. The job officially began in early June, but I did head over to the Rio early on and did a day’s worth of live blogging to get my feet wet: 2008 WSOP, Day 2: Live from the Rio (5/31).
Pretty soon, though, I’d be in up to my ears!
June
 I’ve mentioned before here how going out to Vegas to help cover the WSOP was one of those life detours I hadn’t seen coming (even six months before). The experience turned out to be incredibly satisfying and rewarding. I learned a lot, and also had the privilege of working with a number of terrific people. We were a team out there, and I’m proud to have had the chance to have served as a capable role-player.
I posted every day in June, sometimes more than once per day, producing something around 36,000 words here on the blog (in addition to the thousands I wrote while live blogging over at PokerNews). Pretty sure that’s the most prolific month I’ve ever had, writing-wise. Certainly the busiest on HBP.
I’m glad now to have this comprehensive journal of my WSOP experience, enabling me to read and relive it all. Kind of hard to pick out certain posts to highlight here, but I’ll just list a few:
2008 WSOP, Day 4: Into the Fire (6/3) tells of my somewhat nervous first day on the job. By the next day -- 2008 WSOP, Day 5: Storytelling -- I was already starting to get a little more comfortable with the machinations of live blogging and trying to be creative on-the-fly.
Skipping ahead a bit, 2008 WSOP, Day 12: Buffets, Bustouts, and Bullsh*t (6/11) is a fairly representative “day in the life”-type post that chronicles the craziness. Soon after came a post telling of the conclusion of what was probably the most memorable tourney of the entire WSOP for me, 2008 WSOP, Day 14: Reporting from the Eye of the Hurricane (6/13). That was the one where I related what it was like helping report the final table of Event No. 19, the $1,500 Pot-Limit Omaha event won by Vanessa Selbst. In which runner-up Jamie Pickering, the Aussie strip club owner, began downing drinks and repeatedly raising pot without looking at his cards. No shinola!
2008 WSOP, Day 17: Laughs & Lightning Bolts (6/16) shares a couple of grins from behind the scenes. Later that night/next morning -- in 2008 WSOP, Day 17: Brasilia (6/16) -- I was telling about what it was like to cover a tournament that had gotten down the last couple of tables, with six of the remaining players being Chris Ferguson, Daniel Negreanu, David Benyamine, John Juanda, Johnny Chan, and Phil Hellmuth.
Found enough respite in there to write a reflective post On Covering the WSOP (6/19). Then it was back to the grind.
2008 WSOP, Day 21: Tigers & Grizzlies (6/20) shares some rib-tickling table talk between Layne Flack and Ted Forrest. In 2008 WSOP, Day 25: More Clichés Than You Can Shake a Stick At (6/23), F-Train and I have a contest to see who can induce the most groans via the written word. And 2008 WSOP, Day 26: Cowboy Hats, Cigars, and Draw Poker (6/24) actually finds me reporting from the bathroom stalls in the Rio, Dr. Pauly-style. As I say there, I’m tempted to make a joke about the good Doctor having marked his territory.
Finally, I’ll point you to the last post of the month, 2008 WSOP, Day 31: Tell Everyone You Know and Duplicate (6/30), in which I prove sheer dominance in the field of pun-making, as well as relate a hilarious anecdote about poker player-slash-entrepreneur Tommy Vu.
July
 Continuing with selections from my time at the WSOP, 2008 WSOP, Day 34: Three Tales (7/2) offers a nice bit of journalistic reflection, I think, recording various observations from Event No. 46, the $5,000 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event.
The Main Event then began on the 3rd. I was reporting up through Day 5 of the Main Event (the 12th, I believe). 2008 WSOP, Day 37: Pop Stars, Sexual Puns, and Magic Swords (7/6) is a fun post relating a variety of shenanigans from one of the Day Ones.
Then, on the day off between the Day Ones and Day Twos, the PokerNews staff had a blast playing soccer, basketball, and a freeroll -- plus attending a PokerStars-hosted party at the Palms -- all discussed in 2008 WSOP, Day 39: Taking Shots (7/8). That was a helluva fun day for me. I cashed in the freeroll. We won the b-ball game. And I managed to sink a fifty-foot shot, scoring another prop bet bonus.
In 2008 WSOP, Day 41: Chuck Norris Doesn’t Dodge Bullets; Bullets Dodge Chuck Norris (7/10), I’m telling about reporting on a player named Chuck Norris. Not the Chuck Norris. But that was his name. And, as you can imagine, fun was had. Then 2008 WSOP, Day 44: IGHN (7/13) concerns my last day reporting, relating some of the emotions I was experiencing there at the end. It was tough to be away from home for that long. But it was also tough to leave.
Once I was back home, I was reflecting on it all again in Playing Poker & Writing About Poker (7/21). I also picked up an old copy of Gambling Times as a kind of comparative exercise shared John Hill’s Reporting on the 1979 WSOP (7/24). Mr. Hill actually came around and left a nice comment on that post just the other day, in fact.
Meanwhile, the UltimateBet scandal was back on the radar, in On the Horizon: The Future of UltimateBet? (7/23) & UB & AP Think Makeover Gives Them a Do-Over (7/25). Where it would pretty much remain for the rest of the year.
August
 As the summer progressed, I was watching the WSOP on ESPN, catching glimpses of myself and my buds in the background, an uncanny experience discussed in Reality TV (8/6). The next day, I wrote a post that has been one of the most-hit on the blog this year, one called The Most Popular Table In Online Poker (8/7). That’s the one where I tell about that table on Full Tilt Poker with the seemingly-permanent 250-person waiting list.
Perspectives on Poker (8/8) relates five different anecdotes, all of which add up to yet another lesson in understanding poker’s (modest) place in the larger culture. Along the same lines, I wrote a two-parter, “Poker & Pop Culture: Rolling Stone (1967-2007)” (Part One [8/11] & Part Two [8/12]), which looks at all of the references to poker in Rolling Stone magazine during its first forty years.
Whenever I post about Mason Malmuth, I always tend to get a lot of response. Such was the case with A Sticky Issue (8/14), in which I discussed the Two Plus Two owner’s apparent paranoia regarding the free sharing of strategy content on his website. Comments rose into the double-digits on that one.
Had a decent strategy-type post in there that also looked back at the WSOP a bit called Thriving vs. Surviving: John Phan & David Sklansky at the 2008 WSOP, Event No. 40 Final Table (8/19). There I applied some of what I had been reading in Arnold Snyder’s books to what I saw happening at that particular Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw final table (won by Phan).
“It’s No Fun When Scotty Got the Gun” (8/22) was my take on the Scotty Nguyen $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. final table fiasco, as presented by ESPN. The post titled The Chicken or the Egg (8/27) is kind of a follow-up that considers whether poker makes us crazy, or because we’re crazy we play poker.
One more recap post to go, then we can all get on with our lives. Hard-Boiled Poker Year in Review (1 of 3) At the start of 2008, I thought I’d try something different and post each weekday, rather than every other day as I had been doing before. Took me a while, but I’d finally figured out most folks tend to check in on the blogs during the week (while at work, natch), and so I took it as a challenge to give ’em something new when they did.
We’ve reached the end of the calendar, and somehow I did it -- at least one new post each weekday, plus a good number of weekend extras along the way, too. Added up to a total of 333 posts for the year (prior to this one). I’m not sure at the moment if I want to try the same tactic in 2009 -- lemme know what youse think.
On the one hand, I certainly don’t want to sacrifice quality for quantity. Then again, I’ve found it to be a pretty rare occurrence to wake up without having at least something to say about the game we love, be it “the rumble” (how others are talking about poker), “on the street” (my own games), “shots in the dark” (strategy/theory), “high society” (what the pros are doin’), or “by the book” (my latest read).
I’m gonna split the “year in review” stuff up into three posts, so this one covers January-April. More to come.
January
 As the year began, the Absolute Poker insider cheating scandal was still fresh in our minds. I wrote one post early on, Absolute Apathy (1/4), which commented on the lack of attention the scandal seemed to be drawing. Then a week later I wrote a response to that less-than-comprehensive report from the Kahnawake Gaming Commission on the Gaming Associates’ audit of Absolute, Something is Missing Here (1/12).
Had a “shot in the dark” in there -- Poker Is Where It’s At (1/5) -- which offered a brief reflection on the metaphorical richness of poker. That idea that poker is somehow “like” everything.
A few days later I was posting about Josh “J.J. Prodigy” Field, the rampant (and unrepentent) online cheater who was using his 18th birthday as an occasion to seek forgiveness. The post was titled Uncorrected Personality Traits That Seem Whimsical In a Child May Prove to Be Ugly In a Fully Grown Adult (1/15). One commentor nominated that one for the “poker blog post title of the year award.” Indeed, looking through the rest of the year, I might well have peaked early there.
Toward the end of the month I did a bit of speculating about the legal situation for online poker, asking Do We Want Online Poker Regulated? (Part One [1/24] & Part Two [1/25]). The conclusion there ended up being “We’re between a rock and a hard place. We don’t want the feds to regulate online poker, but the present system of voluntarily-accepted regulation isn’t working very well, either.”
Finally, I reported on some weird shenanigans over at UltimateBet, including the ability of two players to log into the same account from different locations. That post -- UnBelievable (1/29) -- also mentions even bigger trouble for UB brewing over in the forums, which is why I list it here.
February
 Had another “shot in the dark” early on called Poker “Reality” (2/5) in which I brought in one of my favorite fictionalists, Vladimir Nabokov, to help me discuss how the notions of “reality” become mighty slippery in the context of poker. Had a couple of other literary-type posts in February, including one on Raymond Chandler (2/14) and another on Alain Robbe-Grillet (2/19) who died on the 18th.
Had a post in there called Absolute Poker “Security Summits” (In Search Of) (2/13), the title of which is self-explanatory. (Anybody else remember that bogus announcement about the summits?) Also, I had a fairly popular post in February called Reporting on Absolute Poker; or, If a Tree Falls (2/22) in which I compiled a ton of links to various writings on the interweb about the AP scandal. Have had a few people ask me to point them to that particular post as they searched for info.
Another frequently-hit post from February was The Wrong Focus (Another Cheating Pro) (2/15). That one referred to yet another example of an established pro casually letting slip how he’d taken over for someone during the latter stages of an online tourney. That issue would continue to linger throughout the year, and I think by now what is “generally accepted” has changed a bit from a year ago.
A post titled On Poker Mags (2/20) reflected a bit on poker media and its apparent role, a subject revisited a week or so later in Playing Favorites (2/29). The latter one focuses on how the “name” pros get more attention than others from tourney reporters -- kind of an interesting post for me to go back and read, since a week or two after that I would be asked to go report on the 2008 World Series of Poker (and thus face those very decisions about how best to report).
March
 On the Poker Haters (3/4) tries to examine the various reasons (psychological, moral, ethical) why some people object so strenuously to others playing poker.
March was the month the UltimateBet scandal was first officially acknowledged by UB. My quickie post Cheating “Scheme” Confirmed at UltimateBet (3/8) basically just shared the news.
A few days later I was noting in Tick, Tick, Tick: 60 Minutes Now Looking at Absolute Poker (3/11) that it had begun to appear that the scandals were going to get wider attention than AP or UB had probably anticipated.
There was a legal update in there called The Good, the Bad, and the UIGEA (3/14). Shortly after that I ended up commenting a bit on the Poker Players Alliance’s not-so-smooth handling of pressure to comment on the ongoing online poker scandals in One (Ex-)Member Inspires PPA to Alter Its Mission Statement (3/20) & PPA Can Do Better (3/21).
Took a quick trip to California in March where I managed to play a brief, not-too-eventful session of live poker, documented in Live Poker: Oaks Card Club, Emeryville, CA (3/19). Finally, the month ended with me achieving Silver Star on PokerStars, an event I chose to mark with that embarrassing photo of myself as a kiddie dressed as a cowboy in A New Sheriff in Town (3/31).
April
 I launched my podcast, The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, on April Fool’s Day. Chose that day just in case it flopped, that way I could always say it was a joke (or a jopke). The HBPRS didn’t change the world, but it didn’t flop, either, and with a little help from my friends I managed to produce ten episodes over the course of the next nine months. (Have Episode No. 11 in the works, by the way.)
Early in April there was a pretty big House hearing to discuss the proposed regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I documented that hearing fairly comprehensively in UIGEA Regs: Burden Without Benefit? Without a Doubt (4/2). Soon after that we saw a Bill to Block Finalization of UIGEA Regs Proposed (4/12), then It’s Time to Fold: Frank & Co. Tell Feds to Cease “Sisyphean Task” of Finalizing UIGEA Regulations (4/23). Turned out “Frank & Co.” and other legislators who proposed such bills this year were actually the ones who most resembled Sisyphus, I think.
April was when we first started hearing rumors that the WSOP ME final table might be delayed. Sounded crazy at the time, but the rumors would turn out to be true. I first opined on the subject in WSOP To Create “Sequel” for Main Event Final Table? (4/7). Didn’t like the idea then. Still don’t.
I see a few other posts of note in April. Here’s to the Great Beyond (4/11) was an elegy of sorts to one of my favorite podcasts, Beyond the Table, the hosts of which decided then to call it quits. Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich and the Meaning of Card Playing (4/16) zones in on a few passages in the Russian writer’s short novel. And Worlds Within Worlds (4/24) talks about a visit I had to the barber shop in which I was reminded of poker’s relatively modest place in our culture.
The month ended with the blog reaching its second birthday, and me finishing second in Saturdays with Pauly (my best finish in 2008 in Dr. P’s weekly PLO event). Both events are documented in Celebrating Seconds (4/28).
Finally, I wouldn’t have thought to include Flopping Quad Aces is Usually Fun (4/18) in this here wrap-up, but I’m noticing there I am telling about a hand I played on Bodog in which I disconnected halfway through. I had flopped quad aces on the hand, and so was not too happy when I got knocked off. However, I did win the pot. I only mention it here because it sounds like a somewhat similar situation to the one involving Phil Hellmuth & DOUBLEBALLER two weeks ago. (Except there, of course, the pot was erroneously awarded to a losing player.)
Down from the Shelf: Poker Books from 2008 For a while now I have been intending to organize the “Hard-Boiled Poker Bookstore” into something a bit more user-friendly (and maybe even mildly profitable). I have an Amazon Associates account and occasionally when I mention a book or some other item I will set up a link which, if one were to click through and purchase the item (or any item, actually), a few pennies land in my account over there.
Anyhow, our arrival here at year’s end has motivated me (somewhat) to get it in gear and start building the HBP Bookstore in earnest. Actually, this is all part of a grander plan I have in mind to move the entire operation -- the blog, the podcast, and other associated endeavors -- over to hardboiledpoker.com in the near future.
For now, though, while the store is being constructed, I’m going to use this post as a place-holder. What follows is a list of all of the poker-related books on my shelf that were published in 2008, each accompanied by a short bit of commentary.
Like I say, this post will be the temporary “bookstore” for a while until I get the real store completed. The full store will of course include books published prior to 2008. As I suggested yesterday, I had originally intended here to list all of the poker books on my shelf, but that would have meant writing up 43 more titles here (no shinola!). Sort of thing happens a lot around this time of the year -- unrealistic plans, that is.
So consider this post just the front part of the store, while work continues on the back half. Sorry about the noise. Please stay as long as you like. And do enjoy the complimentary coffee at the bottom of the post!
Cogert, Mitchell. Tournament Poker: 101 Winning Moves.
 Have only just skimmed this one, actually. Am more interested in Cogert’s razz book, which I have heard is a decent primer. (The Poker Grump wrote a two-part review of the razz book a while back, if yr curious: Part 1, Part 2)
Dunnett, Warwick. Poker Wizards: Wisdom from the World’s Top No-Limit Hold'em Players.
 A collection of short pieces by an impressive group of poker pros (Ferguson, Negreanu, Harrington, Luske, Liebert, Cloutier, Sexton, Judah), a “mentalist” (Marc Salem) who deals with tells, and Dunnett himself. Kind of interesting to read how these pros differently address similar questions/issues.
Hansen, Gus. Every Hand Revealed.
 I sincerely enjoyed this hand-by-hand account of Hansen’s 2007 Aussie Millions victory. Offers genuine insight into the Great Dane’s unorthodox style. Witty, too. I’m not the only one who likes Hansen's book, apparently, as it has been the best-selling poker book for most of the latter part of 2008 (per Pop Fifty).
Harrington, Dan and Bill Robertie. Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold’em Money Games, Volume I.
 This one currently sits right behind Hansen’s book at the top of the bestselling poker books list. As we all learned with the Harrington on Hold’em books, Harrington and Robertie do an especially good job of explaining difficult concepts in clear, understandable prose. Here the pair (perhaps predictably) advocate a tight-aggressive style in cash games, although they do touch on LAG play a bit, too, in the second volume. Volume 1 only takes us through flop play, making it hard to imagine someone picking up the first book only.
Harrington, Dan and Bill Robertie. Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold’em Money Games, Volume II.
 Turn and river play, plus sections on tells, loose-aggressive play, dealing with weak games, bankroll issues, and an interesting interview with longtime cash-game pro and 1979 WSOP Main Event runner-up Bobby Hoff.
Holden, Anthony. Holden on Hold’em
 This one just came out. Haven’t seen it in bookstores here in the U.S., although I think it is readily available in Holden’s native U.K. Here the author of the justly-acclaimed Big Deal gets tapped to write a hold’em strategy guide. The strategy talk takes up about half of the book, then he tells some stories from the EPT and 2007 WSOP (which also incorporate some strategy advice). There’s also a neat analysis of the poker in the 2006 Bond film Casino Royale as well as some fun anecdotes about the history of hold’em.
Hwang, Jeff. Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy.
 I really like Hwang’s PLO book, although I have to admit I have only read the first half of it. (The second half deals with Omaha/8.) Hwang smartly explains how PLO is, in fact, primarily a post-flop game. I’ve been recommending this one more and more when folks ask me about PLO books.
Lynch, Eric, Jon Turner, and Jon Van Fleet. Winning Poker Tournaments One Hand at a Time, Volume 1.
 Kind of follows the format of Hansen’s book, although (for the most part) the hands aren’t all from the same tourney. Turner and Lynch each take us through 50 hands, then Van Fleet covers 30 more, plus a 44-hand sequence from the bubble of a tournament. The trio then individually assess 20 hands given to them by Matthew Hilger, each offering his own view. Book is especially well written and organized -- like Hansen’s, the book is much more readable than one might guess from the format.
Moshman, Collin. Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em.
 I thought Moshman’s book had a lot to offer even to those of us who don’t specialize in HU games. No matter what game one plays, one ends up in heads-up situations quite frequently (indeed, almost every time one plays a hand, really). Thus, Moshman’s advice is worthwhile even to us, I think. Smart and well-written, too.
Negreanu, Daniel. Power Hold’em Strategy.
 This was the big one everyone was waiting for (following last year’s modest-and-therefore-disappointing Hold’em Wisdom for All Players). The book is apparently intended to be a Super/System for the new generation, bringing together a number of different authors -- Evelyn Ng, Todd Brunson, Erick Lindgren, Paul Wasicka, and David Williams -- along with Negreanu. Of course, all six focus on hold’em (a big difference from Super/System). Negreanu’s section on his “small ball” strategy is by far the best, although I also liked the others’ contributions, too. Only Todd Brunson’s disappointed, really, particularly since I liked his Stud/8 section in SS2.
Negreanu, Daniel. More Hold’em Wisdom for All Players.
 A sequel to last year’s teaser, offering 50 more tips regarding both cash and tourney play. This book is actually just a compilation of the poker columns Negreanu has been writing for the last few years, so all of the chapters are brief and -- despite the title -- aimed primarily at beginners (not “all players”).
Snyder, Arnold. The Poker Tournament Formula 2.
 I am a big fan of Snyder’s follow-up to his earlier The Poker Tournament Formula (which I had also liked a lot). The first book had focused primarily on fast-structured tournaments, while this one dealt mostly with slower tourney strategy. I appreciate Snyder’s ideas about playing position and chips (as opposed to cards), and I also really admire his unwillingness to accept uncritically the “received wisdom” of previous authors. I have to admit my successes in those Run Good Challenge tourneys back in September were probably mostly due to my having read Snyder.
Walsh, Joseph. Gambler on the Loose.
 Walsh wrote the script for the terrific 1974 Robert Altman film, California Split (which I reviewed here a while back). This is an autobiographical work that collects a lot of anecdotes and other “life lessons” dating from Walsh’s introduction to gambling as a teenager and carrying up through the 70s and his work on Split. Kind of haphazard and out there, and maybe not for all tastes. But very, very funny in places. Insightful, too (in my opinion.) See a full post on this one here.
Warren, Ken. Ken Warren Teaches Texas Hold’em 2.
 I’ve only skimmed this one, I’m afraid. (Didn’t read Warren’s first book, either.) Looks like most of the advice comes in the form of identifying various mistakes players frequently make. Seems like a run-of-the-mill strategy text, although near the end comes a lengthy Q&A (“Ken Warren Answers Your Questions”) that includes a few entertaining stories.
Wilson, Des. Ghosts at the Table: Riverboat Gamblers, Texas Rounders, Roadside Hucksters, and the Living Legends Who Made Poker What It Is Today.
 A nifty collection of stories from the history of poker, divided into four “ages” or sections: the 19th century poker of the Old West and Mississippi riverboats; the mid-20th century version played by the Texas road gamblers “fadin’ the white line”; the growth of Vegas and the WSOP; and the post-“poker boom” era marked by the online game and televised poker. Definitely deserves a spot alongside Spanier, Alvarez, Holden, and McManus on the shelf.
Thanks for stopping by. Come again.
 My Electric Guitar Like you, I’ve noticed how December has almost entirely escaped us, sneaking away quietly while distracting with snow storms, holidays, and football. And like most of you, I, too, during idle moments have found myself mentally gesturing back and forth, vaguely reflecting on the past and planning for the future.
Have a couple of posts in mind with which to wind up the year. One will collect a list of poker books I have read -- not just this year, but since I started reading ’em shortly after the day I began playing poker. I’ll try to post that one tomorrow. Then on Wednesday I’ll see if I can come up with a selection of posts from 2008 that have either gotten above-average attention or might otherwise be worth another look before we pull that dog-eared calendar off the fridge and chuck it.
Today, though, I just wanna play my electric guitar. Let’s jam!
My brother gave me this nifty little all-in-one electric guitar and amplifier set for Xmas. You might recall I mentioned last week that I’d gotten him a copy of The Truth About Chuck Norris. Goes without saying I came out slightly ahead on that exchange.
Our dad is a guitar player. Quite good, actually. So me and my bro grew up with lots of acoustics laying around the house. I picked one up at some point during my early teens -- either a Martin copy or an Ovation, I think. Found my pop’s Beatles songbook that had diagrams showing how to make chords, and before too long I’d learned myself how to play the sucker. Ever since, I have always had an acoustic guitar around, and while I’ve played electrics off and on I’d never actually had one of my own.
The side of the box in which my gift came is adorned with a few pics and text indicating a “red hot guitar with amplifier pak” awaits inside. Indeed, when one opens up the box one does find a decent little axe (color black) along with an unassuming 9-volt battery-powered amp. Plus picks, an extra set of strings, a tuner, and even an instructional DVD. Designed as a starter set, I’d imagine, for the novice player.
The amp surprisingly puts out a fair amount of noise, and if one turns up the gain and fiddles with the knobs a bit, it is possible to mimic a fuzzy Zeppelinish vibe, even if it sounds more like yr playing inside a closet than for an arena full of head bangers.
My acoustic style is generally quiet and reserved. I do not use a pick, and unless I’m teaching myself pop songs by the Flamin’ Groovies or Ween or Cheap Trick, I’m usually just softly plucking away at short little instrumentals I’ve made up. Lots of arpeggios and gentle, sweet (or sad, depending on yr POV) melodies that probably wouldn’t disturb you from your book over there in the next room.
The electric is a different story. Took me all of five minutes to get the distortion fully cranked so as to showcase stumbling-but-passable fakes of “The Ocean,” “Spirit of Radio,” and “Back in Black.”
 Am also unexpectedly enjoying playing routine blues progressions -- something I don’t tend to do much on the acoustic -- which on the electric sound somehow fuller and more soulful. To me, anyway. Again, we’re talking mostly fakery, but in my mind these modest little blues bits might as well be House of the Blues-era John Lee Hooker earnestly stomping out a series of blistering, burning howls into the unforgiving darkness. It is “red hot”!
Was trying to come up with a poker analogy so as to justify writing about my electric guitar. I suppose playing the acoustic is like nursing the small stack, carefully picking spots while not causing too much trouble for everyone else. Meanwhile, the electric is like having the chips to do some damage, or at the very least annoy yr neighbors. Hey hey, mama! Listen to me!
Hope whatever gifts sent yr way were rockin’, too.
Tommy Angelo’s Elements of Poker I know I just said I was primed to read some non-pokery stuff, but let me share a quick review of another poker book I recently finished -- Tommy Angelo’s Elements of Poker (2007).
Had been looking forward to reading this one for some time now. And I’ll go ahead and admit I knew I was going to like Elements of Poker even before I started it.
I’d become somewhat familiar with Angelo’s writing (and overall outlook) during the last few months via his blog and website. I’d also heard his interview over on the Two Plus Two Pokercast a while back (the 8/18/08 episode), which I recommend highly to anyone interested in listening to thoughtful discussion about poker and/or getting to know Angelo. On top of that, I’d had a few folks recommend his book to me whose opinions I trust, including Tim Peters who reviewed Elements of Poker for Card Player back in February. (Read his review here.)
There were at least a couple of specific reasons why I knew I’d like Angelo’s book even before I started it. For one, I have read a lot of strategy books this year, perhaps two dozen or more. And, as anyone who has picked up one knows, while strategy books can be interesting and useful, they can also be pretty damned tedious.
Angelo’s book is most definitely not a strategy book per se, although he does have a few moments here and there where he talks about certain situations in ways that resemble straightforward strategic advice. But that really isn’t Angelo’s primary concern. Rather, he focuses more directly on describing and analyzing how poker players think -- both at the table and away from the table -- and then gives us some ideas about applying that understanding in beneficial ways.
All of which means just a glance at the table of contents listing the 144 “elements” covered by the book encouraged me that I was in for something a little more engaging than what one usually finds in a typical poker book these days.
I could see that some of the listed “elements” clearly focused on psychological issues, such as “Emotions,” “Fears,” “Hard Tilt,” “Soft Tilt,” and “Finger Tilt” (the latter specific to online play). Others appeared to concern practical matters with which I knew I personally wanted some help, such as “Quitting,” “Winning, Losing, and Breaking Even,” “The Chat Box,” “Focus,” and “Awareness.” I also saw quite a few “elements” listed which were highly suggestive (and intriguing) even if I had no idea what they’d be about, e.g., “Gobsmacked,” “Low-Hanging Fruit,” “Kuzzycan,” “Mum Poker,” “Fastrolling,” “Fantasy Poker,” “The Path of Leak Resistance,” “A Process of Illumination,” and so forth.
The other reason why I knew I’d like Angelo’s book is because of what I’m going to have to refer to as a decidedly “existentialist” bent to the man’s thinking. This is something I’d picked up on from the earlier pieces by him I’d read as well as the Two Plus Two interview, and which (now that I have read it I can say) also characterizes Elements of Poker. Let me explain.
By referring to Angelo (or his ideas) as “existentialist,” I don’t mean to suggest anything about Angelo he himself doesn’t intend to advance in his writings and coaching. Rather, I am trying simply to point out that Angelo does what many existentialist thinkers and writers tend to do, that is, he makes meaning of himself and the world around him, then presents his interpretation in a way that does not insist itself upon his readers (with the kind of absurd self-righteousness that sometimes seems to guide other poker authors).
Rather, Angelo seems instinctively to understand that we all make our own meaning. And while he might be able to guide his readers (or the “clients” he coaches), ultimately we’re all on our own.
There are several passages in the book that relate to what I’m trying to say here about Angelo, but I’ll just refer to a couple. Both come from the first, long section of “Universal Elements” that Angelo says apply to all forms of poker -- cash games, tournaments, internet poker, and “table poker” (what Angelo calls live games).
 One passage concerns “Streaks” and their significance. Angelo thought enough of this one to print it on the back of the book, actually. The passage begins “All of my good streaks and all of my bad streaks of every length and depth have had one thing in common. They did not exist in your mind. They only existed in my mind.”
From there, Angelo explains how “there is no inherent existence to streaks.” In other words, they are invented in the player’s mind -- inevitably, really -- as a way of making meaning out of his or her poker playing, even if “the truth is there is only the hand you are playing.” (And, of course, when it comes to that hand you are playing, you are in charge of deciding what it means.)
Another passage that illustrates this “existentialist” way of thinking about poker comes in a section called “The Object of the Game.” There is one object to poker -- i.e., to collect the most cabbage -- which tends to dominate our thinking about the game. However, there are many, many other objects to poker, too, such as those having to do with playing well (which, as we all know, doesn’t always translate perfectly into netting us the greatest profit).
As a suggestion for reorienting one’s focus in constructive ways, Angelo here tells us to consider occasionally “making up your own object of the game.” For example, one might enter a session with the object to avoid calling raises out of the big blind. Or one might make the object to avoid table talk (or chat). Again, the suggestion here relates back to the (existentialist) idea that we make our own meaning. An incredibly powerful idea, actually. (See my posts from last spring on Sartre’s Gambler -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 -- if yr innersted in more on this topic.)
There’s a lot else to recommend about Elements of Poker, including his sense of humor, his uncanny ability to identify and describe various poker-related concepts, and his playful approach to language. I could list several examples of each, but this short quote from the section titled “Fluctuation” succinctly demonstrates all three: “At the poker table, we can’t help but keep track of ‘how we’re doing.’ We assign special meaning to tiny segments of our fluctuation. If you fluctuate down and it gets you down, you’re fluct. That’s why it’s best not to give a fluc.”
Like I said, I was predisposed to like this book before I even began it. And it did not disappoint. Nor will it when I read it again (which I already know I will). And I tend to think most readers of this blog would probably like the book as well. So let me suggest if someone happened to give you a gift card over on Amazon, you might consider using it to pick up a copy of Elements of Poker. You can also just head over to Angelo’s website and buy a copy (personally inscribed) over there.
Up to you, though. Because I know of this (and every post), you will make what you will.
Season’s Greetings Off to see family today. Like most of youse, I’d expect. ’Tis the season.
Vera Valmore got me a few neat presents. She fixed up a picture frame with various photos from my summer at the WSOP. There’s one of me in there stationed in the media box, intently hunched over my laptop in the foreground, with about a half-dozen other reporters to my right all lined up and doing the same. Very cool.
Vera also gave me a novel, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666. The posthumously-published work by the Spaniard was translated into English this year. Has received a ton of acclaim, inclusion on fiction of the year lists, etc. Looks like one of those mammoth, “tour de force”-type literary works (about 900 pages), with lots of different elements mixed in, including some “hard-boiled.” Will probably start this one right away. As I mentioned a little while back, I’ve been anxious to read some non-pokery stuff. And this looks like a perfect one with which to start doing that.
Meanwhile, I bought my brother a copy of a different kind of tour de force, The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 Facts About the World’s Greatest Human. He might finish his before I finish mine.
Good to take a break and see everybody, reconnect with family, watch some hoops and/or football, etc. Put all the applesauce aside for a couple of days and relax. Unless, of course, applesauce is being served with the ham, then you put it on your plate and eat it up.
Anyhow, if any of youse happened to check your blogs today and found mine, thanks again! And best wishes to you and yours.
An Early Xmas Gift Am easing back into playing following that bad run a couple of weeks back. Just brief sessions here and there amid the gift-wrapping and last-minute shopping. Was at a $25 max. pot-limit Omaha game yesterday and had kind of an interesting hand come up. The hand actually illustrated something I had come to recognize in my own play during my bad run, namely, an overly passive, oh-dear-what-if-my-opponent-has-the-nuts kind of style that is destined to lose you money. Especially at PLO.
The hand was at a full ring PLO25 table. A couple of orbits before, I had been involved in about a $30 pot against a player I’ll call TinyTim. In that hand, I’d picked up     in middle position and open-raised pot (to 85 cents). A couple of players folded, then TinyTim reraised pot (to $2.90), leaving himself about $12 behind. When the table folded back to me, I decided I liked my other two cards well enough to go ahead and gamble, and we reraised each other until TinyTim was all in. Turned out he had     , and when a third club came out on the river, he took the pot.
Such is life. I wasn’t felted, though I only had a few bucks left, so I rebought, and after a while had a stack of $30.65. Meanwhile, TinyTim had gradually slipped back down to $28.75 when the following hand took place.
I was in late position where I was dealt    . Kind of an iffy hand (be a lot nicer with the ace instead of the king), but good enough to try to see a cheap flop with it. Three players limped, and I did as well. So did the player to my left. Then TinyTim raised to $1.25 -- not quite a full-pot raise. The button called the raise, as did the small blind. The big blind folded, a couple more players called, then the short-stacked player to my left decided to push all in for $4.20 total.
So much for the cheap flop. I debated a moment, then called hoping to we were about to see a nice,
|
