Poker Book Review: Victoria Coren’s For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair With Poker

I have written about Victoria Coren here before on a couple of occasions, having heard her on podcasts, occasionally read her poker-related columns in The Guardian, and covered her in a few tournaments, both live and online. In one post, “Victoria’s Secrets,” I wrote about her very interesting interview with Gary Wise in which she offered some insights about the whole men-vs.-women-in-poker thing, as well as discussed writing and poker and the great poker narratives such as The Biggest Game in Town (1983) by Al Alvarez and Anthony Holden’s Big Deal (1990).

In that interview with Wise (from January 2009), Coren mentioned that she was at work on her own poker narrative. The book, titled For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair with Poker, arrived this fall. I recently had the chance to read and review it, and wanted to share a few comments here about the book as well. The book primarily functions as a “poker memoir” chronicling Coren’s poker career -- from her first learning the game as a teenager from her older brother in the late 1980s to her becoming a European Poker Tour champ and a PokerStars team pro. The book is much more than that, though. Let me explain.

The category of “poker books,” despite being a teeny, tiny niche (really), includes a wide variety of styles and subjects. Go to Borders or Barnes and Noble and on the “poker” shelves you’ll find jammed together strategy texts (covering a wide variety of games, both cash and tourney), simple “how-to” primers, rulebooks, biographies, autobiographies, histories, and more. People visit these shelves for a number of different reasons, and in a lot of instances, books are prejudged by the (potential) reader’s idea or opinion of the poker-playing ability of the author. Such preconceptions have relevance, certainly, when considering a strategy text, though aren’t necessarily as valuable when considering other, non-strategy works.

As a poker player, Coren has had some success, highlighted most prominently by her victory at the EPT London Main Event in 2006 (a sweet £500,000 score). Some -- especially poker players who tend to adhere to the “time equals money” formula -- will not be persuaded by her other, less obviously remarkable results to consider her memoir worthy of their “investment” (in time or in cabbage). Such folks will be missing out on a well-crafted, perceptive, and witty example of storytelling which I would think should appeal to all poker players. Probably would interest some non-poker players, too, I’d imagine.

Coren does tell the tale of her 2006 EPT success, cleverly winding her narrative of the most significant hands from that final table with the primary autobiographical thread. Each chapter is punctuated with a hand, and it is in those interludes one encounters the bulk of the “strategy” talk in the book. But even there the emphasis isn’t so much on strategy as on relating Coren’s ups and downs as that dramatic final table plays out.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, the autobiography begins with Coren first learning the game as a teen, then going to college after which she takes a turn as a standup comedian. Eventually Coren finds herself repeatedly returning to the Victoria Casino in London (the “Vic”), enamored with other gambling games (especially roulette) but eyeing the poker tables as well. Then comes an opportunity to go to Las Vegas to interview Huck Seed for a newspaper. Seed had just won the 1996 World Series of Poker Main Event, and for Coren the opportunity provides a kind of “seed” -- my groan-worthy pun, not Coren’s -- for a career in journalism as well as for her continued pursuit of poker.

The rest of the book carries her story forward to 2006 where the twin narratives finally join together -- in surprisingly dramatic, even moving fashion -- near the book’s conclusion. Along the way, we read about Coren’s becoming involved with “Late Night Poker,” the ground-breaking poker TV show that debuted in 1999 and on which she eventually appeared both as a player and a commentator; her early experiences at the Vic and in Vegas, including her first participation in events at the WSOP; her developing many friendships with poker players, with nifty character sketches of figures like Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott, Neil Channing, John Duthie, Hamish Shah, Roland de Wolfe, and the Hendon Mob guys; her other, more significant relationships with men (all discreetly handled); and the illness and death of her father, the satirist Alan Coren.

A few themes emerge over the course of the book, besides the ongoing “education of a poker player” that is happening throughout. As one might expect, there is the whole “woman in a man’s world” motif, symbolically introduced in the book’s opening line: “My brother’s game is on the other side of that wall.”

As in that interview with Wise, Coren makes some keen points here when discussing the subject of women in poker. “Men and women are not sufficiently different, psychologically, for either gender to be ‘naturally’ better at poker than the other,” she maintains, though quickly adds that she is “not saying that gender differences don’t exist.” She goes on to speculate that “If the differences between men and women are relevant to the game at all, it should be true that women’s traditional qualities of craftiness, patience and guile should balance out the male instincts of aggression, bluff and bluster.”

When playing at the Ladies Event at the 2001 WSOP, Coren notes the strangeness of the scene -- that is, a poker room filled with hundreds of women at the tables and no men -- humorously describing it as “like science fiction.” “It’s a vision of how the world could have been,” she writes, “if somebody stepped on a butterfly and it all turned out different.” While not everyone is going to agree with her conclusions on this subject, I think her book does provide a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about women in poker.

Another, somewhat related theme that emerges in the book is suggested by the title, taken from traditional wedding vows. Coren frequently notes how her path in life has not included marriage or children (yet), and indeed poker -- with whom she’s had a lifelong “romance” -- kind of takes the place of that traditional sort of relationship. (As she notes in the preface, “poker is the most companionable thing I do.”) There is also a lot in there about the “the romance of poker” and its various thrills, all of which she relates accurately and effectively.

Those of you who have read Coren’s columns know she is both witty and “literary” in her writing -- that is to say, she definitely can make you laugh, but she can also deftly employ various poetic devices (symbol, metaphor, allusion) to help her communicate her intended meaning. I could make this post even longer by citing the many examples of both her wit and literary sensibility, but I’ll confine myself to sharing just one of each.

Among the book’s many laugh-out-loud moments is Coren’s account of her meeting Phil Hellmuth in 2001. He’d come over for a series of “Late Night Poker” in which Coren was also participating, and a group goes out for dinner. Ever the entrepreneur, Hellmuth begins describing his idea for an album -- The Phil Hellmuth Poker Album -- for which he’ll compile songs from other bands’ outtakes. Coren questions him about the project, not understanding what exactly makes it a “Phil Hellmuth” album or a “poker” album. “‘I will have collected the songs,’” he explains, excitedly (and enigmatically). “‘And I’m a poker player.’”

Coren’s response is to cite the lack of relevance. “‘You might as well gather up a bunch of animals,’’” she says, “‘put them in a field and call it The Phil Hellmuth Poker Farm.’”

As far as “literary” moments go, I especially like one Proustian passage in which she shares a flashback to a trip to a flea market as a 12-year-old with her father, a memory which is in fact inspired by her account of a Vegas trip and a particularly successful run at the craps tables with a group of friends. It is “one of those moments you dream about in gambling,” she explains, where the group keeps winning and winning. Her description of the run dissolves into a giddy, lyrical expression of that hard-to-define pleasure that comes from winning (and, not incidentally, from experiencing meaningful companionship, too): “We cannot lose. We will never lose again. We will never be lonely, we will never get ill and we will never die. Our chip towers are rising and rising and rising and rising. Dice are beautiful. Everything is beautiful. Everybody’s beautiful.”

Like I say, there’s more here. But I think you get the idea. There’s some strategy talk, but that’s not why you pick this book up. Rather, For Richer, For Poorer is for those who love literature, who love to laugh, and who love poker.

Does the WSOP Need a Commish?

As I’m sure most of you have heard by now, a delay was indeed granted for compliance with the finalized regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, meaning U.S. banks and other financial institutions will not be required to block transactions with online gambling sites until June 1, 2010. Doesn’t mean they cannot block such transactions already -- they have been able to do that since January 19, 2009, in fact -- but doing so is still not mandatory.

So another six months to see if any other legislation might get moved along here. Will be keeping an eye on that hearing scheduled for Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m., the one where the House Financial Services Committee will be discussing Rep. Barney Frank’s two bills -- one to make the UIGEA delay a full year, and the other to introduce a mechanism with which to regulate online gambling in this country.

The delay is terrific news, in my view, and while regulation isn’t necessarily desirable -- particularly if certain states, namely my own, opt out -- it doesn’t look as bad as a world in which the UIGEA has been fully implemented.

Indeed, the misbegotten law has already done significant damage in the poker world, negatively affecting both online and live poker as well as the various industries associated with both. Sure, the UIGEA has certainly provided me with a lot to write about here at Hard-Boiled Poker over the last three-plus years, but the overall effect of the law has been exceedingly negative. Will be glad to see the sucker taken care of once and for all.

Speaking of the “UIGEA era,” I was thinking again over the weekend about the World Series of Poker and how a little over two weeks ago, Jeffrey Pollack stepped down from his post as the first-ever WSOP Commissioner. Since Pollack’s resignation, a few folks have written further about how he’ll be remembered, and indeed, one aspect of his tenure as Commish will be how it mostly coincided with this awful law that single-handedly slowed down what appeared at the time to be unstoppable growth for the Series.

In “The Pollack Legacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Silly,” Amy Calistri does a good job compiling various moments of significance during Pollack’s time with the WSOP. In her discussion, Calistri notes how “After the UIGEA, people were ready to stick a fork in poker,” and how she and others all “argued that the UIGEA would accelerate the end of the poker boom.” However, the WSOP rebounded from the hit, and Pollack’s contribution to that recovery was certainly, as Calistri says, a “significant accomplishment” for which he’ll be remembered.

T.J. Cloutier also wrote a little something about Pollack last week, a piece titled “Poker Has Lost a Good Man.” In his article, Cloutier talks a bit about how Harrah’s apparently created “a position one level above” Pollack’s, someone who would henceforth “be a buffer between [Pollack] and top management,” and speculates about whether that bit of reorganization might have provided a kind of encouragement for Pollack to step down.

Cloutier, who served as a member of the Players Advisory Council (a Pollack creation), notes that while Pollack always “had to answer to corporate management,” in his view “he was pretty much in control of the World Series.” The implication, then, is that given a situation in which the Commissioner no longer enjoyed such control, Pollack chose to move on. Not sure what the hierarchy really is at present, but the fact that soon after Pollack’s resignation Harrah’s stated it has “no intention at this time to replace the Commissioner role” does suggest the corporation feels that moving forward the operational management of the WSOP can continue without any Commish appearing to guide the ship.

Does the WSOP need a Commissioner? It did, after all, make it 35 years without one.

Gary Trask of Casino City Times thinks so. In a recent article, Trask argues that the Series “needs someone -- not a group of people -- to act as the face of the brand.” He has a point, and indeed, as one further considers the “Pollack legacy,” one might add how he succeeded in making the whole idea of having someone “act as the face of the brand” seem essential for the WSOP. (In the post-Binion’s era of the WSOP, that is.)

As Trask notes, one especially important function of the Commissioner is to provide “a voice to do the same and take the heat when something goes awry” -- something that will surely happen, no matter how well managed things go. Trask goes onto suggest his top ten current poker professionals who could serve as Commish, although I think most would agree that it probably wouldn’t do to have a pro come along to fill the position. (Trask puts the well-liked Mike Sexton atop his list, perhaps the only serious suggestion among the ten.)

While not everyone was always happy with Pollack, the consensus seems to be mostly favorable regarding his legacy, and the fact that it seems difficult to imagine a replacement is probably further evidence of his having served a successful term in the position. I agree with Trask that it is probably a mistake to move forward without having someone acting as WSOP Commissioner, although I cannot easily imagine who would be the person to fill that politically-challenging role.

I know I wouldn’t want to.

Bellyful of Bird, Waiting for Word

I hope everyone had a great Turkey Day. I know I did. A fun day of family, food, and football. Vera Valmore did a terrific job with the bird this year. I snapped that photo mere moments before the massacre began.

Was great catching up with family. Was also nice to go three-for-three with my NFL picks, giving More Cowbell some much-needed momentum heading into the weekend.

Will be keeping an ear out today, of course, for the official word regarding that six-month delay for banks to comply with the so-called “Final Rule” of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I assume we’ll probably be hearing something about it over at the Poker Players Alliance website, as they will surely be coming forth with a response once the news is official.

Meanwhile, since I am thinkin’ very few are gonna be checking in on blogs today, I think I’ll keep it short and continue to enjoy some R & R.

If you are in a reading mood, though, I do have a new piece up over on Betfair this morning, titled “Isildur1, and the Search for the Biggest Game Around.” Tried to place Isildur1 in an historical context and talk about some other famous examples of folks looking to take on the best players at the highest stakes -- people like Nick “the Greek” Dandalos, Jimmy Chagra, Andy Beal, and a couple of others.

By the way, next week I will be reviewing Doyle Brunson’s new autobiography, The Godfather of Poker for Betfair. Already moving through it fairly quickly -- a great read.

Think I’ll go grab myself a slice of that pumpkin pie.

(EDIT [added 11/27/09, 1:00 p.m.]: It’s official -- the deadline for implementation of the UIGEA regs has been delayed until 6/1/2010. Per this presser from the Federal Reserve. As you were.)

Thankful, I Am

Whew. Like that turkey, named “Courage,” who yesterday received a last-minute “pardon” from President Obama sparing him from a dinner table, it looks like we online poker players in the U.S. have also been granted a reprieve. For a while, anyhow.

It’s Thanksgiving, and if yr like me you have a lot else going on today than to be checking in on yr poker blogs. But I did want to note the big news yesterday before going back into the kitchen to help Vera with that awesome feast she’s preparing for the big crowd a-comin’ a little later.

There was no official announcement yesterday, but apparently there will be a six-month delay before banks and other institutions will be made to comply with the finalized regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. As I mentioned yesterday, the Engineer was saying he’d heard as much over on the Two Plus Two forums. We also heard during the day from Joe Brennan, the chairman of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, who said an announcement by Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, would be coming on Friday. That would make June 1, 2010 the new deadline.

The delay would add extra urgency to the hearing of the House Financial Services Committee scheduled next Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss both of Rep. Barney Frank’s bills, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act (H.R. 2266) and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267).

If you recall, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act is a very brief bill simply asking the feds for a one-year delay. Not sure what the status of this would be if a six-month delay were already in place, but the added delay could still be entertained, I suppose. This H.R. 2266 actually has 53 co-sponsors at present, which suggests some real support for the idea of holding off on making UIGEA compliance mandatory.

The other bill, the Internet Gambling, Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, is Frank’s second go at comprehensive legislation designed to regulate (and tax, natch) online poker in the U.S. (following his earlier, failed IGREA bill from 2007). That one is now up to 63 co-sponsors, so there appears to be a bit of a groundswell there, too, as far as getting it to a House vote.

My initial reaction is to be ecstatic about the still-not-official-but-seemingly-gonna-happen announcement of a delay. Not just for the sake of folks being able to continue playing online poker, but for the rest of the industry, too -- including the media side of things, in which I now have more than a little bit of an investment.

My second reaction considers what may come next. It appears this idea of regulation -- the prospect of which doesn’t thrill all of us -- may well happen, and possibly sooner than later. While many of us would like the situation to remain as is, that doesn’t appear to be an option, really.

Rather, we’re probably looking at one of two futures here. We could get to the end of these six months and the UIGEA’s “Final Rule” could still be implemented. Seems less likely today that would happen, but it could. Americans would start running into trouble processing transactions with online gambling sites, and eventually a case would go to court. Some have said the UIGEA wouldn’t hold up in that setting, but we’re talking months or years down the road -- and a lot of headaches -- before we got to that point.

The other possible future appears to be some sort of regulation of online poker, such as suggested by Frank’s bill. Thursday’s hearing will tell us a lot, I think, regarding the chances of that happening. I’ve wondered aloud on here a couple of times about the question “Do We Really Want Online Poker Regulated?” While I’ve been less than enthusiastic about the idea of regulation, it is starting to look as though it might become more difficult to fight that fight going forward -- that is to say, it doesn’t look like we’re gonna be able to keep things the way they are.

Stuff to ponder in between bites of turkey and cranberry sauce, I guess. And during the commercial breaks of today’s football marathon. Speaking of, I better head over to Pauly’s Pub to make my picks this morning. After four weeks of outpicking everyone, last week I was tied for last with just 9-of-16 correct -- including three or four heartbreaking last-minute losses -- thereby dropping me back into a tie for tenth. So my team, More Cowbell, needs to get things back on track starting today.

For now, though, among the many things I am thankful for today, I am most certainly glad about the delay of compliance with them UIGEA regs.

Have a great T-giving, peoples!

The Door is Closing: Hoping for UIGEA Delay

Yesterday on the Two Plus Two forums, a question was asked about “how pivotal are the next 24 hours” when it comes to the possibility that compliance with the finalized regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -- scheduled to begin next Tuesday, December 1 -- will be delayed.

According to Rich “The Engineer” Muny, a member of the Board of Directors of the Poker Players Alliance, “If [the] Treasury decides to delay implementation of the bill, it could be announced tomorrow, or it could go to Monday just as easily.” Indeed, as Muny implies, since the Thanksgiving holiday is upon us, if we don’t hear anything today, then Monday is really the last chance.

It is very difficult for the average shamus to detect the odds of a delay with any precision here. I’ve been reading the forums and other sites, and occasionally see expressions of optimism about the feds stepping in here and extend the deadline. But it is hard to tell from where such optimism comes.

On November 20 (last Friday), an article titled “High Stakes for Online Gamblers” popped up over on the Newsweek blog regarding the impending deadline and the recent request for a delay. The article, by Jeremy Herb, makes reference to an unnamed “Federal Reserve official” saying that a decision regarding delaying compliance had yet to be made.

That’s with just a week-and-a-half to go. Talk about a sweat.

Herb’s article additionally provides a decent overview of the situation, including some background on how the UIGEA came to be and the problems that still exist for banks and other financial institutions with regard to implementation. Herb references that October 1 letter from House Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) -- also signed by 17 other members of Congress -- asking the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve “to extend the date of compliance for the final regulations implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by one year.” The feds do have the power to enact such a delay thanks to something called the Administrative Procedure Act.

He also notes that other November 3 letter, also sent to Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury) and Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) in which they “strongly oppose” the request made by Frank et al. for an extension, arguing that “there is no justification for delaying the compliance deadline of the UIGEA regulations.”

Among other points made by Kyl and Bachus, they cite the fact that banks have already had nearly a year to ready themselves for compliance, and so should not need any further time in that regard. Also, the pair notes how the “Final Rule was adopted after a lengthy and open rulemaking process,” and that any “‘problems’ [they use the scare quotes] raised by certain interest groups are speculative.”

You remember Kyl as one of the first authors of the bill that eventually became the UIGEA, and Bachus as the clown who in House hearings rode a moral high horse while misrepresenting studies about gambling and Full Tilt Poker pro biographies. (If yr curious, here is a post in which I shared some details from Bachus’ mostly deranged contributions to the discussion of online gambling.)

The most infuriating moment in their letter comes at the end when they characterize the delay request as “a blatant attempt to circumvent the democratic process.” O RLY?

Let us think back to how the bill came to be passed by the House and Senate back on September 30, 2006 after being sneakily appended to the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006. There was zero discussion of the UIGEA part of the bill when the House and Senate hastily voted in favor of the SAFE Port Act in their final session of the 2006 Congress. Then President George W. Bush signed it into law two weeks later. Indeed, thanks in large part to then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Kyl, their efforts represented as “blatant” an example of legislators working “to circumvent the democratic process” as it gets.

The fact is, both Geithner (top) and Bernanke (bottom) -- the ones to whom the petition to delay compliance has been directed -- have a lot else on their minds at the moment. Geithner’s status as Treasury Secretary is presently more than a little tenuous. Just last week he was explicitly asked to resign by House Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX). Said Brady to Geithner, “the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do your job. Conservatives agree... liberals agree... it is time for a fresh start.”

Bernanke is also facing a lot of opposition from Congress at the moment. President Obama has already nominated Bernanke for a second four-year term as Federal Reserve Chairman, but Congress has to approve the nomination, and it is expected that their approval -- if it comes -- will not be without a lot of strife. The first hearing on that matter is scheduled for next Thursday, December 3.

So the guys who have to step in here and do something for us... well, one wonders how high a priority the UIGEA really is to them at the moment.

It’s frustrating as hell. We took a big hit early on in this one, and have been playing with a short stack from the get-go. Now the blinds have finally caught up with us. We have to catch a hand to survive.

Here’s hoping we do get the word today of a delay, and thus have something else to be thankful for tomorrow.

(EDIT [added 11/25/09, 10:30 a.m.]: This just in -- the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, will be meeting on Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss his two bills, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act [H.R. 2266] and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act [H.R. 2267]. Of course the former bill -- which seeks to delay implementation of the UIGEA regs one year -- would apparently be somewhat moot should the regs go into effect on 12/1. Again, hard to read this announcement as an indicator of anything specific with regard to a possible delay. Stay tuned!)

(EDIT [added 11/25/09, 3:25 p.m.): The Engineer is reporting there may be a six-month delay in the implementation of the finalized regs. Read here. Good news, if this turns out to be the case!)

I Like Such Themes and Anything Connected to This Matter

My most dedicated fan, Anonymous, has been leaving lots of great comments lately! Just a sample:

“It is extremely interesting for me to read the post. Thank author for it. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.”

“I am glad to find this forum!”

“hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com every day.”

There have been some other terrific (and informative!) comments having to do with various male enhancers, really awesome programs that are the best on the net, and World of Warcraft. Great to get feedback! I do want to thank Anonymous for taking the time.

Meanwhile, when not spending time trying to contain all of the spammage over in Comment Moderation, I’ve been doing some other scribblin’.

On Friday of last week I had a new piece over on the Betfair site with the long title “The Yanks and the Banks: The UIGEA and the Future of Online Poker in the U.S.” Hard to believe the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 has been with us for over three years now. And that I’ve been writing about it that long, too.

In the Betfair piece I tried to give a brief history of the UIGEA, talking about its surreptitious passage by the House and Senate that fateful September night, Bush signing the sucker into law, the various machinations surrounding the writing of the regulations and their finalization, then the Bush administration at last implementing the law with its final regs on the last full day of his presidency.

I conclude with a bit of speculation about what might happen on December 1 when the banks and other “designated payment systems” are made to comply with the law or face stiff penalties. It sounds like some (most?) of us Americans will be facing some difficulties when trying to deposit to online poker sites following that date, although it depends largely on our individual banks or favored deposit methods. There is a lot up in the air, obviously, and I resisted trying to predict too specifically what might happen a week from now.

I’ve had the chance recently to do some additional writing for another U.K.-based publication as well, including book reviews and a regular “U.S. Report” on what’s been happening Stateside poker-wise. As with writing for Betfair, it can be interesting -- and a little challenging -- to think about how to report U.S. news to a non-U.S. audience. I’m finding that in the “U.S. Report” I’m usually gravitating toward three areas in my rundown of what’s been going on -- tourney stuff (the professional circuit), legal stuff (both state and federal), and poker on TV (the “mainstreaming” of poker).

The tourneys grind on, with some interesting trends developing with regard to buy-ins and entrants. The legal news is always a mix of good news and bad news with regard to particular states, with the online crowd all nervously eyeing December 1. And the various poker shows and other TV appearances by poker players all amount to good publicity on the whole, it seems.

Looking at it all from the outside, though, I’d say poker’s status in the United States is as confused and paradoxical as it has ever been. Never more popular, really, but never more contentious either.

Finally, I’ve been doing some outlining and character sketches for a second hard-boiled novel. It is not a sequel to Same Difference, although I’ve had a couple of readers tell me they’d read another one featuring my detective character who narrates that one, the story of which is set in 1976 New York City and has nothing at all to do with poker. Instead, I have a new set of characters in mind, and am thinking of a different period and setting altogether. And no, I’m not really planning to include any poker in this new one, either, although things could change.

Found out late last week I had overlooked one small step in the publishing process for Same Difference, thus delaying its getting distributed over on Amazon and other outlets. Was a little frustrating, but no biggie, really. Looks like it’ll be Dec. or Jan., now, before the book starts popping up elsewhere. I can wait.

The novel is currently available over on Lulu. Click here to get to the book’s Lulu page, which includes a synopsis and a preview of the first few pages. I started a Facebook page for Same Difference, but haven’t added much to it as yet. I’m thinking perhaps down the road of adding links to reviews or any other fun stuff that might come from folks reading the book. That would also be a place where people could leave comments, too.

’Cos, you know, feedback is always welcome.

$1,356,946.50

It is interesting sometimes to read theories about how the money flows in online poker -- that is, how the cabbage tends to move from the less skilled players to the more skilled players, and how that transfer tends to work relative to the stakes being played.

Those with a better understanding of economics, generally speaking -- and “poker economics” in particular -- can comment on this subject much better than I can. (Which is to say, most of you, probably.) But what I tend to hear is that the money doesn’t “trickle down” from higher stakes games to lower stakes games, but rather moves in the opposite direction. That is to say, the better players win at the lower stakes, then take the money out of that level and move it into the higher stakes games. There they either keep winning and moving up, or encounter still better players and lose, with the winners taking the money to the next highest level. And so forth.

Of course, this has to end somewhere, yes? A highest level where the money stays until someone leaves the game with it all?

When it comes to online poker, that level appears to be the so-called “nosebleed” games over on Full Tilt Poker. There the site has designated five different stakes: Micro, Low, Middle, High, and Ivey’s Room. The latter, named after Full Tilt pro Phil Ivey, of course, is where we find the toppermost games such as $500/$1,000 no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha.

Those who play in such high-stakes games are generally known quantities, either Full Tilt pros like Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, or Tom Dwan, or other non-Full Tilters whose identities are generally understood by those involved. Thus it was a somewhat novel development a few weeks ago when a new player -- named “Isildur1” -- showed up relatively unannounced to challenge poker’s current royalty.

Even more curious, the player (from Sweden, it seems) began winning. Big time.

Isildur1 had first arrived on the site sometime in September, starting out at the $25/$50 NLHE tables. By October he had moved up to challenge the likes of Cole South, Brian Townsend, and Brian Hastings at the $200/$400 and $300/$600 PLO and NLHE tables. At the start of November, he appeared to have settled into Ivey's Room, ready to take on all comers.

By last week, Isildur1 had become the talk of the virtual town, having amassed over $5 million in profit while occasionally seen taking on Ivey, Antonius, and Dwan simultaneously at multiple tables. One particularly epic session of multi-tabling took place between Isildur1 and Dwan in which the unknown Swede took more than $3 million off of Dwan.

The player Haseeb "INTERNETPOKERS" Qureshi keeps a well-written blog for CardRunners where he is one of the site’s stable of pros, and early last week he wrote a thoughtful post (dated 11/17/09) about the Isildur1 phenomenon. Qureshi played (and lost) to Isildur1 as the latter was on his way up in stakes, and shares some thoughts about their match. But he also speaks thoughtfully about the significance of Isildur1’s sudden rise to prominence and how it affects the “mythology of online poker.” If you are at all interested in the Isildur1 phenomenon, Qureshi’s post is a good read.

On Saturday night I found myself railing the games in Ivey’s Room. I saw Isildur1 playing multiple tables versus Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey while also participating in the $25,000 buy-in PLO heads-up tournament from which Isildur1 eventually busted in the quarterfinals. The games went back and forth for a while, then Isildur1 went on a big downswing, highlighted by a record-setting $1,356,946.50 pot won by Antonius (pictured at the top of the post).

In the hand, Antonius started with almost $1.26 million, while Isildur1 had just over $678,000. The buy-in at these $500/$1,000 PLO games is $200K, so that gives some indication of how well Antonius had been doing at this particular table versus Isildur1.

Most every hand between these two began with a pot-sized raise from the small blind/button, and this was no exception, with Isildur1 raising to $3,000. Antonius reraised pot to $9,000 -- something that happened, say, every fourth or fifth hand or so. Then Isildur1 reraised pot again to $27,000. That was relatively rare to see, but would happen every once in a while.

Then Antoinius reraised again to $81,000. I’d been watching the pair play four tables for the last hour or so, and I hadn’t seen that happen once. After thinking for a while, Isildur1 made the call.

With the pot already $162K, the flop came . Antonius requested time, then bet $91,000 -- a little over half the pot. Isildur1 then also requested time, ultimately raising to $435,000. Antonius reraised to $779,000, and Isildur1 called with his remaining $162,473.

Antonius held for a five-high straight. Isildur1 turned over for a big draw to a higher straight. Two Dimes says Antonius is 54.6% to win here and Isildur1 45.4%. The turn was the and the river the , and the Finnish pro’s hand had held. Total rake for the hand? Fifty cents.

By the end of Saturday, Isildur1 would lose something in the neighborhood of $3.3 million -- $2.1 mil to Antonius, and $1.2 mil to Ivey. Apparently he was back on last night to take on both Dwan and Ivey once again, and along the way won a $1,127,955 pot himself (vs. Ivey). Reports are Isildur1 got back something like $650-850K or so yesterday, all told.

Pretty surreal stuff, watching more than a million dollars sliding across the virtual felt like this. These games still haven’t quite reached the level of those “Andy Beal vs. the Corporation” limit hold’em matches of 2001-2004 in which the stakes got as high as $100,000/$200,000. Single pots frequently exceeded a million clams in those games, and multi-day sessions ended with swings of $10-15 million. Still somethin’ to see, tho’.

Who is Isildur1? Will he fully recover from Saturday’s setback? Or is he destined to go busto? If not, and the Swede takes all the big boys’ money, where will it go? Finally, to pose a question Qureshi does a good job addressing, what does it all mean?

Questions without answers, as yet. But we’ll keep watching.

Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my $25 buy-in PLO games. It’s relatively rare, but once in a while I’ll get involved in a pot as big as $135. I only have to win 10,000 of those to make what Antonius did in that one hand Saturday night.

The Sklansky Minute and John Cage’s Indeterminacy

Our buds Special K and Falstaff have a new podcast, peoples. It’s called the Gambling Tales Podcast and Episode No. 1 is now available. I’ve been up to my eyeballs with work, but am going to be listening to this sucker (finally) in the car this morning.

I’m reading that there is some November Nine talk in there -- some pre-final table predictions, I believe, so we can listen and admire their accuracy, or goof on their folly. There’s a tale about the origins of gambling. And there’s a conversation with Bad Blood. Check it out!

Speaking of podcasts, one of my favorites is still the Two Plus Two Pokercast, which remains one of the most consistently good ones for news, interviews, and the occasional strategy stuff. Of course, I’ve been a fan of Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz (the hosts) since their earlier show -- called Rounders, the Poker Show -- which they began way back in the spring of 2005. That one followed a similar format at the TwoPlusTwo show, other than usually running about an hour or so (if I recall) rather than the two-plus hours they normally go with this one.

The TwoPlusTwo show began in January 2008, and is now approaching its 100th episode. A regular feature of the show is something called the “Sklansky Minute” in which the highly regarded poker author, David Sklansky, offers strategy advice, theoretical broodings on human behavior, or perhaps a Zen koan.

I’m joking about the Zen koans, of course. Or maybe not. Here’s the beginning of a Sklansky Minute, this one from Episode 88 (the one with Tommy Angelo):

“Major tournaments have gone to great lengths nowadays to -- for lack of a better word -- prevent ‘hanky-panky.’ [Pause.] But there is one thing that they allow to this day that is an invitation to cheat. [Pause.] I speak of making change with your neighbor, a transaction that is rarely watched closely....”

And so forth. Those of you who have heard the segments are familiar with the Sklansky’s very deliberate, almost cautious-sounding style of speech. Not sure if he reads from a script or not, but the effect is the same regardless.

Anyhow, I had sort of a strange association come to me as I was listening to a recent Sklansky Minute, one which actually might help explain the “Zen koan”-like feel the segments sometimes have for me. While listening I was contemplating how there must be 60 or 70 of these little segments by now, and suddenly I found myself thinking of the avant-garde composer John Cage, in particular his work Indeterminacy, a Folkways recording of which was made (with David Tudor) in 1959.

The work has a long, interesting history which I’m not going to rehearse here. If you are curious, you can check out the website “About Indeterminacy” for more. The work is structured around a series of very short anecdotes or stories or musings or what have you that Cage wrote. On the recording, he reads 90 of them, while David Tudor provides random musical accompaniment on the piano (and various other noise-makers).

The pieces are of different lengths, yet all are read so as to fill one minute exactly. That means some are read quickly, while others contain lengthy pauses. To give you an idea of what a “Cage Minute” is like, here’s an example, the second one on the recording:

“You probably know the one about the two monks, but I’ll tell it anyway. They were walking one day when they came to a stream where a young lady was waiting, hoping that someone would help her across. Without hesitating, one of the monks picked her up and carried her across, putting her down safely on the other side. The two monks continued walking along, and after some time, the second one, unable to restrain himself, said to the first, ‘You know we’re not allowed to touch women. Why did you carry that woman across the stream?’ The first monk replied, ‘Put her down. I did two hours ago.’”

If you want to hear Cage reading them (and Tudor’s accompaniment), here is a YouTube clip featuring the first ten stories from Indeterminacy:



As I say, a few more weeks and Sklansky probably will have 90 of his “Minutes” to string together. Perhaps he should hire Tommy Angelo to provide musical accompaniment and make his own avant-garde recording?

Of course, maybe the prospect of listening to a long sequence of Sklansky Minutes doesn’t sound too thrilling. In which case, let me share another one of Cage’s stories from Indeterminacy:

“In Zen they say: If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, try it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. Eventually one discovers that it’s not boring at all, but very interesting.”

Raise. Stack. Own. Rebrand. Try Again.

Vera and I do have a satellite dish and a hi-def teevee, but subscribe to the least expensive package available. So while we still get several dozen channels more than we need, we don’t get a few we occasionally want, including Fox Sports Net. Meaning I haven’t had the chance as of yet to see that Poker2Nite show hosted by Scott Huff and Joe Sebok which premiered last night.

As a longtime fan of the various podcasts produced by those two over the last three-plus years, I’m looking forward to seeing the show. I understand that UltimateBet -- the online poker site that signed Sebok as both a sponsored pro and a “media and operations consultant” back in September -- is the “presenting sponsor” for the show. Indeed, I believe episodes can be viewed over on the online site’s website, though I haven’t explored that yet.

Speaking of UltimateBet, you might have heard how the site has now “rebranded” to become UB.com. I first heard about that via Twitter when I saw Spaceman’s tweet “UltimateBet's rebranding reminds me of when evil tobacco co. Philip Morris became friendly-sounding ‘Altria.’”

Haven’t too much to say about that, really, other than to express the usual cynicism most of us probably share regarding marketing. Makes me think of that line Raymond Chandler once had Philip Marlowe say regarding chess -- a line from The Long Goodbye that usually gets misquoted as applying to poker -- noting that the game was “as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency.”

As was the case when UltimateBet merged with Absolute Poker on the Cereus Network back in July 2008, itself a kind of “rebranding,” all of the new slogans and messages bear the burdensome weight of that legacy of four-and-a-half years during which some players were playing against opponents who could see their hole cards -- i.e., the most massive cheating scandal in the short history of online poker.

So forgive me a little chuckle when reading the explanation of the new slogan “Raise. Stack. Own.” on the UB blog: “I will raise you. I will stack you. I will own you. -- This is how winning players approach the game, no mercy.” Can’t say hearing the site say “I will stack you. I will own you” really encourages me to come back.

Neither does the site’s continued lack of response to my requests regarding hand histories.

I’ve chronicled my quixotic efforts to get UltimateBet -- or UB -- to send me hand histories here before, the most recent synopsis appearing in a post from a couple of months ago titled “On Those UltimateBet Hand Mysteries, er... Histories.”

Following Sebok’s signing with UB, I had been momentarily encouraged to think I would eventually get my hand histories sent to me, given his statements that when signing with the site they had indicated to him that would be one of the first orders of business. I wrote the site (again) in late September and received a quick response saying my request had been “forwarded to our upper management for further review of your request.” Then on October 1, I got a note from a “Poker Security Manager” saying that while I was unaffected by the cheating, “I will work on getting your data to you ASAP.”

Three weeks passed with no response, so I replied to the email I’d been sent. It was returned as undeliverable. I’m thinking that when the fellow said “ASAP” he might have been calling me a sap.

I griped a little at the time on Twitter about once again having appeared to hit a dead end in the quest for my hand histories. And to Sebok’s credit he responded to my whimpering, saying he was glad to hear about the problem and was doing what he could to get UB to be more responsive to these things. He also mentioned, though, that he had come to realize his efforts in that regard were going to take him longer than he’d originally hoped they would.

As I’ve said before here, I’ve got all kinds of respect for the Cub. I do worry, though, that when it comes to this business of fixing UB, you be running the risk of being rebranded yourself.

For those interested in learning more of the skinny regarding the whole UltimateBet fiasco, check out Haley’s “Just Conjecturin’” series of posts on the subject, the most recent of which explains how Ted Forrest’s name (and a couple of others) should be added to the list of those who’ve had an ownership interest in the maligned online site. Links to Haley’s posts (thus far):

Just Conjecturin’, Part 1

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2: Sebok Signing (Update)

Just Conjecturin’, Part 2.5: Oh, Those UB Hand Histories

Just Conjecturin’, Part 3: The 56% Solution

Just Conjecturin’, Part 4: Inside the Excapsa Ownership Bloc

Just Conjecturin’, Part 5: If a Forrest is Silent, Does That Mean There Aren't Any Trees?

Kudos to Cada: WSOP Champ on Letterman

You might have heard -- the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event champion Joe Cada appeared as a guest on “The Late Show with David Letterman” last night.

Kind of a coup for the WSOP and poker in general, really. And PokerStars, with whom Cada has signed.

Stars sent out a presser yesterday noting that “Cada is the first poker player to be on the show since 2004.” Not sure, but I think the reference might be to Annie Duke having been on the show after winning the Tournament of Champions as well as a bracelet in the $2,000 Omaha Hi-Lo Split event that year. I know Chris Moneymaker appeared on Letterman’s show in June 2003 -- following his Main Event victory, but prior to its airing on ESPN (and thus, really, before the resulting “boom”).

You’ll recall how last year WSOP Director of Corporate Communications Seth Palansky noted that efforts to get players from the November Nine to appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and “Ellen” had been unsuccessful. So you know folks like Palansky and others are proud -- justly -- to see Cada accept the invite and this moment in the spotlight.

The interview itself came in the second half-hour, following a monologue with a lot of Sarah Palin jokes (she was just on “Oprah,” apparently), the Top Ten Signs Your NFL Team Owner Is Nuts, and a couple of segments with Penelope Cruz. Finally, Cada was introduced, taking his seat as Paul Schaffer and the CBS Orchestra banged out the chorus to Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” (surprise). Cada was wearing a spiffy black shirt and sporting his new WSOP Main Event bracelet, about which Letterman asked his first question.

“Yeah, that’s what you get when you win it,” said Cada, still grinning. He’ll probably be that way for a while.

Letterman’s questions demonstrated some familiarity with the WSOP, with poker’s increased popularity and changing status in the culture, and even his understanding of backing deals and other aspects of professional poker.

The host started out by referring to how the WSOP had been at Binion’s, and Cada explained that “after the Moneymaker year” it had moved over to the Rio. (2005 was actually the first year at the Rio, and 2006 the first year the WSOP ME final table was at the Rio.) Letterman then asked Cada how long he’d been playing poker, to which Cada responded “about four years,” then noted how he got started playing online when he turned 18. (Cada turns 22 today, in fact.)

Letterman followed by asking Cada how his parents felt about him playing poker. Cada explained that they weren’t thrilled. Interestingly, his mother is a blackjack dealer at a casino in Detroit, “so she relates everything the same as gambling,” said Cada. “She wasn’t too happy.”

Cada was asked what was the most he’d lost playing poker. “In a day?” Cada replied, and Letterman chuckled. The answer to that was $100,000, which Cada said had happened since July (after he’d already earned the $1.2 million-plus for making the final nine). Before that, his worst day was a $40,000 loss. But Cada explained he’d never lost more than he could afford. “It’s not like I’m in over my head,” he said.

Letterman asked more questions about how the WSOP and the Main Event worked, which Cada did a good job explaining, as well as about the mental and physical exhaustion caused by the ME and the “atmosphere” at the final table. The only real comedy came when Letterman addressed how poker’s cultural status has changed of late from a sketchy pursuit to a more respectable activity.

“All of a sudden poker is everywhere,” said Letterman. “And in my mind, the winner of a big pot... they find dead in a rental car.” As the audience laughed, Letterman asked “That doesn’t happen anymore?” Cada did a good job explaining how poker was indeed generally unlike what one sees in the movies, and that poker is “a fun thing to do, socially.”

Cada was circumspect when Letterman inquired about backing arrangements and whether he had to split his winnings with anyone. “Something along those lines,” said Cada, perhaps prudently avoiding sharing details of his arrangement with Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy, who reportedly had at least 50% of Cada’s action for the ME. “That’s where the rental car comes in,” Letterman cracked.

And that was it. Less than five minutes, but as I say, a coup of sorts for the WSOP and for poker. And Cada should be commended for conducting himself well and taking on the daunting responsibility of trying to represent poker to the rest of the world. Sort of stuff looks a lot easier than it is -- getting interviewed in front of a sizable studio audience and before an audience of millions. If you think about it, that test last week in which Cada had to perform before the crowd at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio -- and the ESPN cameras -- probably didn’t hurt as a kind of preparation.

Of course, last night Cada couldn’t really rely on getting lucky to do well.