"Top Pair" podcast

This week, the boys talk about my recent visit to the Salt Lake City home game, one of my recent PokerNews articles, and other stuff. Listen here, with show notes:

http://www.toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=TOPPAIR:1:0

There will be more about that Utah home-game experience in my next PokerNews article, probably coming out Monday.

Utah home game

I just got back home last night from my annual trip to Utah to visit family. My father lives there with my sister and her husband, and my brother and his wife flew out from Minnesota so we could all be there together for a few days. This year, for the first time, Nina came along with me.

We did something else new and different: We went to a home poker game. When I was a guest on the "Top Pair" podcast, which focuses primarily on home games, the hosts each invited me to drop in on their games if I were ever in their neighborhoods. One of them lives in Israel, so that's probably not happening anytime soon. But the other, Bruce Briggs, is in Salt Lake City. I emailed him a few weeks ago to see if the offer still stood, and he was gracious enough to contact some friends and put together a game night when Nina and I could attend.

It was a delight. Friendly people, crazy games, and low stakes--what more could one ask for in a home poker game? Well, I guess one could ask to win, but since my losses totaled exactly $1, I'm not complaining too loudly. Where else can you get almost five hours of that level of entertainment for a dollar?

Some of the participants are pictured above. One had already left. Bruce is second from left. Our husband-and-wife hosts are in the middle. Nina was on the other side of the camera, so you'll have to flip your computer around 180 degrees to see her.

I think I'll have more to say about the interesting game selection in an upcoming PokerNews article.

The old saying was entirely applicable here: A good time was had by all.

Podcast with moi

Ashley Adams recently interviewed me for his "House of Cards" radio show. It was broadcast this past week through its syndicated stations across the fruited plain, and is now available as a podcast, here. It's the one dated October 19, 2015.

The impetus for the interview was my PokerNews article on the newest edition of the tournament poker rules. But we ended up chatting much more about my general life history and getting into and subsequently out of poker as a career. Only in the last few minutes did we get to talking about new tournament rules.

I apologize for the bad sound quality. I know what I was saying, and still find it kind of hard to understand. I'm not sure what went wrong with the call, though it must have been on my end, since Ashley is clear as a bell. Maybe my phone sucks worse than I was aware of.

BTW, in case you don't recognize Adams's name, I've written about him a few times before. See all those posts collected here.

"Top Pair" podcast

The boys discuss a couple of my recent PokerNews pieces in their newest episode:

http://toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=TOPPAIR:1:0

Top Pair podcast (again)

I'm not a guest on the latest episode (April 18, 2015), but the guys chat about the PokerNews article that I wrote after appearing as a guest on the previous installment. You can listen here.

"Top Pair" podcast

I was the guest on the latest episode (April 4, 2015) of the "Top Pair" poker podcast, which focuses on home games. You can listen to it here:

http://www.toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=810:6:0::NO::: 

We talked about my history of getting into poker, my experiences with home games, and my poker writing here and for PokerNews.

They also spent some time in their previous episode (same link, scroll down a bit to March 21, 2015) talking about my PokerNews article on playing with cash on the table. It's from about 19:00 to 31:00 in that episode.

Words of wisdom

"It doesn't seem really that the government is morally against gambling, it seems more like the government is morally against gambling that doesn't lead to direct revenues for the government."

That's Steven Levitt, co-author of the Freakonomics series of books, on the public radio program "Marketplace" yesterday. Listen to the whole thing here.

More questions

Phil Gordon interviews Howard Lederer about the apparent death of the Reid bill on ESPN Radio here.

At about the 21:30 mark, Gordon asks Lederer when he first became aware that a 15-month blackout period would be part of the bill. Lederer says, casually, "A couple of months ago." Aha! This would seem to confirm that (1) Reid had this thing cooking for a while, and (2) prior to the election he had tipped off some insiders about what was coming.

This may be the answer to the question I asked last month: "What am I missing?" Reid had been an opponent of online gaming, so it made no sense to me that in the closing days of the election we suddenly heard from Lederer, Andy Bloch, and Barry Greenstein that Reid would be a champion for online poker.

But, of course, this answer (assuming my inferences are correct here) just leads to more questions. First among them is why Reid kept this under wraps. He apparently recruited poker insiders to speak up for him in an effort to win votes of poker players. So why not publicly announce what he was planning to do?

Second, I'm still completely baffled by the actions of the Poker Players Alliance. One would assume that if Lederer knew about Reid's intentions prior to the election, then so did the PPA. But when the Reid bill was announced, the PPA sure as hell looked like it was caught completely off-guard, with its first public statement being utterly devoid of any indication of support for the proposal. Today the PPA did a press release wagging its finger at Congress for not passing the legislation. Uh, well, if this bill was such an obvious win for poker, why was your first statement on it so carefully neutral? And I still continue to wonder what then happened in the subsequent 24 hours to change that bland "we dunno about this thing" attitude into salute-the-flag enthusiasm? Something very strange was going on behind the scenes there, and they're simply not being candid about it. Hey, PPA: Candor is a prerequisite for trustworthiness. Your credibility is awfully low here.

Yet another question is the overall timing. The UIGEA passed in 2006. What took Reid so long to decide to do something for poker? He gave himself very few opportunities for passage, waiting until so late in the congressional session. Was the idea for the bill a last-minute thing when he realized that he was polling behind Sharron Angle, and he became desperate to attract more votes? If so, how strong is his commitment, now that he is safe for another six years?

As an aside, you can make a fun game out of counting how many times Lederer says "y'know" during this podcast. Caution: Do NOT make this a drinking game.

Victory Poker responds

About two months ago I posted a rant about a full-page ad for Victory Poker. Change100 also recently leveled her guns at them for the flagrant sexism in the ad. One of the comments to her post led me to this take on the subject, which I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

I just saw a post on Wicked Chops Poker that includes their latest podcast. One of the guests they interview is Dan Fleyshman, CEO of Victory Poker. They ask him specifically about the criticisms of their ad campaign made by Change100, by me, and by unnamed others. He is shocked, SHOCKED! that anybody would think him or his company or his ad campaign to be sexist. Go listen if you're interested in how he spins it. The interview starts at about the 14:35 mark.


Addendum

See Change100's partial transcription of and response to Mr. Fleyshman's comments here.

PokerSoup is delicious

I was the guest tonight on the PokerSoup podcast. It hasn't been uploaded to the web site as I write this, but should be available here soon as episode #19. It was recorded while we were all playing in a small $5 HORSE tournament on Full Tilt Poker, which will explain some of the otherwise perplexing comments and interjections. We talked about my life, favorite poker rooms, the upcoming WSOP, other blogs, clips from other podcasts, the Cannery incident, poker legislation, Twittering, and anything else that came to mind. Enjoy.

Postponement

My appearance on the PokerSoup podcast, as previously announced here, has been delayed for one week. I'll be on it May 24, 6:00 p.m. PDT.

For those who just can't get enough of me

Gadzooks has invited me to be on the PokerSoup podcast this coming Sunday evening, 6:00 p.m. She warned me that it's a very boring show. I reassured her that that means I'd fit in perfectly. It's nice going into something with low expectations all around. Makes it hard to fail.

At this point I have no idea what we'll be talking about. But since I have an opinion on everything (even the topics I know nothing about), I guess it doesn't really matter.

Foreclosure City

My ex-wife alerted me to an hour-long story that she heard on Minnesota Public Radio about mortgage foreclosures in Las Vegas. (She and I have, fortunately, remained friendly.) See here. I'm listening to it now, and finding it interesting--details about the people involved, the consequences that you tend not to think about, the sights and sounds and smells that clusters of abandoned properties generate.

Podcast about the Review-Journal story

A reader sent me an email pointing me to this podcast (#29, March 26, 2009). The first 25 minutes or so are spent discussing the recent Review-Journal story about my Cannery incident. I found it more interesting and thoughtful than most podcasts tend to be. My only quibble was with one participant ("Chuck") who seemed to have the impression that I flaunted my status as a blogger (to either the casino security guys and/or the police; his theory wasn't completely clear) as somehow giving me "extra rights." That was not the case at all. The blog only got mentioned when the police asked me why I was taking the pictures. It's a question that would have been impossible to answer without mentioning the blog.

Two highlights:

1.

David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at UNLV: "Whatever happened with the security officers, they just got a little bit too overzealous there, because I can't imagine escalating anything to that level. I mean, in the course of a shift, you've got so many real issues to deal with and real problems of all kinds, it's hard to believe that somebody would be actually trespassed [i.e., formally forbidden ever to return]--which is really extreme. I mean, y'know, I've seen people vomit on other people and not get trespassed, so to trespass somebody for taking a picture, that's kind of ridiculous. So I don't know what was going on, if there was some other attitude or what was happening. But when I first heard about the story from the reporter I thought, wow, that's really weird, and I was kind of guarded in my comments, because I didn't want to make some kind of sweeping thing and say, oh yeah, they were totally liable, and then it turns into a lawsuit or something. Y'know, I don't know what the situation was, but, y'know, I can say if I was in there working security, I would, if I was told not to let them take pictures, I would politely direct them to where they could take pictures and not, y'know, I want to look at their camera and all that other stuff. That's just weird."

It should be noted that when Mr. Schwartz talks about his experience in casino security being required to forbid photography in certain areas, he's talking about Atlantic City, where, I am given to understand, there are actual gaming regulations that the casinos have to enforce. There are none in Nevada.

2.

Jeff Simpson is a gaming columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He wrote a story about Jerry Yang when he won the World Series of Poker in 2008. Because the story focused on Yang's religious beliefs intersecting with poker, I emailed him a link to what I had blogged about the subject, and I believe he has been at least an occasional reader since then. Here's some of what he had to say on this podcast:

"I was aware of this story, y'know, it seems about a month or so ago. The guy who writes the blog, it's a very good poker blog called Poker Grump. [The man obviously has refined taste!] And the guy who has the blog, y'know, maybe he is a little, y'know, you can tell by the name of the blog, he may be a little ornery, and, y'know, willing to stand up for what he perceives to be his rights. [Comments about how he would have been inclined to be more deferential than I was in hopes of avoiding escalation.] ...The police and hotel security work incredibly closely together. The security forces of all the hotels way outnumber the police who, y'know, deal with crimes in those jurisdictions. Y'know, the police are, y'know, they almost always will side with the security force when there's some kind of a dispute between security and a patron. It's just, it's not even a question. In many of, and so that's, when I read the way the North Las Vegas police treated the guy at first, I thought that the police were even out of line suggesting that they thought there was some kind of law being broken, and then later coming to their senses after checking the guy's blog.... You count on the police to sorta, y'know, straighten them [i.e., overacting casino security officers] out immediately, and that didn't happen in this case. The police should have been, like, they guy wanted to leave, you didn't let him leave, why not? I mean, y'know, the police should have definitely done that."


Addendum

There's another podcast that briefly discusses the article, here (March 27 episode), from about 18:30 to 24:30. Not nearly as thoughtful as the previous one--just the show's co-hosts giving their opinions about what happened. They spend about half the time debating the basic facts, because, although both claim to have read my original story, they're both pretty fuzzy on the details. One thinks that I was OK, the other thinks I should have just capitulated and made things easier on everybody--kind of the basic divide seen in every discussion of the matter.

Thanks again to a reader for pointing this out to me.

Me and Those Guys

Last Wednesday when I was at the M Resort, I taped an episode of "That Show with Those Guys" for vegasundressed.com.

I was surprised to get the invitation, because I didn't exactly praise the show when I mentioned it here a couple of weeks ago. I didn't trash it either--just felt kind of meh. So it's kind of a strange and unexpected way to get an invite. But Those Guys turned out to be quite cool and interesting and good to know in person, and doing the show was a fun experience. We just chatted about life as a low-stakes grinder in general, and then about the Cannery episode in particular.

If you're a regular reader, you probably won't learn much about me that you haven't heard already, but if you want to see the interview, tune in here (Episode #27, March 10, 2009). I can't tell you exactly what's there, because we talked for a lot longer than they will probably want to use, and I haven't watched it yet to know which of my dronings got edited out by the Crapshield 3000. Maybe I come off looking like a boring idiot--who knows? Anyway, it was yet another interesting and unexpected experience to come from writing this here blog thingy, so I'm happy to share it with you.

Poker gems, #194

Mike Fasso, on this week's "Ante Up" podcast, as transcribed and submitted specifically for this purpose by Shamus.


There really isn't such a thing as a bad beat.... People talk about bad beats. You know what a bad beat is? Really? The only thing that is a bad beat is if you have a better hand than your opponent at the showdown and your opponent wins the pot. That is a bad beat. Now, anything other than that is not a bad beat. So if you have a bad beat story that you want to tell me, if it falls in that first category, I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, shove it, all right?

Podcasts

Shamus has a new episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show up today, available here. I'm not in this one, and I haven't heard it yet, but they never fail to entertain.

Shamus keeps up with the poker world's podcasts more than anybody I know. He sent me an email tipping me off that this post of mine from earlier this month is discussed by the "Ante Up" guys on today's show, from 9:55 through 15:15.

HBPRS, #8

Another episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show is now up here, including a segment from yours truly.

Interesting that Shamus chose to illustrate my little contribution in the show notes with an engraving by William Hogarth. You would have to be a meticulous--perhaps even obsessive--reader to have noticed and remembered this little fact, but I once mentioned that the pseudonym under which I both blog and play online poker is taken directly from what is perhaps Hogarth's most famous series of illustrations, "A Rake's Progress," featuring the character Tom Rakewell. There are many days when I feel as he is shown in Plate 6: "Scene Six takes us to another gaming house where we witness Tom Rakewell's second, inevitable loss of fortune. Half mad, wig torn from his head, he wrenches his fist at the Heavens. Quite literally, by having married the old hag and now losing her fortune, all his cards have been played. He has sealed his own deplorable fate." I just hope to avoid the other Rakewell's subsequent stages of downfall: debtor's prison and the madhouse.


Addendum, December 12, 2010

It appears that the links given above are now broken. Try here instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake%27s_Progress

Poker gems, #159

Several days late, I'm finally getting around to listening to #7 of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show. The opening lines, an excerpt from an episode of "Fibber McGee and Molly," made me laugh out loud:


Molly: Now, if a man wants to go out once in a while and play cards with his men friends, why doesn't he just say so?

Fibber: You mean that, Molly?

Molly: Of course I do. That doesn't apply to you, though, Dearie.

Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show

A new installment of my favorite poker podcast, the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, is now up. I'm not in this one (at least partly because I have been tardy about getting my next contribution recorded--sorry, Shamus!), but it's still, I think, the most interesting poker podcast out there, way different from what anybody else is doing.