Glitch in Full Tilt's software?

I played in Full Tilt Poker's "Midnight Madness" $10+1 tournament tonight. Within the first few hands, something so peculiar happened that I went back and took screen shots of the hand histories to help document it.

Here's the basic problem: In one hand, I was in the big blind and called a raise from the under-the-gun player to my left. Flop and turn were both checked around. I bet on the river and he folded. But on the next hand, the big blind skipped over that player, as did the small blind on the subsequent hand.

Let me show you. This is Hand #4 of the tournament:



And here is the accompanying hand history (Note: I have edited these to add a sequential hand number at the top for ease of reference, and I have deleted the section containing the hole cards and action, since those are not relevant here):

4.
Full Tilt Poker Game #19933949432: Midnight Madness! (151106863), Table 40 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:02:52 ET - 2010/04/09
Seat 1: bagwisson (1,485)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 (1,455)
Seat 4: riquin (1,455)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (1,470)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (1,500)
Seat 7: Rakewell (1,500)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit (1,500)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (1,635)
feverdog11 posts the small blind of 15
pinkcinderella posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #4
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 75 Rake 0
Seat 1: bagwisson didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: riquin (button) collected (75), mucked
Seat 5: feverdog11 (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 7: Rakewell didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 didn't bet (folded)


Next is Hand #5, the one in which I'm in the big blind and won against the UTG raiser:



And the history for Hand #5:

5.
Full Tilt Poker Game #19933963479: Midnight Madness! (151106863), Table 40 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:03:38 ET - 2010/04/09
Seat 1: bagwisson (1,485)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 (1,455)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog (1,500)
Seat 4: riquin (1,500)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (1,455)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (1,470)
Seat 7: Rakewell (1,500)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit (1,500)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (1,635)
pinkcinderella posts the small blind of 15
Rakewell posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #5
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 195 Rake 0
Board: [Tc 8h 3h 4d 5d]
Seat 1: bagwisson didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: riquin didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 7: Rakewell (big blind) collected (195), mucked
Seat 8: twackeditlostit folded on the River
Seat 9: BackDraft72 didn't bet (folded)

Fine. No problem so far. But here's where it gets weird.


Hand #6:



Now, this part I can't document for you--you'll just have to take my word for it: The guy to my left (twackeditlostit in Seat 8) did not disappear during this hand, though the hand replayer showed the seat as empty. I know this for a certainty, because if he had vanished, I would have simply assumed that as the player who was next to post a big blind, he had been spirited away to balance the tables. It was precisely because he was still sitting there, and still in the hand (or so it appeared; I don't think he did anything but fold, and in retrospect, even that may have been automatic by the software, rather than the player doing it deliberately), that it caught my attention as an anomaly--why did the big blind skip that guy???

Here's the history for Hand #6:

6.
Full Tilt Poker Game #19933983059: Midnight Madness! (151106863), Table 40 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:04:41 ET - 2010/04/09
Seat 1: bagwisson (1,485)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 (1,455)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog (1,500)
Seat 4: riquin (1,500)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (1,455)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (1,455)
Seat 7: Rakewell (1,605)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (1,635)
Rakewell posts the small blind of 15
BackDraft72 posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #6
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 330 Rake 0
Board: [Kh 5c Qh]
Seat 1: bagwisson didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: riquin folded on the Flop
Seat 5: feverdog11 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: Rakewell (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (big blind) collected (330), mucked

Note that it shows Seat 8 to be empty for this hand, consistent with the animated hand replayer. The big blind skipped over him to Seat 9, again as would be expected if he had been moved to another table--except that he wasn't.


Next up is Hand 7:



And the history for Hand #7:

7.
Full Tilt Poker Game #19933996966: Midnight Madness! (151106863), Table 40 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:05:26 ET - 2010/04/09
Seat 1: bagwisson (1,485)
Seat 2: prizefighter00 (1,455)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog (1,500)
Seat 4: riquin (1,350)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (1,455)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (1,455)
Seat 7: Rakewell (1,575)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit (1,410)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (1,815)
BackDraft72 posts the small blind of 15
bagwisson posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #7
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,030 Rake 0
Board: [As 4h Qd Qh Ac]
Seat 1: bagwisson (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: prizefighter00 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog showed [Ks Ad] and won (3,030) with a full house, Aces full of Queens
Seat 4: riquin didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: feverdog11 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: Rakewell (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit is sitting out
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (small blind) showed [Qc 8s] and lost with a full house, Queens full of Aces

Now twackeditlostit is back in Seat 8, but "sitting out."


Hand #8:



And the history for Hand #8:

8.
Full Tilt Poker Game #19934013744: Midnight Madness! (151106863), Table 40 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:06:20 ET - 2010/04/09
Seat 1: bagwisson (1,455)
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog (3,030)
Seat 4: riquin (1,350)
Seat 5: feverdog11 (1,455)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella (1,455)
Seat 7: Rakewell (1,575)
Seat 8: twackeditlostit (1,410)
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (315)
bagwisson posts the small blind of 15
grumpy lil frog posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #9
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 735 Rake 0
Board: [Ac 9s Jc 4s Ad]
Seat 1: bagwisson (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: grumpy lil frog (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: riquin folded before the Flop
Seat 5: feverdog11 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: pinkcinderella didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: Rakewell folded before the Flop
Seat 8: twackeditlostit showed [Qd Kh] and won (735) with a pair of Aces
Seat 9: BackDraft72 (button) showed [Th 3d] and lost with a pair of Aces

As you can see, twackeditlostit is back in the game and even won the hand--without having paid the blinds for this round. (The button skipped over him, too.)

Below is a summary of the players, seats, button position, blinds, etc., as taken from the hand history. Player name in parenthesis means that the hand history designates him as "sitting out" that hand.



So twackeditlostit plays a hand under the gun, skips the big blind, sits out one hand (the one that would have been his small blind), and then is back, coming in behind the button.

One possibility is that he was whisked away to balance the tables, then, just by freak random chance, whisked back to us to rebalance the tables. However, that would not explain why his avatar remained at the table the whole time, and it's an awfully big coincidence to believe, given the size of this tournament (2082 entrants, so well over 200 tables). Of course, if he were just voluntarily sitting out, the blinds would still hit him.

It's very peculiar, and even after spending all the time it took to prepare this post, I can't figure out any explanation that makes sense--other than a serious glitch in the FTP software.

I am going to send an email to their support team about this anomaly. If they give me any sort of substantive response, I'll post it here as an addendum to this blog entry. In the meantime, if any reader can figure out a scenario under which this set of facts makes sense, I'd be happy to hear about it in the comments.



Incidentally, want to know how I went out of the tournament? Yeah, I thought you would want to hear all about it. Blind versus blind. I flopped top pair top kicker with my A-8 offsuit in the small blind, on a flop of 8-7-7. I bet. Big blind raised all in. I thought he was full of it, so I called. I was right. He had no pair, no draw. I was feeling fine--until he hit runner-runner straight:




That, of course, points to another little glitch in the FTP software: It's RIGGED!

Poker gems, #351

Greg Kaplan, in Card Player magazine interview, March 24, 2010 (vol. 23, #6), p. 26.


[A] good, thinking player is always trying to find spots where his opponent's opinion of his range is not congruent with what his range actually is.

Guess the casino, #471

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Fitzgerald's

Airports and cabs

Just a few scattered nonpokery thoughts here.

1.

On my most recent trips to the airport, picking up and sending off Cardgrrl, I was pleased to discover that McCarran International has finally joined the 20th century--a bit late, but still. Previously, they had these idiotic quarter-fed meters. Because it is impossible to know in advance exactly how much time you'll need to occupy a parking space, that meant either pumping in way more quarters than were really necessary, or cutting it close. The latter option meant either running all the way back out to the parking garage to buy more time if you guessed wrong, or risking getting a ticket. It was a completely idiotic system for such a facility.

Now, though, they operate like every other civilized pay-for-time parking garage. You take a ticket upon entry, and pay for how long you were there on the way out. The potential downside of this is a long wait at the exit. But I have been impressed by the efficiency of the automated booths they have set up. Put the ticket in, put your credit card in, and you're on your way in less than 60 seconds, start to finish.

Efficient and appropriate use of modern technology--from a governmental agency? I was stunned.

2.

I forlornly stood by as Cardgrrl went through the security line when she was leaving. It took a while, which gave me time to watch the cycle of video messages playing on the overhead monitors. Our airport might suck in a lot of ways--no, scratch that; our airport DOES suck in a lot of ways--but we bow to no other air terminal in the world in the excellence and entertainment value of our instructional security videos.

I've watched them in other places, and they are just what you would expect from bureaucracies: lifeless, dull, mechanical messages conveying the point in as drab and unimaginative a form as human minds can conceive. Remember that wonderful Wendy's commercial from the 1980s, about the Eastern Bloc fashion show? (Svimvear! Evening vear!) Same idea.

But not in Vegas! We have Klingons from the Star Trek Experience (now defunct, but who cares?) and knights from the Excalibur Tournament of Kings showing that weapons can't be taken onto the plane. We have Rita Rudner telling jokes, but stopping when she gets to the security line, because humor is not appreciated there. We have Lance Burton, trying to empty his pockets of all metal items, but finding an endless variety of coins and other trinkets everywhere, including behind the screener's ear. We have characters from "Mystere" (whom I wouldn't have recognized before seeing the show recently) trying every which way to put a baby through the x-ray machine, before learning that one is to simply carry small children through the magnetometer. We have a bevy of businessmen performing a synchronized choreography of removing laptop computers from their cases for screening. We have Wayne Newton.

Every one of the dozen or so messages in the loop is well-executed, clever, funny, and yet ends up making its point clearly and memorably. Again--who would ever have thought that governmental lackeys could manage such a thing?

3.

A news story from yesterday illustrates nicely just what is wrong with nearly every governmental attempt to regulate businesses. Las Vegas taxis are, for the first time, now going to be able to accept payment via credit cards--something that obviously should have been happening 20 years ago, like everywhere else in the world.

Reading the summary of the meeting of the Taxicab Authority makes me want to pull out what little hair I have left. They were debating such mind-numbing minutiae as how much of a fee to allow to be charged, and in what form and with what frequency the cab operators would have to report these transactions to the Authority.

Here's an idea: How about just letting the owners/operators of the business decide such things on their own? If they try to charge outlandish fees, people simply won't pay them, or will use other cabs instead. There's this crazy idea called the free market, in which things like that tend to work themselves out to the satisfaction of both vendor and customer. It's as if there's an invisible hand at work. (Great concept, eh? I oughtta write a book.)

Of course, that would also apply to not regulating the number of taxis that operate, or where certain ones are and aren't allowed to pick up fares, how much they can charge, whether to allow smoking, whether to require video surveillance in the vehicles, and so forth. We simply don't need a nitpicking, meddlesome, inefficient regulator trying to micromanage the whole system. Supply and demand is a much better tool than central planning. The Taxicab Authority, and all other similar nanny-state bodies, should ask the Soviet Union about how well centralized management of services and commodities works out. Oh, wait--you can't ask them, because they collapsed under the weight of their own lethargic inefficiency, while sapping the lifeblood of freedom from the millions of souls they enslaved and tormented in the process. Sorry, forgot about that niggling detail for a second there.


And, to anticipate an objection, no, there is not a disconnect between the various segments of this post. I am pleasantly surprised at a couple of examples of nice work from the functionaries that run the airport precisely because long experience has taught us to expect all operations of governments to be as stultifying and aggravating as the lines at the DMV and the post office. If the airport were run by a private company instead of by the government, we would have seen obvious improvements like the parking system implemented long before the public agency bothered getting around to it. Governments are necessary evils. We need them for some things, such as courts and criminal law enforcement and protection of individual rights. It's just that those things don't include running airports or taxicab services.


Addendum

I decided to add a note here rather than in the comments section, in response to what "deuce-four" (nice alias!) wrote. The argument, in short, is that having no regulatory authority would mean that there would be bad operators, which a visitor would chalk up to all Vegas cabs equally.

The first problem with that argument, IMHO, is that it would apply equally to any other sort of business: restaurants, hotels, casinos, shows. I.e., it becomes an argument for having a nanny-state bureaucracy trying to ensure that every consumer's every contact with every company is a positive one.

The second problem is that it assumes that governmental agencies are actually effective in screening out the bad apples. But this is patently not so. Vegas cabs are, despite being heavily regulated, notorious for such abuses as long-hauling customers. Is there actual evidence that the average consumer experience is better for having regulation than it would be without them? I doubt it; I think that is merely a guess, and an unwarranted one at that.

The third problem is that it assumes that there is no alternative except for (1) heavy-handed governmental regulation or (2) an anything-goes marketplace that will be littered with bad apples. I think that confuses the familiar with the necessary. Let me sketch what I think would be both most likely and most desirable, if we got local agencies out of the way.

Up would spring private, independent certifying companies. Let's imagine one we'll call White Star Taxi Endorsers. This national company offers certification of quality to cab companies all over the country. For a fee, the operator would get to plaster the WSTE name and emblem on the side of its cabs. Consumers who cared about quality in their cab service and were familiar with WTSE could selectively choose to hire only cabs with that certification. WTSE would require that its endorsed cab companies keep the vehicles spotlessly clean, have friendly drivers who spoke good English and treated people couteously and obeyed traffic laws, never long-haul clients, post fares clearly and have no hidden fees, etc. WTSE would spot-check compliance with local secret shoppers. WTSE would also provide a mechanism for dispute resolution if there were any problem with one of its certified companies allegedly cheating a customer or not performing up to snuff. WTSE might even provide a centralized dispatching service--a single 800 number you could call from anywhere to get a certified taxi (if one is available where you are), so that you wouldn't have to call a bunch of places to find out which local companies carried the White Star seal of approval. (They could even make an app for that!) Of course, maintaining such standards and paying WSTE's fees would mean that certified cabs would cost a little more than others, but in exchange the customer would have guaranteed standards of honesty and quality met. Alternatively, if you care more about low cost than quality, you could pick a taxi at random and take your chances. The point is that it would all be private, all voluntary, all free-market. I submit that the result would be better all around than the ineffective, inefficient, arbitrary, power-hungry local regulatory agencies.

Incidentally, the same would work for other kinds of things that we tend to think of as requiring governmental regulation. Take restaurants, for example. A private certification firm might well do far better than the kind of spotty enforcement of food safety and cleanliness that is typically done by city or county licensing agencies. Customers who care about such things would look for the seal of the company providing the inspection/certification service, and only eat at places endorsed by inspection companies they trust to do a good job.

The great majority of local, state, and federal regulations of business would, could, and should be done better and more efficiently by the free market, if only it were allowed to operate.

Guess the casino, #470

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Plaza

Guess the casino, #469

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Rio

The God of Irony

Mike Caro is working on getting his old poker web site, http://www.poker1.com/, up to date, after it fell into neglect for a long time. As part of that, his assistant has been posting lots of his old columns. I know because I get his RSS feed, and they have been pouring in at a rate of several per hour today. I don't have time to read them all when they come so fast, but I've done a little sampling.

I particularly liked an old piece he wrote about "The God of Irony":

Let me tell you something about the God of Irony, so you know what you’re
up against. This is the guy who waits for you to begin a thought with the words
"Wouldn’t it be terrible if" or "Can you imagine how bad I’d feel after winning
all this money if…"

You think those thoughts and you’re apt to gain the attention of the God of
Irony....

Hey, you gamblers know what I’m talking about, don’t you? The craziest
things happen to us all the time.

Truth is, the God of Irony is a pretty dull fellow. He never has a creative
thought of his own. We keep putting stuff in his head. The little sucker knows a
good idea when he hears it.

I couldn't help but chuckle at this, because of a hand I played at the Rio Saturday. There was a guy who had been beating me every friggin' time we were in a hand together. Finally when he raised and I called with 7-8 suited, the flop came a very cooperative 9-10-J rainbow. I bet and he called. I thought, "I'm OK with any card except a queen or a king here."

So naturally, the God of Irony heard that thought, and BANG! Queen on the turn, leaving me with a one-card straight, and the butt end of it at that.

Actually, I still ended up winning a small pot there, but the point is that it was exactly the kind of scenario that Caro characterizes so well.

Beware the God of Irony. He is one cruel bastard.

Poker gems, #350

Mike Caro, in an old Card Player magazine column, recently posted on his blog here.



Wrong attitude: Entering a poker game hoping to get lucky and win your opponents’ money.

Right attitude: Entering a poker game and realizing that your opponents are holding your money, and they will need to be very lucky to keep it.... All those chips and all that cash, all the money hidden in purses and wallets is yours. You want it. You deserve it. It is a crime against nature that those people are fondling your money. They have no right to it. It is yours, and you intend to play the best poker possible in an effort to bring justice to your bankroll.

Poker gems, #349

Mike Caro, in Poker Player newspaper column, April 12, 2010 (vol. 13, #21), p. 4.


When you think of it, there's no reason whatsoever why hosting a poker game at home should be illegal. The law is widely ignored by millions of poker players. But think about how absurd this situation is. We've allowed government to act as our parents and threaten us with being sent to our rooms, which in government-speak means jail.

For what? Stop. I'm going to ask it again: For what? I don't need to write about the reason laws against poker are ridiculous. You understand it much more powerfully, just because, for one fleeting moment, you refused to accept the status quo and pondered "for what?"

Fiasco

I'm a little behind in poker news, so just today learned about the disaster that occurred when UltimateBlecch tried to run a new heads-up tournament in honor of Annie Duke having won the NBC event. There were, uh, a few problems. Read all about it here.

This would also be a fitting time to remind everybody of what the site's other prominent spokesman has boasted of it: "We have the best software out there."

You sure about that, Phil? Looks to me like your company can't run a tournament right, even when it manages not to ship pots to the loser of the hand, or let its owners and friends play while looking at opponents' hole cards.

Quake

I felt yesterday's earthquake. I was sitting right here at my computer. I suddenly got a sensation that I initially interpreted as lightheadedness, to the point that I wondered if I was about to pass out. But that didn't make any sense, as there were no circumstances that would have triggered it, and I didn't have other accompanying symptoms, such as irregular or slow or rapid heart rate, sweating, nausea, etc. I moved my head around to see if it was vertigo, but that did nothing. I finally concluded that it had just been wind shaking my apartment building; it had been a very gusty day, after all, with weather reports filled with high wind advisories.

But within a few minutes, I started seeing Twitter messages about an earthquake in northern Mexico, and more from people in both Vegas and southern California about having felt it. Soon, news reports from the mainstream media outlets were reporting that the quake had been felt as far away as L.A., Phoenix, and Las Vegas. It was only then, in retrospect, that I concluded that that was what I had experienced. Google Earth tells me that I'm about 275 miles from the epicenter.

That was only the second earthquake I have sensed. The first was in 1987 when I was living in Illinois. The New Madrid fault gave one of its periodic shifts while I was playing ping-pong in the rec room of my church. Again, the only experience I had to judge it against was midwestern windstorms, so that's what I assumed it was. I ran to the door to look outside, and was puzzled when I didn't see things blowing around. Several of us that were there playing only gradually decided that it must have been an earthquake--a hard conclusion to reach, given their rarity in central Illinois. But the news that night confirmed it.

Who says nothing exciting ever happens to me?

Guess the casino, #468

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Rio

One of these things is not like the others

The above ad for Victory Poker appeared in the February 24, 2010, issue of Card Player magazine. It left me scratching my head.

Let's look at the lineup of instructors. David Chicotsky? OK, sure, he has a solid track record not only of personal performance in online poker but in teaching others how he succeeds. Antonio Esfandiari? All right. Maybe not stellar, but has certainly succeeded in both tournaments and live play enough that I'd agree he has things to share. Andrew Robl and Brian Rast? Both young, but certainly with pretty impressive early reputations. Dan Bilzerian I've only heard of from his appearance in last year's WSOP Main Event coverage, and Keith Gipson is completely unknown to me. But maybe their excellence exceeds their reputation.

In the next block, we have Alec Torelli, Lee Markholt, and Paul Wasicka--a very impressive trio, from any of whom all of us grinders could probably learn a thing or two. Danny Wong and Eugene Katchalov are both in that "early but promising" category, so no complaints there. Sander Lylloff? No clue who he is. But since I don't closely follow online poker whizzes, or tournament poker circuits, or European poker, maybe he's a genius I haven't heard of.

Moving on to the "consultants," Joe Navarro is certainly well-known in poker training circles (though I personally think he tends to make too much out of too little), and Sam Chauhan has some ringing endorsements for how he has helped well-known poker pros, such as Esfandiari, get their lives and minds in order. Dan Fleyshman I have never heard of, but maybe he's a whiz at money management, a vital aspect of success in poker.

But now we come to the bottom of the page and see this: "Sara Underwood, 2007 Playmate of the Year."

Huh?

What the hell does this have to do with the game in question? Does she teach a seminar in strip poker, maybe?

I assume that whatever services Ms. Underwood provides to Victory Poker, they do not come free. So what value, exactly, does her presence on the staff add for members? Some portion of their subscription fees go to her--what does she provide them in return? I don't get it.

More generally, I'm baffled by the large photograph at the top of the ad. We see six of the trainers apparently in a poker game, though none of them have cards, and at least one of them has his chips strewn in a mess rather than stacked in an orderly fashion. They are drinking martinis. Apparently Victory Poker teaches its students that drinking booze while you play is one of the tickets to success. That's a rather odd precept.

Five of the six men have attractive young women hanging on them. Bilzerian seems to have missed out. What--is he gay? Did his date stand him up? Does he have bad breath? I don't know. But apparently Victory Poker, in addition to recommending that one consume hard liquor while playing, advises that one's poker play is optimized by having female models stand at one's side. Again, this seems like rather peculiar advice to me.

Yes, I realize that using attractive young women to sell a product or service that has nothing directly to do with them is hardly stop-the-presses news. I also get that this photograph is meant to convey a general image, to trigger an emotional reaction in the prospective client, and is not intended to be scrutinized too closely or taken too literally.

But I find it instructive nevertheless. It tells us a great deal about what this company thinks of the people whose money it is trying to earn. It believes they are too stupid to see through the shallowness and idiocy of this kind of advertising. It believes they are stupid enough to think, "If I sign up for lessons here, I will soon be having non-stop drunken parties with supermodels." Consequently, I have to conclude that its poker training videos (at least I assume that's the core of what they sell, though I haven't logged on to the site to verify that) are geared to such customers--people who aren't taking poker seriously on its own terms, but only see it as a means to their ridiculous fantasy lifestyle.

Given that insight, then, perhaps instead of kvetching about this ad, I should thank Victory Poker for publishing it. Their having done so makes it crystal clear that if I want serious poker training, I should select one of their competitors--one that caters to players who are more realistic in their goals and aspirations. Because I have no desire to learn to play poker while drinking and having models on my arm, and because I am not foolhardy enough to think that I will ever become megabucks rich from the game, I am obviously not the kind of person that Victory Poker is trying to attract. I will, therefore, be happy to pass them by without further consideration.


Addendum

A commenter suggested that this is a playing site, not a training site. I assumed the latter because of the subheading in the ad: "We made it. We'll show you how." Absent any other clues, doesn't that suggest it's a training site?

Well, I was wrong. It does indeed appear to be a site for playing, not training. The "instruction" tab on the web site is just rudimentary information. I gather that this is part of something called the Everleaf poker network, which I confess I haven't heard of before. Strangely, I can find no mention of either Victory or Everleaf at compatiblepoker.com's frequently updated list of sites accepting U.S. players. Maybe Americans can only play on the free side of Victory. I don't know.

But although my assumption was incorrect about what this site is offering, isn't that all by itself a pretty big indictment of the efficacy of the ad? If a reader can't even tell that it's a playing site rather than a training site, it seems to me that the ad has failed in a major way.


Addendum

Here's more about the Everleaf network. This reads like sponsored copy rather than an independent review, so take it with a grain of salt. It lists 28 rooms, not including Victory, and says that the network has fewer than 300 players at peak hours. That's about 10 players per skin at PEAK! I assume they can all play against each other, but still, that can hardly keep many games going. Here's a news item from January about Everleaf's merger with another network.

Sounds like a pretty rinkydink operation to me. But who knows--maybe with the name recognition of some of the people they've lined up they'll make a critical threshold of players.

BTW, Victory's site oddly separates its "players" from its "pros," the former being the group pictured at the top of the ad (plus Underwood), the latter being the group in the box at the bottom left. It's not at all clear what the distinction means.

Punishment

The month of March was my second-worst ever. With a few brief interruptions, it was a non-stop barrage of expensive second-best hands, blended with a few boneheaded plays and a seeming complete inability to figure out where I was in a hand. The first few days of April have continued the streak. So I decided to take a few days off from playing, give my brain a break, and see whether that helps turn things around.

While relaxing at home today, I decided to try my hand at an online HORSE tournament for $33 on Stars. (The fact that I wasted 3 hours on the same thing last night, getting off to an unbelievably good start and then crashing and burning two spots short of the money did not deter me, though it probably should have.)

Here's a sampling of what happened:



















In that last hand, note that the money was all in pre-flop.

In the hand in which I was dealt rolled-up sixes, it was the ONLY hand in that entire level where a raise on third street ended the hand, winning just the antes.

I finished 36th out of 166, with 24 spots paying.

Obviously I am being karmically punished for something horrible I have done. I just can't figure out whether it was in this life or a previous life.

Please pass the hemlock, and let me get on to the next one quickly.

Guess the casino, #467

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Rio

Poker plate

Seen earlier today at the Rio parking garage. What game do you suppose he was there to play?

Poker gems, #348

Matt Lessinger, in Card Player magazine column, February 24, 2010 (vol. 23, #4), p. 60.


[U]nless your name is Phil Ivey, you aren't going to scare your opponents just by staring at them.

But if we can't get our opponents to fear us, we can at least make sure that they don't start getting brave against us. There are always opponents who make me think to myself, "When they're in the blinds, I'm going to look to raise." It's not just because they are tight, but because they are tight-passive. They are either going to fold to me or not punish me for getting out of line. Their style inspires me to get aggressive. They inspire anti-fear. That's instant death in the poker world, and something that you must avoid at all costs.

Steam coming out of the ears

If, like me, you enjoy watching Phil Hellmuth boast about being the best in the world and then get his face rubbed in doggie doo, I highly recommend watching this "Poker After Dark" segment, particularly the two consecutive hands between Hellmuth and Brandon Adams, starting at about the 7:00 mark. Hilarity definitely ensues.

Guess the casino, #466

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Bellagio

Holy day

Just a reminder that today is the second holiest day in the liturgical calendar of the Holy Order of the Mighty Deuce-Four in the U.S., where we write the date as 4/2, and the holiest day in most of the rest of the world, where today's date is typically written as 2/4.

You know what you need to do to celebrate properly.

That is all.

Guess the casino, #465

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Caesars Palace

Five live

I have played in five live poker tournaments over the past ten days or so, which is highly unusual for me.

1.

The first was last Monday at the Venetian. A reader generously offered to pay my buy-in for the nightly 7:00 tournament, to give him a chance to meet me and to say thanks for the blog. (He cleverly titled his introductory email, "Free money," which effectively got my attention.) This is a pretty well-structured tournament, except for one boneheaded part in which the blinds and antes increase way too much in one step.

My favorite hand was one fairly early in the game in which I called a preflop raise, along with about six others, with 7-9 of diamonds. The flop was 9h-8d-2d, giving me top pair and a flush draw. I checked. The original raiser bet, followed by a couple of callers, then I put in a big check-raise, which narrowed the field to just me and one older gentleman. The turn was the 6s. Now I had top pair, a flush draw, and an open-ended straight draw, with about half my stack in a very large pot. Well, duh! I don't need too many instructional videos to tell me how to play this. Shove. The other guy called. He had Ad-xd for just the nut flush draw. The river was the 5c, completing my straight, though just the pair was all it took to win. The gentleman shook my hand at the next break (he was left very short-stacked, but doubled up a couple of times to survive) and told me he realized what a dumb move he had made and that he should have known better.

But that hand was all I could do. There followed a long stretch without any forward progress. Before too long I was in fold-or-shove mode. I managed to steal the blinds about as often as I had to pay them, keeping myself afloat, but without making any headway. This happened ten times or so without ever getting called. Finally I did it from the small blind with 10-10, and was called by a doofus with 10-9 offsuit. The board came with a 7, 8, and J to give him a straight, despite me being an 85/15 favorite going in. And that was that.

The tournament also gave me the chance to meet one of my Twitter followers, youknoyoulov3me. She was at my table for the latter part of the tournament. I gather she is a dealer at Bellagio, and is self-evidently a fine player.

Thanks again to Matt for the freeroll!

2.

Cardgrrl was in town, of course. One of her reasons for coming was a get-together of folks she knows from Poker Academy, an online site where she did much of her early poker learning. The group had a private tournament Wednesday at noon at Harrah's. The Harrah's structure is thin and fast, with virtually no room to recover from an error or bad beat. It's an amateur-hour luckfest.

I chipped up some early on, but within an hour suffered a pretty horrible beat. I called a raise with A-K. Flop came king-high. Original raiser shoves with K-J. I call. Jack on the river for the 3-outer. That left me short-stacked. Then I was in the big blind with Q-6 (I think; not sure of the kicker now). Under-the-gun guy had limped, so it was just us seeing the flop. It was Q-8-9, so I shoved. He called, having flopped the nuts with J-10. That left me in "any two cards" mode. I don't even remember what hand I put it in with, nor what I was called with, but it didn't turn out well.

Still, it was a fun bunch of people to play with. I even got to steal a pot holding the mighty 2-4, and showed it. After all, this crew is from "Poker Academy"--they're there to learn, right? They need to know about invincible hands.

3.

Friday night at Treasure Island was the first of two tournaments sponsored by http://www.allvegaspoker.com/. It was a kind of strange mixed-game format, with Omaha-8, deuce-to-seven triple draw, stud-8, and razz. The fun of this was that--let's face it--none of us really knew what we were doing much of the time.

My favorite hand of the tourney was at the final table when I was dealt "number one," 2-3-4-5-7, in triple-draw. I expect it will be a long, long time before that happens again. I didn't play it optimally. After David Stucke raised, I three-bet it, when it clearly would have been better to flat-call and let a couple of others in. The chance that anybody would even tie me for the pot was negligible. But the tourney ran much longer than the organizers expected (we ran several past the number of levels they had planned out), so we had been playing for seven hours at that point. To make matters worse, I had eaten something that rather unpleasantly disagreed with me, and had been focusing mostly on not throwing up all over the poker table (which I believe constitutes grounds for a time-out). Combine that with having next to zero experience with triple-draw, and it explains why I didn't play it better. David put in a few more chips and was all in. I called, obviously. (I wasn't quite so impaired as to fold the stone-cold nuts.) I made another mistake at this point, though not too critical: I put my cards face-up on the table. I'm just so used to there being no more decisions to be made after all the chips are in that I forgot that there remained three decision points in this hand, even with no more betting to be done. It didn't really matter, though. Even if you know that you have to improve all the way to #1 in order to chop the pot, it's awfully difficult to do, and the cards didn't cooperate for David. He finished in 8th place.

Four spots were paying, but we negotiated a chop when there were six of us left. I was second in chips by that point, and was one of two people to take $300. (Entry fee was $65.) Two others took $275, and the remaining two (including Cardgrrl) took $250 each.

More details, comments from the players, and lots of photos of both AVP events are available here.

4.

The second part of the AVP bash was a no-limit hold'em tournament Saturday at the Mirage. Not much to report about it. I just never got anything going. On my last hand I got it all in pretty decently, with A-K versus 5-5 for my 10-BB stack, and couldn't improve for the double-up. Oh well.

Cardgrrl did extremely well again, finishing in fourth place (six spots paid). She was the only one to cash in both AVP events, which tells you something of her ability. She is a threat to win in essentially any tournament she enters. I was, as always, very proud of her.

5.

Tuesday evening, after Cardgrrl had left, I was at Harrah's planning to play cash. But it was 7:30, and their nightly tournament was starting. It's the same rinky-dink structure as was used for the private Poker Academy tournament. But there were only five people playing, and looking at them I recognized all the classic symptoms of complete newbies--looking nervous as all get-out, not sure what to do with their chips, asking basic questions about rules, unclear as to seat numbers, etc. I watched them play one hand, and it confirmed my impression that not a single one of them had any idea what was going on. So I called an audible on myself, took my name off the waiting list for the cash game, and entered the tournament.

We finally ended up with eight players after a couple more late entries. I chipped up some, then made one bad call when I should have folded. As I said, this structure is completely unforgiving. That one mistake left me short. I lasted long enough to see three others eliminated. Once again, when I was down to exactly 10 big blinds, I got it all in good, with A-10, called by the big stack with A-6. I was in good shape, until a 6 on the turn did me in--killed by yet another 3-outer. Sigh.


So that's one cash in five tournaments--and, ironically, the one in which I made a little money was probably the only one in which I had essentially zero edge on the field. Total buy-ins: $390 (not counting the Venetian one). Total payouts: $300 (minus $15 for dealer tip). See why I don't usually play tournaments?

Guess the casino, #464

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Sandia (Albuquerque)

Guess the casino, #463

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Green Valley Ranch

Valley of Fire State Park

Sunday Cardgrrl and I went to Valley of Fire State Park. It's a pretty amazing place, and we had absolutely ideal weather. We stayed only about two hours, but you could wander around for days and days without seeing the same thing twice. We took the loop trail at White Domes and looked around Silica Dome. Friends had recommended other parts of the park, but we'll have to save those for another trip.

The photos I took are here. None of them accurately reflects what I saw. The range of light and shadow was simply too great for the camera to capture. For example, in many shots the sky looks white, when in reality it was one of the brightest blues I've ever seen; it gets washed out in order to emphasize the range of colors in the rocks and darker areas of the scene.

I think the prettiest shots are these:



















However, easily my favorite of the bunch is this one:




It nicely shows the enormous range of colors and shapes nature has on display in these rock formations, set against a gorgeous, clear sky. I think the shadow of a human figure (it's Cardgrrl, though in this case that doesn't really matter) provides both a sense of physical scale and contrasts our smallness and frailty and the brevity of our existence with the might and longevity of the mountains.

On another matter, if you want a little lesson in photo composition, which is indisputably one of the most important things setting real photographic artists apart from us mere snapshotters, look at my picture of this rock:





It's a very, very pretty rock, full of vivid and unexpected colors. But the photograph is completely boring and lifeless, I'm afraid.

Now look at how Cardgrrl saw the very same rock here. It's an actual scene, not just a rock. Well done, my friend.


Coming up next: Actual poker content!

Some catching up to do

I'm just home from taking Cardgrrl to the airport for her flight home. It was a wonderful visit, but her departure makes me sad and lonely and feel like not doing much. One of her best friends is getting married in May, and I'm thinking that might be a good excuse for a visit to the East. It doesn't take much to persuade me to hop on a plane, if Cardgrrl is at the other end of the flight.

The last thing she told me was, "Write lots of blog posts so your readers don't abandon you." Also, one of my faithful, long-time readers gently accosted me at the Mirage Friday night with, "I don't mind the 'Guess the Casino' posts, but I really need more than that for my Grump fix." Well, that shouldn't be a problem. I played in four tournaments last week, yet to be reported here. We spent some time at the Valley of Fire State Park, a place I've never visited before. We saw a great show. All of those deserve posts. Furthermore, I'm a week behind in reading poker blogs, I'm several issues behind in poker magazine reading, and I want to go back and watch last week's "Poker After Dark" (the second week of the cash-game lineup). There is potential post material in all of those activities. Besides, I still owe you the second half of my "Best of Times..." post, and I'm now four weeks delinquent in writing about my trip to the Sandia casino.

No shortage of material. I'll get to it all as the days unfold here. But I also had precious little time for cash games this past ten days (and what there was was a litany of expensive second-best hands--ick), so at the same time I need to get back to some serious earning time at the tables.

Hang in there. Much more coming.

Guess the casino, #462

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Flamingo

Guess the casino, #461

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Venetian (Thanks to Cardgrrl for the photograph.)

Guess the casino, #460

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Mandalay Bay

Guess the casino, #459

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Mirage

Guess the casino, #458

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Monte Carlo

Guess the casino, #457

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: MGM Grand

Guess the casino, #456

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Mirage

Guess the casino, #455

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Mandalay Bay

Guess the casino, #454

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: M Resort

How long it lasts

I'm just back from an early session at Bally's.

I bought in for my usual max, $300. Early in the session I got up by about $130 by cracking jacks with 5c-7c when the flop came a lovely 4-6-8. Things didn't move much for a while after that.

A guy at the far end of the table was always inadvertantly flashing his cards by doing that stupid repeated one-over-the-other shuffle that so many players like to do. (Why, why, why, why, why? How can people be so oblivious as not to realize that in the process of lifting one up by its end to bring over the other, they're exposing it to at least half of the table? And what is the upside of this mindless revealing of your most crucial information? It's utterly incomprehensible to me. Look at your cards, put them on the table, cap them, and leave them the hell alone! Geez, people, it just isn't that complicated a process. OK, parenthetical mini-rant over.) I told him that he was showing his cards when he did that. A young woman two seats to my left asked me, "Are you a nice poker player?"--as if such a thing were mythically rumored to exist, but not to be expected in the real world. I replied, "Not especially. Just one who likes everything to be fair."

Maybe an hour later I took a restroom break, leaving just before my big blind, as is my usual practice. When I returned, the button at my seat said "Missed small blind." Ignoring that, when the next hand started I put the button and a single $1 into the middle, and another $2 in front of me, making up both blinds. The dealer tried to correct me: "You only missed the small blind." No, I told her, I missed both. She said, "Are you sure?" I said, "Absolutely." So she relented.

The same young woman on my left said, "You definitely get good karma for honesty." She was right. The cards were dealt, I had A-A, and won about $50. I wouldn't ordinarily show my cards just because of having aces, but given her "good karma" comment, it was irresistible. Everybody got a smile out of that.

A couple of hands later I was one of several players to call a small raise, holding Q-10 offsuit. The flop was Q-10-x with two clubs. I made a pot-sized bet. Guy on the button shoved all-in. It folded back to me and I called. He had Ac-9c for the nut flush draw, no pair. Turn: 9s. River: Ah, giving him a backdoor better two pair. Ugh.

That took away nearly all my profit. I was sitting at about $330. A couple of hands later, I limped with 10-10 from first position, then called a raise to $10 from the small blind. We were the only two to the flop, which came 10-9-8, two-suited. SB bet $2, something he was fond of doing whether he had nothing or the nuts, so the bet size told me nothing. I raised to $15. He raised another $20 on top of that. I raised an additional $50, he added yet another $100, I moved all-in, and he called. He had me covered by a small amount. He rolled over Q-J, and the board did not pair to save me.

To nobody in particular, I said, "What happened to the good karma I was supposed to have?"

The guy who had been sitting to my left said, "Sorry, it only lasts one hand."

Guess the casino, #453

To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.




Answer: Excalibur

Poker gems, #347

John Vorhaus, in Card Player magazine column, March 10, 2010 (vol. 23, #5), p. 64.


The type of bluff that you can successfully run is utterly dependent on your table image. Therefore when bluffing, to bastardize Shakespeare, "To thy known self be true."

Seeing things at the Mirage

Friday evening I was at the Mirage, playing another poker session sitting next to Grange95, whom I get to like more each time I spend time with him. It was one of those poker sessions that generated a bunch of little observations and stories, none of which is worthy of a separate post in itself, but which I can string together as a hodge-podge post.

Actually, the stories begin while I was on my way to the Mirage.


Traffic

When driving to the mid-Strip from my downtown apartment, it's always hard to know whether it will be faster to take I-15 or Las Vegas Boulevard. It was close to rush hour, which tends to clog the interstate, so this time I decided to take the Strip directly.

At two consecutive intersections, the traffic lights were out. I don't know why they didn't go to their default mode of flashing red in all directions--maybe a power failure. The first intersection was the weird one near the Stratosphere, where both Main and St. Louis run into LVB. There, everybody was behaving civilly, stopping and taking turns as if there were stop signs all around. This is obviously both the safest and fairest way of handling the situation, but it requires everybody to cooperate.

At Sahara, the situation was completely different. The drivers going east and west had figured out that if they just kept going, they wouldn't run into any interference. There was a constant stream of cars heading east and west, and long backups north and south were forming. Northbound and southbound cars had to kind of wait for a little gap, then make a dash for it, often only creeping through one lane at a time and being left stranded in the middle. (For those who haven't been there, this is a very large, fast, and, when it's uncontrolled, scary intersection, with three lanes in all directions.)

I apparently got there quite early in the process of degeneration into lawlessness, because the backups weren't too bad yet. But I imagine that after a short while things got really hairy there. Of course, the retaliatory tendency will be strong; once there is any sort of break in the east-west traffic, the north-south people who were forced to sit for a long time will decide that it's their turn, and damn those east-west scumbags, I'm going to keep going. They set up their own stream that the east-westers will challenge at their peril.

The whole situation was terribly dangerous. Just in the couple of minutes it took me to get through, I witnessed several near misses, and when it came time for me to venture through the oncoming traffic, it felt about as unsafe as anything I've ever done in a car.

I have never seen such a thing happen before, and I found it kind of interesting from a sociological perspective. It's a real-world manifestation of a tit-for-tat strategy. If you come upon the St. Louis intersection, and all your fellow citizens are behaving rationally and politely, you're naturally inclined to cooperate and take your turn. But if you come upon the Sahara intersection, where it's every man for himself, you don't have much choice but to fight your way through it any way you can. If you try to stop and wait for your turn, when nobody is willing to let you have it, you'll sit there forever.

Life is all about game theory, I guess.


OK, on to the actual poker.


A bad-beat story

No, not one of my own--one I heard from somebody else. I heard it a couple of weeks ago at the Venetian, but forgot to write about it. I was reminded of it Friday night because of other bad-beat stories being told at the table, with Grange and me grousing about how irritating they are.

I'm told this happened many years ago at the Nevada Palace, which has since been renovated and is now the Eastside Cannery. The guy telling me this story said that he was playing straight seven-card stud. By fifth street he had a diamond royal flush. An opponent got a spade royal flush in the same hand. Naturally they capped the betting on every street. But when the hands were revealed, the guy discovered that the house rule was not that the hands were considered a tie for a chopped pot, but that the tie was broken by suits, in the same way as when cards are dealt for the dealer button or for the extra chip when coloring up in a tournament. Under that system, spades trump diamonds. In other words, he lost the hand while holding a royal flush.

Now, I don't have any actual confirmation that this really happened. But his manner of relating it I found to be reasonably convincing--and I'm a skeptical hard sell. I don't know whether it's true or false, but I felt inclined to believe him, even though the situation is astronomically unlikely. If I had to put my money one way or the other, I'd go with true.

And if it is indeed true, I have to admit that it pretty much puts all other bad-beat stories to shame.


Professor

So I'm in the small blind with the Qc-5c. Not a great hand, but nobody raised, so I decided to toss in the extra buck and see what developed. Flop was ace-high with two crubs (including the ace). Well, naturally I'm going to bet at that, since I know that the crubs are going to get there. I bet $7, which was about 2/3 or 3/4 of the pot size. A woman across the table, whom I had pegged as the weakest player there, raised to $15, just barely more than a minimum raise. It folded back around to me. With the second-nut flush draw, it was not difficult to decide to call.

Turn was a blank. I checked. She bet $10. Well, if she intended that to dissuade me, she didn't pick her bet size very thoughtfully. I called. River was the jack of crubs. I bet $35, which she paid off before showing her second-best A-K.

As you can see, she played her hand about as badly as could be--not raising before the flop, min-raising the flop, making a tiny bet on the turn, then paying off the river when she might have recognized that my line that looked an awful lot like a flush draw was, in fact, a flush draw.

Nothing too strange so far. But then one of the more experienced players at the table, sitting to this woman's left, launched into a little lesson for her about bet sizing, protecting her hand against draws, etc. He was right on the merits, of course, but completely wrong as to the meta-game. What does he gain from teaching the bad players how to play better? I suppose he gets some sense of self-satisfaction. He gets to feel superior. He also gets to feel magnanimous, that he is helping his fellow human being. But he is costing himself money. More to the point, he is costing me money. I want this woman to play A-K against me exactly the same way every time she gets it.

If she finds herself losing money at poker and wants to improve, there are countless resources she can turn to from which to learn. The poker table is not the place for tutorials. It's rude to presume that somebody wants to hear your opinion about optimal play when they haven't asked for it, and it's rude to educate the fish at the expense of everybody else. It's also self-defeating, which is why it's so hard for me to understand it.

It wasn't the only time. Once while Grange was off on a break, our self-appointed professor analyzed the hand just played by a couple of other people, explaining what each of them did wrong, thus giving her pointers on how to avoid those errors.

Geez, dude--smarten up, will ya? If you're not getting paid to teach somebody else at the table how to play, then, as Archie Bunker was fond of saying, "Stifle!" And if you are in a formal student-teacher relationship (which I'm sure was not the case here), I think it would be courteous to inform everybody else in the game of that status.


That's how to straddle

Our professor had a nice bit of luck come his way. He straddled for double the big blind, was dealt pocket sixes, flopped a set, rivered quads, and got raised all-in by somebody who had made a full house. I'm pretty sure I have never before seen a straddle turn into a high-hand jackpot. It was only $75, but still....


Half-bet rule

In a hand I wasn't in, there was an early-position raise to $15, followed by an all-in for $26, which got called in a couple of spots before action returned to the original raiser. He tried to move all in. Both Grange and I had already done the arithmetic mentally and realized that the all-in bet was too small to re-open the betting, so the original raiser would only have the options of calling or folding. I immediately pointed this out to the dealer.

The dealer, though, got confused. When the player asked why he couldn't reraise, the dealer said, "The all-in would have to be at least half the size of your raise." Well, it was! But that's not the rule. The so-called "half-bet rule" is applicable only in limit games. In no-limit games, an all-in bet is not considered a true raise unless it is at least the size of the bet or raise that preceded it. In this case, the original raise was an interval of $13 over the $2 big blind, so the betting would be re-opened only if the all-in amount were an additional $13 over that, or $28 total. It wasn't. The dealer ended up having to call the floor over to get it clarified.

I continue to be flabbergasted at how many professional dealers don't grasp this simple concept. It's not that complicated. But trying to enforce and/or explain the half-bet rule when such a situation arises in a no-limit game is astonishingly common. I haven't kept careful track, but I'd estimate that at least a third of dealers get it wrong. I'm dumbfounded by this, because it's a situation that must come up every day. How can they keep getting confused by the same question over and over and over again?


Ouch!

Somehow Grange and I ended up talking about cringeworthy things. I told him about having seen a video clip from a kickboxing match in which one guy's leg breaks in the middle of his shin in a truly horrific manner. I found the clip on YouTube. I'm not going to embed it; I want you to have to click through to see it. Warning: I'm not kidding, this is seriously painful to watch. It will make you squirm and cringe, and you will never forget it; it will be seared into your retinas forever, even though it's only a few seconds long. If, given that notice, you still want to watch it, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kzhFfLtp5U&NR=1. While looking for that, I came across another clip that is virtually identical in what happens, though it's a much more recent fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGJFOOncRMs. Same warnings apply.

Release the Grange!

This week on Poker After Dark the ads between segments have frequently been a shortened version of the trailer for the movie "Clash of the Titans," so I've seen it a couple dozen times now. (You can see the full-length version here.) At one point, a bearded man with a deathly serious tone commands, "Release the Kraken!" (If you don't know about kraken--pronounced cracken--see here.)

Grange's blog is titled CrAAKKer, because, as you can see from the stories he tells, a major part of his successful strategy is to identify nits who he knows will overplay their big pairs, call their raises with junky, sneaky little hands, and hit something with which to crack those aces and kings. This is not only profitable in and of itself, but often leads to the nits thereafter playing on Super Monkey Tilt. As he likes to say, hilarity ensues.

Anyway, his presence in town this week has done weird things to my mind. (That isn't too hard. It's pretty weird to begin with.) Every time I've heard, "Release the kraken!" I imagine the line actually being, "Release the CrAAKKer!" I envision a multi-armed and fearsomely toothed Grange being turned free from captivity to wreak havoc on the poker tables.

This amuses me far more than could be considered reasonable.


A non-poker blog

Before bidding Grange a fond farewell for this trip, I got to briefly meet his spousal unit, Chad, as well as Brian, a long-time friend of Chad's, and Brian's girlfriend. Grange mentioned my blog, which caused Brian to whip out a very cool business card with his blog name and information on it. I was instantly jealous. I want a Poker Grump business card! (I'm not sure what I would do if I had one, but that's not the point, is it?)

But for now the best I can do is provide a pointer to Brian's blog. It's a potpourri of whatever is on his mind, so tough to assign it to any particular subject or pigeonhole. But take a peek--maybe you'll like the way he thinks and writes: http://blosblahblahblog.blogspot.com/.


Those are some beads!

As I was leaving the Mirage, I saw this guy with the largest bead necklace I've ever seen. He graciously--even eagerly--consented to letting me take a picture of him.




Photo problem

By the way, this is as good a time as any to apologize for my pictures getting crappier over time. I have increasingly noticed that shots taken with my cell phone camera have been coming out pretty awful--light sources streaky, and objects appearing blurred no matter what I do. It has finally dawned on me that the problem is that the glass plate covering the camera lens has become hopelessly scratched up from being carried around unprotected in my fanny pack for a year and a half or so. I suppose this development is sufficiently foreseeable that a smarter guy would have done something to prevent it, but it didn't occur to me until the last few days, when it was obviously too late. So now I'm stuck with it, at least until I break down and get a new phone. Deals come along often enough that I suppose I will do so before terribly long. But until that happens, you and I both will have to put up with the photos looking terrible. Most of the "Guess the casino" pictures were taken in early 2009, when the phone was new, and are not so afflicted, but once in a while one of them is a more recent shot, as are, of course, most of the ones that I use to accompany some story from the tables.

Sorry about that.

Too close for comfort

What you see above are scans of two facing pages from the March 10, 2010, issue of Card Player magazine. (I wish I could have put them side by side, so that you see them as they appear in the magazine, but my scanner isn't big enough, and stitching them digitally is a little beyond my technical know-how.)

My first reaction upon opening this spread was, "Oh, Evelyn Ng got a column in Card Player. I didn't know that." (I admit that I then had some unkind thoughts about her qualifications as a columnist, but those aren't relevant here.) Then I started reading Steve Zolotow's column. I was puzzled when I got to the end of the page, because it wasn't finished. Instead of continuing onto the next page, an arrow directs the reader to turn the page.

Card Player never splits editorial material this way; they run things continuously. (Thank heaven. I hate the "continued on page 93" kind of searches to read the rest of an article.) That was the first time it occurred to me that Ng's piece might be an advertisement. So I looked more closely, and, sure enough, it says so at the top of the page.

Now, if I had been thinking about it a little more, I might have realized that no other writer in the magazine gets half of the page taken up with the identifying photograph, so something was amiss. But I think it's perfectly obvious that the Bodog ad is designed to mislead the reader, at least initially. It cannot possibly be a coincidence that Ng's piece (and, incidentally, I'd bet a hefty sum that she didn't even write the copy that shows up under her name) uses exactly the same typeface and size as the actual columnists, such as Zolotow, for both the body of the piece and the headline.

I am surprised that Card Player is complicit in this attempt to deceive its readers. If I ran the magazine, this kind of camouflaging of an ad to look like editorial copy would not be allowed. Responsible publications have unmistakably clear delineations between the editorial contents and the ads. Even meaningless little blogs like this one make sure to keep that line bright, if their authors have any sense of integrity. That was a large part of the reason that so many of us reacted unfavorably to PokerStars making a pathetic effort to bribe us into blurring the distinction last month.

I think Card Player should require Bodog and other advertisers not only to put the "advertisement" disclaimer at the top, but to use distinctly different fonts, so that even at a glance it is immediately apparent that a piece such as Ng's is an ad rather than part of what the magazine is offering its readers.


Addendum

Soon after posting the above, reader "qdpsteve" emailed me a photo that stitches together the two pages, so you can more easily see what it looks like when you open the magazine. The result lost some resolution, which makes it harder to see how the fonts are identical, so I'm adding it here rather than replacing the two separate pages above.

Thanks, Steve!