Hope y'all saw this

I haven't been following Twitter much during this trip, but back in the hotel room for the night, I looked to see if I had any mentions or direct messages, and boy did I! Everybody who knows me, it seems, was trying to make sure I knew about a hand played at the Epic Poker main event today, in which Joe Tehan's Mighty Deuce-Four knocked out both Faraz Jaka with A-A and Vanessa Rousso with Q-Q, three-way all-in pre-flop.

Read the details here (don't miss the Twitter messages from the principals at the end of the story) and here. The three of them talk about the hand on camera here.

My only gripe with the coverage is how some people refer to Tehan's move as a "bluff." How can moving all-in with the most powerful hand in poker be considered a bluff?

More professional poker cheaters

The newest issue of All In magazine (vol. VI, issue 6; no date given) has a feature about Chad Brown and Vanessa Rousso (pp. 56-61). I was very surprised to find this confession in it:

That's not to say that poker romance is without its own unique pitfalls.
For one thing, there's the potential of having to compete against your partner
in an activity so rooted in individual success. "Early on in our relationship,"
recalled Rousso, "we had to acknowledge the possibility that we'd end up at the
same table." Both considered the idea of soft-playing one another to be
unethical--not to mention antithetical to their competitive instincts. "We
basically have an agreement that in the rare occasions we're at the same table,"
said Brown, "the one thing that we don't do to each other is to trap ... That
can, uh, ruin the romance."

[Ellipsis in original.]

This is an obvious internal contradiction. If you rule out trapping, then you're soft-playing. I don't see how it can be thought of otherwise. If trapping would be the highest EV way of playing a particular hand, and you exclude it a priori as a possibility because of your relationship, that is soft-playing.

And it is cheating.

Of course, there's cheating and then there's cheating. This obviously ranks well below, say, owning an online poker site and using insider access to look at opponents' cards while you play against them. But it is clearly a violation of the rules.

I used to play frequently at the Hilton with a married couple, and they made it clear to all that if it was just the two of them left in a hand, they would check it down every time. They weren't trying to be sneaky or underhanded about it; everybody understood it, and if they became aware that somebody wasn't familiar with their practice, they made it explicit. I got to know them well enough to be completely convinced that they saw nothing unethical or improper about this.

But it is unethical. It puts other players at a significant disadvantage. My guess is that this couple never thought through how this could be so.

One of the major considerations in deciding whether to call a bet on the flop in hold'em--especially in no-limit games--is the implicit threat the bettor is making that you may have to call even larger bets on the turn and river in order to get to a showdown.

Now imagine a situation where Wife is first to act after the flop, to be followed by an unrelated player and then Husband on the button. Wife has an advantage now that she would not have if it were two unrelated players in the hand; if her husband happens to have a monster hand, and the in-between player folds, he will just call and she won't have to make a difficult decision about whether to call a raise. That effectively increases the range of hands with which she can make this early-position bet. She can also use that knowledge to her advantage in bet sizing. She can afford to make a larger bet than she otherwise might--hoping to drive out the player in the middle--because she knows that if it works, it's the end of the money she has to put into the pot. That ability puts the middle player at a direct disadvantage.

Husband also has an advantage. If the in-between player drops out, Husband can then safely call without having to worry about facing additional bets on the turn and river. If he is on a draw, say, he knows that he gets both turn and river cards for the price of the call, whereas any other player in his spot would have to figure his pot odds based on getting only the turn card for the price of the current bet. His decision is made easier all around.

Of course, what Brown and Rousso claim as their only limited version of soft-playing isn't this explicit. It would be extremely difficult ever to prove, for any given hand, that one of them played the hand in a straightforward manner, rather than slow-playing and trapping, out of consideration for the relationship. But in a sense, that makes the practice all the more insidious. At least with the couple from the Hilton, what they were doing was out in the open.

Anytime you soft-play an opponent--especially in a tournament situation, which seems to be the bulk of both Brown's and Rousso's play--you are hurting everybody else. If Brown does not maximize his chance of crippling or knocking out Rousso, he keeps a skilled player in the game longer and/or with more chips than would otherwise be the case. If he doesn't go for the kill when he could, it negatively affects every other player in the tournament, and especially the others at that table.

Of course, it is true that one tends to play more cautiously against opponents that one knows to be skillful and dangerous. Brown and Rousso obviously know that about each other, and will naturally tend to be more leery of building a big pot without the nuts than they likely would be when contesting a pot against a random donk. Taking a conservative line against an opponent known to be a thoughtful and skilled player is not soft-playing, not cheating, not against the rules. It's common sense.

But what Brown is saying goes well beyond that. If "no trapping" really is agreed upon in advance, then they each bring to the table a big advantage that nobody else has. If one of them makes a substantial bet and is called by the other, the bettor can be assured that the caller is not slow-playing a monster hand, with the intention of dropping the hammer on a later street. The call pretty much must therefore represent either a draw or a medium-strength hand. A position call is often enough to shut down the bettor on the next round, for fear that the caller is trapping. Remove that from the equation, and you greatly narrow the range of hands that you might be facing. That knowledge would be an enormous advantage, and it is one that is being granted to nobody else at the table.

That is soft-playing. It is against the rules. It is cheating.

Is it really possible that Brown and Rousso are incapable of seeing that?

Vanessa Rousso annoys me

Vanessa Rousso first annoyed me during a "Poker After Dark" appearance when she just would never shut the hell up. She seemed to have no filter between brain and mouth, and just spewed whatever random thoughts came into her head. She may wear headphones while playing poker, but I'll bet that Chad Brown resorts to wearing them nearly all day when he's going to be around her, just to block out the incessant, mindless chatter. Either that or we'll soon have our first professional poker domestic murder-suicide on our hands. (They allegedly recently eloped in Florida.)

But yesterday I was watching the final rounds of the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship, and Rousso upped the ante on annoyance. She did play well, granted, and she didn't open her stupid yap too much. But when she did, she could spew idiocies with the best (or worst) of them.

The one that really made me pull out what little is left of my hair was in the semi-final round, when she was all-in against Bertrand Grospellier. She had the lead in the hand, but the turn gave Grospellier a flush draw, which would beat her if it hit. She said, "If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be."

Huh?

Just on the level of grammatical structure and logic, this sentence means, literally, nothing. It's as devoid as meaning as saying, "If it's not raining, it's not raining."

But I'm even more bothered by the whole "meant to be" idea (if we can flatter it by elevating it to the level of an "idea"). She reinforced that this is something of an important concept to her when Huck Seed finally defeated her in the finals, and just about the first thing out of her mouth was, "It wasn't meant to be."

We are supposed to believe that this woman has an impressive educational background, graduating from Duke with a degree in economics and then going to the University of Miami law school. How, then, can she be this stupid?

I'd like to ask her who it is that has formed these intentions or plans the nature of which she perceives by how things play out. Does she believe in a supernatural deity who has predestined everything to happen? If I go to the cupboard and choose chicken noodle soup for my lunch in preference to minestrone, does it make any sense to say, "I guess I wasn't meant to have minestrone today," as if my choice were foreordained from the Big Bang? If a drunk driver runs a red light and plows into my car, severing my spinal cord, should I just shrug and say, "Well, I guess I wasn't meant to walk my last few decades of life"? Does this mystical being, who has apparently planned out everything, really care about who wins a poker tournament? In Rousso's world view, is every decision she makes at the poker table simply going through the motions of what has already been decided by somebody (or something) else? If so, doesn't that kind of take away any sense of accomplishment when she wins?

Rousso isn't exactly the only one who spouts this kind of nonsense. One frequently hears of relationships that break up, and one of the people involved will say, "I guess it just wasn't meant to be." I don't think it's possible to utter such vapid froth unless you are in the habit of putting zero thought behind your words.

Only slightly less annoying was what she said during what proved to be the final hand of the match. Rousso was behind but had the chance for a lucky card to come and deliver a bad beat to Seed. She said, "No, I don't want to win like that."

What????

Sure, if we were given the choice between getting our money in good and having the best hand hold up or getting it in bad and sucking out, I think nearly everybody would choose the former. But if you're given the choice between sucking out a win and losing, who in their right mind would choose losing? Well, Vanessa Rousso would, apparently, if we are to believe her statement. Which raises the question of whether she is, in fact, "in her right mind." More likely, she was just lying. Had the suckout come, would she literally have resigned and conceded the match anyway, out of a principled refusal to win by getting lucky? Everybody who believes that, raise your right hand. Anybody? Anybody? I didn't think so. Even she doesn't believe her own nonsense.

I'll allow that none of Rousso's comments during this televised match were as shockingly moronic as those that Shannon Elizabeth spouted two years ago during her run at the same event (see here for details). But saying that your words and thoughts aren't quite as stupid as those of Shannon Elizabeth is setting your standards pretty low.

Rousso has been putting in some impressive performances and results lately. I could have a lot more respect for her if she just played poker and kept her damn piehole shut.