Thursday, July 07, 2005

Interest Breaks Out

YTD: +$14444.34

God, the WSOP has been boring this year. Maybe it’s because I'm not connected to the "real world" in that sense anymore. Sure, I've followed the mostly excellent coverage on Cardplayer - excellent in that it’s quick and easy - but there seems to be little character to the event anymore. Where are the hidden dramas and the background cash game gossip? It seemed that all those guys who wanted to turn Poker into a "sport" got what they wanted, except it turned out to be a homogenous ESPN-lite of the very worst kind, dog jumping meets log rolling meets ESPN "the Ocho". Anyone who has watched the Cardplayer videos will have seen reverential interview fellatio of the very worst kind.

But right near the end it got suddenly and unexpectedly interesting.

The Phil Hellmuth Interview

Check out his interview on Cardplayer. Never has a Poker player seemed to have tipped so far into total insanity. He was like a characterture of a mockery of a spoof. He truly is blessed.

Danny "Boy" N Becomes Phil Hellmuth

Danny N's blog has been a joy through his current rough patch. He has put the Y back into self-delusional. His latest entry where he talks about trying to persuade Chris Ferguson to stop using the moniker "Jesus" is like stepping into the Twilight Zone. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that "conversation", as Chris slowly tries to back out of the room, eyes flitting from side to side, fake but nervous smile plastered to his face. If I was Chris I would have told him only if he stopped using "self aggrandizing, insincere, publicity hungry prick" as his nickname. Oh, sorry, that’s just what others think of him.

The World's Best Internet Omaha Player Becomes the World's Best Omaha Player

You did read about him here first and it was no surprise for me, in fact a real delight, for a guy whom I donated so much money to on the Ether to go on and win the Big Omaha Event. It was also no surprise for the nonsense to take place over the fuck rule. Refaelmit doesn’t even speak English as a first language, and although his English is excellent, I'm sure speaking with poker players on a day to day basis will roughen up anyone's vocabulary.

What was very interesting was seeing who thought this rule was a good one. One interview, with that mad homeless person from last years WSOP, basically said "yes I'm an angle shooting twat." And this was the basic timbre of the "people" who "thought" it was a "good" thing.

More of the Same

Those people who knew Simon Trumper before he got "famous" would not have been surprised by the accusations about him and the now "something for him to be properly famous for" Barry G incident. Simon has a long history of previous in this area. I don't know him personally, and believe he is a nice guy, but I suspect like a lot of tourney "pros" has a severe case of Solipsism, otherwise known as IABS (I Am Blessed Syndrome - see Hellmuth above.) When all eyes are on him then doing the decent thing by his opponent is the last thing on his mind, as after all, all eyes are on him, so doing...etc etc ad nausem.

Hopefully for the Faithful reader I won't have to state my position on events, bearing in mind that I was brought up in a game where "cards speak" wasn't a rule. What has been amusing has been looking at the defence case for the behaviour. There have been the rule analists, who seem to have trouble with the fact that the "mutually assured destruction" principle of having to have a rule for every situation will either make the game unrecognisable or unworkable. The "faces" response has been predictable and even more noteworthy. Of serious mention must be Harry "I know everyone and must name drop them in every post" Demitrou on THM. And Barney Boatman's defence on the same forum had more subtext than a Kafka novel. As the child-fondling Texan poker star is fond of saying "Would you like to face a Grand Jury with this guy?"

I can’t imagine the Big Dance will be anywhere near as entertaining.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I played on the stars 10/20 omaha for about a week, winning $27,000 only to "winner's tilt" off $24,000 of it the next two days. The one player who I thought was amazing was indeed Rafaelamit, despite his lack of trickiness. He never had the biggest stack but he was so damn conistent and I wanted to be just like him but have a long way to go in the discipline and patience categories. I'm so pleased to see he's doing well in live play and that I am at least idolizing the right people.

Anonymous said...

...this is a continuation of the last post. Rafael seems to play by a set of rules for each situation with little regard for the opponent's style in most cases. Normally this would be ineffective, but even in heads up he is incredibly effective. In comparison to Darwinism, another player who seems to set situational rules, Rafael is very unpredictable and uses positioning so effectively that it's almost impossible to call his semi-bluffs.

pete said...

I am seriously regretting my decision not to enter the $10k event. That bracelet clearly had my name on it. Raf and I probably would have ended up heads up, but I know how to counter his silly min-reraise traps.

Big Dave D said...

Anon...that's Patri right?

The reason why a lot of the good players on Stars seem quite formulaic is because they all basically play the same style. If you put them through PT or PStat they all have the same stats. Except CHUFTY, who I havent seen in an age.

The rules are simple, but hard to beat. Don't play a lot of hands, but raise with 30-50% of them. And then mostly bet the flop.

After that it is just magic.


gl

Dave

Big Dave D said...

pete (f)

As much as I used to delight in your play, refael would fuck you up sideways, up and down and inside out. Just like he used to every day :) And just like he used to do to me too :)

Stick to the Lionel Hutz thang.

Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence

Anonymous said...

I'm not "patri" Dave, I'm just a random college student in the US and that was my first post on here. Right now I'm poker inactive but hope to build my roll back eventually to be a 10/20 regular.

Peter B said...

Wow, absolutely back to top dog form here Dave. More of the same!

I'm not sure what side that you would put me on re the Omaha "disagreement". Unlike most, I seem to have been most concerned at the allegation of slow-rolling. Simon has apparently admitted turning them over one at a time, and I can't see any justification in his own explanation for doing this. I mean, even "I don't like Barry Greenstein" would at least be some kind of explanation. As Barny Boatman said in his post, if he had the nuts, he would turn them all over at the same time, and very quickly.

As for the long pause, well, let's get real here -- the money is im-portant to Simon. I agreed that it was an angle, but I didn't think it worthy of the villification that took place. Follow Colclough's recommendation and bring in the clock if youl like, but let's face facts and admit that the old "gentlemen's agreements" are dead and buried (see the heads-up situation that developed later in the same tournament). To come up with arguments such as Phillips's that "even if it was two minutews, it was way too long" brings the situation down to "common consensus" which is no good at all.

If you really want to stop this kind of thing, then have a rule about "action likely to bring the game into disrepute", a rule that exists in some sports, but which relies on a respected and competent tournament director. But in a situation where a lot of money is at stake, you have to expect people to try every angle that they can. Just because you, Greenstein, Phillips or I (I hope) would not do it, does not mean we have the right to condemn other people who do.

But, slow-rolling, well, that's the death sentence, mate.


Pete

chaos said...

Greenstein's take that players don't do this because it is mutually destructive was on the mark imo. Player's don't make this move simply because they can't, they fail do so because they realise where it will lead. Of course this shared belief is why Simon's move was so effective.

As for whether or not it's poker, who knows? I know I used to hold such views about what was and wasn't poker, in reality though, I didn't know, I just knew what I wanted poker to be.

Andy_Ward said...

"The Ocho" :-)

I really enjoyed Dodgeball, I think the "Poker is a sport" crowd could learn a lot from that one. As could outraged Manchester United fans.

Andy.

Big Dave D said...

Anon,

Sorry for the mixup...very similar story to Patri. One point,if I were to go back to 10/20, it would be on Party and NOT Stars.

gl

Dave

Big Dave D said...

Chaos,

Thought you would agree...although the M.A.D line was mine :) I must admit thou, my declining behaviour on the web does make me nervous of playing live again, where I was a 100% good guy at all times. And the thought of playing people who genuinely believe that acting like the do on the Net is OK behaviour definately gives me the chills.

gl

Dave

Big Dave D said...

Pete B,

I noticed that you were on the Dark Side of the Force, which surprised me considering how long you have been playing. I think the MAD point is valid. Also I genuinely believe that the huge pause is on a continuum of behaviour as the slow roll.

There were a lot of valid reasons as to acceptable behaviour in cash games that didnt "need" to be stated. Its a topic that could fill a whole host of articles. But the net effect is that a game where any behaviour goes quickly becomes unprofitable. And a game where common sense is replaced by legislation becomes an angle shooters paradise and impossible to invigilate, as the F-bomb rule shows.

gl

Dave