Posts Tagged ‘Little’

U. S. Poker Open Rolls Along with Little Fanfare

 U. S. Poker Open Rolls Along with Little Fanfare

The inaugural U. S. Poker Open is rolling along at ARIA in Las Vegas, with its $ 50,000 Main Event set to begin on Friday. The question is, though, if you throw a poker tournament and no one pays attention, did it happen? If you’re looking at this tournament, then it hasn’t happened as it has been going on with little fanfare.

The schedule was that it may have been very popular for the top professionals in the world. A collection of poker tournaments, none under a $ 10,000 buy in, testing the world’s best players as they vied against each other for glory. Looking at the individual events so far, however, there hasn’t been the horde of professionals (or deep-pocketed amateurs) swarming Las Vegas for the schedule.

The first event, a $ 10,000 No Limit Hold’em tournament, only drew out 68 ENTRIES, not players, for the event, which was eventually won by Justin Bonomo. What was supposed to be one of the more intriguing events, the $ 10,000 Pot Limit Omaha Hold’em tournament, only 64 entries were received (the tournament was won by Mike Gorodinsky). The numbers didn’t improve with a raise in the stakes, either.

The first $ 25,000 event, a No Limit Hold’em affair, brought 44 entries as Stephen Chidwick emerged victorious. Chidwick wasn’t done, however, as he came back in the very next tournament, the $ 25,000 Mixed Game Championship, and won it, too. Still, the 45 entries that came in for that tournament had to be a bit disappointing. The last completed event, Event #5’s $ 10,000 No Limit Hold’em tournament, saw 67 entries and crowned Ben Tollerene as the champion.

So, what has been the problem with the U. S. Poker Open, as it seems as if the same players are just sitting there pitching in their donations? First off, that is what has been happening as several players have taken part in every tournament and taken part in several reentries, such as Daniel Negreanu. What is happening, however is an example of perhaps some bad scheduling on the part of the U. S. Poker Open and Poker Central, which envisioned the tournament schedule.

Poker Central, together with its streaming channel PokerGO, is always in need of programming. There’s only so many times you can run repeats of past events (as Poker Central learned when they were trying to cut it as a cable network) until the viewers start to tune out. In the past, they’ve struck gold; the creation of the Super High Roller Bowl and last year’s Poker Masters series have both been well received by the poker community.

You can only go to the well so many times, however. The U. S. Poker Open seems to be contrived, unnatural, rather than something that organically grows. It was bad enough that there was already an event that was once called the United States Poker Open (I do wonder if Poker Central tried to get the rights to that name), but to put something up with a name that acts like there is so much gravitas to it without any history makes it appear it’s being jammed down people’s throats.

Then there’s the scheduling. The start of a New Year is ALWAYS crowded in the tournament poker world. Beginning with the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure through the Aussie Millions to the Borgata Winter Poker Open to the L. A. Poker Classic, there are a plethora of tournaments with long histories and a boatload of prestige and respect (and this isn’t even counting the mid-major league tournament circuits). If a player has a budget for tournaments, they’re more likely going to look at these established events rather than something that has no history to it.

So when would you schedule a prospective “U. S. Poker Open?” Well, there’s a lull in the last half of December. You want to influence the tournament poker scene? That would be the perfect spot for a 4-6 event series of high dollar buy in tournaments that would have an effect on Player of the Year races and, perhaps, set a player up nicely for the New Year.

Finally, there is that old poker adage of “sharks don’t eat other sharks.” Professional poker players aren’t going to go where they get the “greatest challenge.” They are going to go where the game is soft and the opportunity to make money is rampant. Thus, you’ll see pro players taking part in that 700-800 player tournament in the Bahamas or in Melbourne (and, if they fail, dive into cash games) rather than trying to outdo 40-50 other players who are just as talented as them in several $ 10K buy-in (minimum) tournaments.

Perhaps with time the U. S. Poker Open will become something. But it should be noted by Poker Central that the well is almost dry on this “High Roller” spree they’ve been on and they should consider some other options for programming (here’s one off the top of my head:  Poker House, a “Big Brother” type competition where 12 poker players are watched 24/7 as they live together, work together and…well, let your mind wander…with a tournament each week to knock off a competitor…or will they be knocked off?) When the U. S. Poker Open Main Event concludes on Sunday, will anyone really care?

The post U. S. Poker Open Rolls Along with Little Fanfare appeared first on Poker News Daily.

Poker News Daily

Editorial: Daniel Negreanu’s Ideas for Poker Hall a Little Much, But Not Totally Wrong

 Editorial: Daniel Negreanu’s Ideas for Poker Hall a Little Much, But Not Totally Wrong

Recently the Poker Hall of Fame announced that Todd Brunson and Carlos Mortensen would be the 2016 inductees into poker’s version of Mount Olympus. Many in the poker community were a bit surprised (and that is putting it mildly in some cases) that Brunson earned enough votes for induction, citing his lack of tournament success and/or influence over the game (as if $ 4.3 million in lifetime tournament earnings and a 25-year history of playing high-stakes cash games with unparalleled success is “nothing”). The criteria used to determine new inductees has come under fire from some, none perhaps more notable than Poker Hall of Famer Daniel Negreanu.

Negreanu, who was voted in as soon as he met the Chip Reese Rule in 2014, stated in his blog at Full Contact Poker that there were some “tweaks” he would like to see to the Hall of Fame process. Negreanu’s ‘tweaks” were pretty much a rewriting of the basic ideas governing the voting process, however. Let’s take a look, shall we?

These are the current guidelines for induction into the Poker Hall of Fame:

A player must have:

Played poker against acknowledged top competition
Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination (Chip Reese Rule)
Played for high stakes
Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
Stood the test of time

A contributor must have introduced an innovation or contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker with indelible positive and lasting results.

Give Negreanu credit, he did put plenty of thought into things. First, he wants to automatically elect a “contributor” once every four years. “I find it difficult to vote for someone in the (contributor) category when it takes up a spot that a player may have gotten,” Negreanu states. But to arbitrarily set a time when one POSITIVELY has to be voted in isn’t inducting a contributor on their merits; it is inducting a person because you have to. If a contributor’s efforts have truly had a lasting impact on the game, they will get in on their own eventually.

(Writer’s note:  There is some discussion from Robert ‘Chipburner’ Turner, a well-known card player and casino executive, for a Poker Industry Person Hall of Fame…we’ll have to talk to him about that!)

Negreanu then states that the criteria “are quite confusing and not clearly defined.” In particular, Negreanu sees that the “played for high stakes” and “played against top competition” criterion are vague as to what they should include. There’s a reason for that:  like any other Hall of Fame, it is up to the voter to use their judgment as to who deserves to be enshrined. In baseball, for example, there isn’t a written rule that says you have to have hit .300, had 500 home runs or won 300 games to be eligible for induction. In basketball, there isn’t a rule that states you have to have scored 20,000 points in your career to be considered.

To arbitrarily set levels of performance is antithesis to every Hall of Fame ever created. Was Buck Ewing, who hit 71 homers in his career, as great a player as Johnny Bench? Both were catchers but by far Bench’s success in the game outshines Ewing. But many who were a part of the game when Ewing was voted in (he played from 1880-1897) say that Ewing “never had a superior” to him.

This exercise isn’t a method of bashing Negreanu because there are some things that he wrote that are correct. The “stand the test of time” rule is probably one that should be banished because, as Negreanu points out, just how much time should be considered? Poker isn’t like other sports in that you cannot physically play after a certain time, but it is one that you can be a dominant force in for a certain time period and then go to shit. Although I once again don’t like putting arbitrary numbers on things, Negreanu’s suggestion that a player “should have stood the test of time over a period of 15 years or more” is an acceptable suggestion.

Finally, we come to one of the major arguments with the Poker Hall of Fame, its voting process. Negreanu is dead on here and, along with some of his thoughts, I have plenty myself.

At this time, the Poker Hall of Fame Voting Committee is comprised of the living members of the Hall (prior to the induction of Brunson and Mortensen, 25 Hall of Famers were still alive) and a similar number of poker industry and media “insiders.” 50 people? This is far too few to be deciding who should get in the Hall. Every other Hall of Fame has a voting bloc of at least 100 people and, in some cases, it can be several hundred (the Heisman Trophy, college football’s most prestigious award, is voted on by 870 media personnel and the living Heisman winners). To limit the voting in such a manner does make it easy to tabulate the votes but it also makes it a homogenous group.

For the Poker Hall of Fame, there should be at least 100 industry and media folks included and they should represent the world, not just the United States. If you want to break it down, we can dole out 40 to North America (that counts Canada and Mexico), 25 to Europe, 15 to Scandinavia (always a strong card-playing populace), and 10 each to South America and Asia/Australia (and these numbers aren’t set in stone…it could be adjusted). Still allow the living Hall members a voice (as they also respect the game and its history), but bring in more of an international view rather than its current U. S.-centric base.

The other issue Negreanu is correct on is the method of voting. At this time, those choosing the next inductees have ten votes to divvy out as they see fit. Negreanu notes that this method isn’t a solid way to choose as “three living members (can) throw all ten of their votes at a nominee and he is very likely to be inducted.” While it is a stretch, it isn’t inaccurate. With 50 people and 10 votes each, that’s 500 votes. Three people voting unanimously for one person (30 votes) put someone on the path towards earning the 50% necessary for induction, but it is obvious it would take a bigger bloc than that to push someone over the top.

Instead of the current method, Negreanu suggests that those tasked with the voting process should only choose two names and indicate a first and second choice. The person who gets the most first place votes would be inducted along with the person earning the second-best first place votes. Negreanu also suggests a point system, with two points for a first place vote and one for a second place vote and the top two point totals are inducted, but he’s onto something with either method (the points system is the way other Halls handle their voting process and, if necessary, you could go down to the Top Five to hand out points to make sure there aren’t ties).

The fans aren’t left out of Negreanu’s vision for the voting process with the Poker Hall of Fame, but he significantly restricts their input. Negreanu believes that the fans should be able to choose four of the prospective inductees, with the voting members of the Hall filling out the remaining six spots for consideration. This is also a great idea as the fans sometimes are more willing to follow the “hot” take of the moment rather than to consider the entire history of a prospective nominee who perhaps isn’t the “flavor of the month.”

There are plenty of things that could be changed with the Poker Hall of Fame (a physical location, the voting process, etc.) and Negreanu puts up some excellent suggestions. It would be up to Caesars Entertainment to make these changes, however, and it is highly unlikely that they are going to put much attention (or cash) on something that was a toss-in when they purchased (some would say saved) Binion’s Horseshoe in the mid-Aughts. Therefore, we’re probably going to have to live with the process as it is currently established.

Poker News Daily

Mike Sexton’s “Life’s A Gamble”: An Entertaining Journey, But A Little Light

 Mike Sexton’s “Life’s A Gamble”: An Entertaining Journey, But A Little Light

Normally when you’re writing your autobiography, you’ve achieved all the goals that you’ve set for your life. For poker professional, Poker Hall of Famer and World Poker Tour analyst Mike Sexton, however, it is difficult to believe that he has achieved everything that he wants to do with his life quite yet. With that said, his autobiography entitled “Life’s A Gamble” (quite the coup for D&B Publishing to get the rights and get it in the bookstore on July 7 and online for $ 24.95 U. S. or £17.99 British) is a well-timed entry into the poker book world and is an entertaining ride through the life of Sexton.

As with any biography, we learn about Sexton’s early life in Ohio and how he caught the gambling “bug” as a young boy. Through his buddy Danny Robison (who himself became a legendary gambler before his untimely death in 2014), Sexton would learn the ins and outs of betting on pretty much anything that Robison wanted to wager. The problem was that Robison always ensured that he had the edge when he bet with Sexton, something that was key to Sexton learning the “ways of the game” when it comes to gambling.

After graduating from Ohio State, Sexton went on to the Army, serving as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg. It is here that Sexton’s appetite for gambling – especially poker – is further fed and, free from getting the “short end” against Robison, he actually shows quite a proclivity at many forms of gambling. After working as a ballroom dance instructor for a bit following his discharge from the Army, the gambling bug further entices Sexton in the late 1970s and, by the mid-1980s, Sexton makes his home in Las Vegas to pursue the life of a gambler.

While the backstory on Sexton is quite good, “Life’s A Gamble” doesn’t truly hit its stride until Sexton starts to tell some of the “war stories” about gambling and the people that he came across. Players such as David “Chip” Reese (like Sexton, from Dayton, OH), Doyle Brunson, “Puggy” Pearson, Stu Ungar and Billy Baxter all have chapters devoted to Sexton’s tales and there are two dedicated “gambling stories” chapters that feature other prominent names in the poker and gambling worlds and should serve as a test of anyone who thinks they have the backbone to get into the lifestyle. If many examine it closely, they would realize it takes a special person to make a living in this manner!

Sexton also regales his readers with the stories of the birth of partypoker and how he was integral to its growth and success. From meeting with the original owners of the website, Ruth Parasol and company, to the development of the PartyPoker Million, Sexton demonstrates that not only did he have a feel for gambling, he also had a feel for the business side of the equation. This would prove to be a necessity when Sexton stepped into his next endeavor.

When it comes to the WPT, Sexton gives the readers some of the backstory as to how the tour battled to become viable. He talks about his relationships with Steve Lipscomb (the founder of the WPT) and fellow Poker Hall of Famer Lyle Berman (the “money” behind the WPT) and how they were the ones who caused the “poker boom” of the early Aughts. “Make no mistake about it,” Sexton writes, “it wasn’t online poker or the “Moneymaker Effect” (the win in 2003 by Chris Moneymaker at the World Series of Poker Championship Event) that caused the poker explosion. The primary reason – without question – was the WPT. The WPT literally changed the poker world forever.”

There’s also a chapter on the WSOP, but it is more of a historical remembrance of the first 30 years of the tournament, Sexton’s thoughts on his participation in the events and a chance to relate a few more stories about the characters that make up the poker world.

While the book is quite entertaining and easy to read (at 267 pages, I finished it in a few hours), there is a negative critique that can be seen. There is little to no adversity mentioned in the book, perhaps because of Sexton’s upbeat attitude about life (he IS a pretty happy guy in general, it must be noted). He doesn’t offer any tales from the “dark side” of the game (even Ungar’s drug usage is kind of glossed over) or any potential lessons that someone might be able to identify in themselves. Even in his own personal life, Sexton never offers any thoughts about how to get through some of the tough times he might have faced, from being the child of divorced parents to being “in between bankrolls” (as Sexton likes to put it).

He also doesn’t delve into sometimes the questionable traits of some of the people he worked with. It is quite well known that Parasol made her fortune before partypoker in the 1-800 sex phone line industry, but Sexton doesn’t note this fact. The less-than pleasant sides of Ungar, who could be quite a demon to dealers, is something Sexton admits and says he disliked, but he doesn’t discuss fully those situations or why one of the greatest poker players ever felt he had to do those things. Some of his own private thoughts on those issues and some of the other scandals in the poker world (both “Black Friday” and the Full Tilt Poker and Ultimate Bet collapses are mentioned in passing) would have added a bit of spice to the book and may have made it more intriguing for some readers.

It is a nice summertime read, but “Life’s A Gamble” might have been more engrossing if it had offered some thoughts to the readers on all levels of gambling, the good and bad, the “dark side” and “the light.” As it is, it is a nice way to get Sexton’s thoughts on the exciting journey he’s taken in his life (honestly, was he ever not an unabashed success at anything he ever did?). If you’re looking for something just to read by the pool and enjoy, “Life’s A Gamble” is worth the price of admission. If you’re looking for a sordid tale or poker strategy, then you might want to pass Sexton’s book on the rack.

Poker News Daily

RAIL THREAD: Team CardsChat WSOP 2015 Little One for One Drop June 30 – July 15

 RAIL THREAD: Team CardsChat WSOP 2015 Little One for One Drop June 30   July 15
This is the Official Rail Thread for Team CardsChat: WSOP Little One for One Drop 2015 (LOFOD)!

This is CardsChat’s 4th Team Event, and our second run at the WSOP Little One for One Drop! The tournament starts on Tuesday, June 30. The buy-in is $ 1000 + $ 111. It is a re-entry event that will run for four days. Team CardsChat members will be entering one of two flights:

Flight 61A – 10am Tuesday
Flight 61B – 4pm Tuesday

Team CardsChat is 19 members strong! If you have Twitter, you can subscribe to Team tweets by clicking here. If you don’t have Twitter, what are you waiting for? 😀 We’ve also included their CardsChat and twitter handles in the list.

THE TEAM

Attachment 84668

  1. Debi O’Neill (dakota-xx/@dakotaxx) – Flight A
  2. Pam McCormick (PooffyyFooffy/@DaPoofster) – Flight A
  3. Matt Vaughan (Scourrge/@MeVPoker) – Flight A
  4. Chris Baud (baudib1/@realchrisbaud) – Flight A
  5. Joe Mussat (JoeShowdown/@JoeShowdown) – Flight B
  6. Ryan Laplante (Protential/@ProtentialMN) – ?
  7. Rex Clinkscales (RexClinkscales/@rexclinkscales) – prob Flight B
  8. Kristin Ting (Tingaling/@queenofsets) – prob Flight B
  9. Demetric Ferguson (DKnucklesFerg/@DknucklesFerg) – Flight B
  10. Tracy Eaton (Karnscoach/@karnscoach) – Flight B
  11. Amy Conner (Txpokerlover/@txpokerlover) – Flight B
  12. Shannon Vezina (sthecannon/@sthecannon) – prob Flight B
  13. Ben Yu (BenYuPoker/@professorben) –
  14. Nancy Birnbaum (trouble/@NancyBirnbaum) –
  15. Michelle Richey (sassyblond/@michelle_richey) – prob Flight A
  16. Antonio Olguin (aolguin3/@antonioss23) – Flight B
  17. Javier Hernandez (Gambit11th/@javi_last) – ?
  18. Carl Diveglia (Carl Trooper/@DudeSweetness) – ?
  19. Maria Parlatore (Parla17/@parla17) – Flight A

Last Longer Challenge: The longest standing Team CardsChat in the tournament wins an $ 800 prize!

Note to Team Members:
Please see the sign-up thread to re-familiarize yourself with what is required of you during the Team Event. I will be following live tweets throughout the event with the help of other Social Media Team members, and we will post here in the thread whenever possible. Here are some other pointers if you plan on updating via Twitter:

  • Please try to tag @CardsChat in tournament updates whenever possible, and use #TeamCardsChat when character limits allow
  • I would love to see pics from everyone on the team! Please tweet a pic of yourself in your CardsChat gear: group pics would be most welcome as well, if at all possible
  • If you’re already in Vegas, would love some pics or tweets letting us know what you’re up to (a little flavor flavor for the thread :D)
  • Check in and say hi here in the thread if you have a moment! 🙂

For the railers, you can find details on the tournament here:

http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/

http://www.wsop.com/2015/structuresheets/14261-structure.pdf

Team CardsChat New Release

On A Personal Note:

I had so much fun railing and reporting last year’s LOFOD, I know I’m going to have a blast this year too! I just wanted to say a personal "Welcome Back!" to our returning Team CardsChat players: Rex, Kristin, Nancy, Ryan, Chris, Matt, Ben, and Carl (and Debi of course 😉 )! Thanks for taking the journey with us again!

And a heartfelt "Welcome to the Team!" to Pam, Joe, Amy, Tracy, Demetric, Shannon, Javier, Michelle, Antonio, and Maria. Some of you joined us in Cherokee this Spring, and we’re thrilled to have you with us at the WSOP as well.

Let’s Go #TeamCardsChat! 😀

Attached Images
TeamCardsChat.jpg (20.1 KB)

Cardschat Poker Forums

Can Someone Share A Little Knowlege Pls?

 Can Someone Share A Little Knowlege Pls?
Hey absolutely everyone I wished to know about other gamers and how they would go about particular situations. . Im from Ontario so if theres any 1 in the same time zone or related that is cost-free and would like to support out i would really like to hear from yah. I found that just by asserting myself and spending interest, with persistence has actually aided increase my sport.

theres alot of issues i would enjoy assist with:

-effectively making use of my Hud to assist me decide the appropriate selection to be manufactured in conditions
-how to set a player on a assortment
-overview of online games

It can support your match by educating which will be excellent for advancing your ability, and can genuinely help me pik up some new expertise and geta possibility to meet somebody whos satisfaction of the recreation is at the exact same lvl as I. So if u occur to have an comprehension of these subjects and can lend a hand i would genuinely recognize it. I know i can turn out to be a excellent player with some operate and devotion, in a limited time ive currently improved my match and altered the way i played. I feel with a minor aid and someone who shares this desire with me, can get me to that next amount.

if any of yahs wanna share some Knowledge i would really like to hear it!

Many thanks Cardschat!

Cardschat Poker Forums