Posts Tagged ‘2009 world series of poker’

The Year in Review

03:01 PM on Sun Dec 27 2009

By Gene Bromberg

With 2009–and the decade–winding down it might be nice to peer in the rear-view mirror and look at some of the more interesting photos I took during the year. Unfortunately I can’t show the MOST interesting pics in my archives, many of them taken during the parties at the Aruba Poker Classic, but various morality clauses and extortion laws prevent me from doing so. Alas. Still, hope you’ll find some of these enjoyable:

Just a quick glimpse of the photos I took during the year. If you’d like to see more of the shots I took during the World Series of Poker or the Aruba Poker Classic just click the links and enjoy.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Gene Bromberg | No Comments »

 

Lucky You

12:10 PM on Mon Nov 16 2009

By Gene Bromberg

If you asked your typical poker player “Do you think you’re a lucky, or unlucky” I’d bet that the vast majority would pick the latter. Poker players tend to remember their bad beats and not their brutal suckouts. Also, if you admit that from time to time you’ve been luckier than you deserved that is a de facto admission that you weren’t playing that well. And poker players tend to overestimate their skill about as often as they underestimate their good fortune.

I thought about poker players’ unusual relationship with luck as I watched Joe Cada win the World Series of Poker Main Event. Cada is obviously a good poker player, with years of solid results behind him (despite the fact that he’s just (expletive deleted) 21 years old). But there’s no denying that he got lucky at that final table. Very lucky. Like, freakin’ UNBELIEVABLY lucky. After losing a huge pot to Jeff Shulman with A-J to Shulman’s A-K Cada was down to a bit more than 2 million chips. That was about 1% of the chip in play, not even three big blinds, I think. He was toast. Done. Hit the bricks, pal.

But there’s that poker aphorism we’re so fond of repeating, “All it takes is a chip and a chair”. It’s odd to think of a 2-million stack being little more than table scraps; players started the Main Event with 30,000 chips and so that’s like combining the stacks of 67 long-dead donkeys. But Cada was down to the felt, dead in the water. To come all the way back would be a miracle.

Which is just what happened. Cada survived a race with Phil Ivey when his pocket fours held on against Ivey’s A-8. And then came the two hands that changed the course of poker history, as Cada doubled with pocket threes and pocket deuces against Shulman’s Jacks and Antoine Saout’s Queens, respectively. Twice Cada was all in and thoroughly crushed by his opponent’s overpair, and twice he flopped sets. A bit later, racing against Saout’s pocket eights with Ace-King, Cada rivered a King to sent the Frenchman out in third place to set up the heads-up battle with Darvin Moon. Which, of course, Cada won, along with the title, the bracelet, and $8.5 million dollars.

I’m not saying that Cada played these hands poorly, by the way. We could discuss the merits of pushing with small pairs all day and all night but it’s hard to make a pair in Hold-Em and, considering that these hands are drawn from a sample of 364 played at the final table I don’t know how much insight we can draw from them. But twice Cada found himself all-in and in jail, and twice the flop saved him. And as I watched his stack rise from the dead and these incredible reversals I wondered how that might’ve affected Cada’s psyche. Do you start to believe that you’re invincible, that the cards won’t let you lose no matter what? Do you start to believe in Destiny, that you have been touched by otherworldly powers in order for you to do great things in the future? Or, perhaps, do you worry that this is merely the setup for the soul-crushing fall that’s about to take place (and indeed that’s what I was thinking when Moon dominated heads-up play early on and seized a 3-1 chip lead). Or is Cada, even at his age, experienced enough to accept such good fortune in stride, even when it’s happening at the final table of the Main Event?

We got some insight into Cada’s thoughts when he posted a brief (and somewhat incoherent) note over at Two Plus Two. “Lets first by saying if anyone thinks I’m denying I got lucky at the final table then im not,” Cada wrote. A bit later he says, “Did I get extremely lucky during the final table of the main event? Yes I did, but as an extreme critic to my self play I was not mad about how I played any hand even though I got lucky.” And that is a salient point, both about the WSOP Final Table and about poker in general. You can make the reasonable play, the perfect play, even, and still lose. Ask Kevin Schaffel, who got all his chips in with pocket Aces to Eric Buchman’s pocket Kings and saw Buchman flop a set and turn quads. What can you do? Cada seems to make the same point here–the hands played out in a reasonable fashion and, most of the time, Cada would’ve found himself headed to the rail. Instead, against the odds, he’s the World Champion.

Every player who makes it to the final table benefits from good luck along the way. Whether it’s your table draw or you get action with your big hands or you simply suck-out in some egregious way, the massive Main Event field takes probability and psychology and twists them together in fascinating ways. Is getting incredibly lucky reason to feel ashamed, or superior to your vanquished foes? Poker players like to say that in the end the luck evens out, but how long does it take for that balancing to occur? I’ve heard quite a few professional players say that one lifetime isn’t enough for luck to find it’s equilibrium, that no one plays enough to give a true and final accounting of luck’s effect on the game. We understand the math, the statistics, and we know that in the long run luck doesn’t matter. But human beings live in the short-term, and it’s possible that the “short-term” covers everything from one hand to one’s career. How poker players deal with luck, how they even define it, will always be one of the most interesting aspects of the game,

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Gene Bromberg | No Comments »

 

From the Cheap Seats

05:02 PM on Sun Nov 8 2009

By Gene Bromberg

I just wrote a little post over at the UB Blog about the action at the WSOP Final Table yesterday/today and one thing I’ve found myself wondering about is how well poker works as a spectator sport. I’ve covered a fair few final tables and, sure, there’s lots of action and tons of money and/or prestige at stake. The Main Event is one of the largest sporting events in the world, with a player-generated prize pool that dwarfs even the biggest events in golf, tennis, auto racing, and the four major team sports.

But playing a final table to its conclusion can take a long time. A very long time. Yesterday the November Nine started playing at noon Vegas time and finished up at six…AM. That’s 18 hours and we haven’t even crowned the champion yet, as Joe Cada and Darvin Moon will go toe-to-toe for God knows how long before finally deciding things. And that’s a long time to for a fan, no matter how ardent, to watch anything. Think about it, is there ANYTHING you would voluntarily do for eighteen consecutive hours. No matter how much you love Family Guy, no matter how much you love drinking beer and watching football, no matter how much you love having unlimited credit in a strip club, after three-quarters of a day you’ve probably pretty much had it. At the very least you gotta sleep, sometime.

To be sure there was a lot of excitement outside the Penn & Teller theater yesterday, as each player brought his own rooting section along. And there were hundreds of rabid poker fans wanting to see history in the making. This video from Raw Vegas should give some idea what the scene was like before the doors were opened:

But as day turned to night, and then day again, the crowd thinned and the energy in the room dwindled. This was perfectly understandable, as many fans left when their favorite was eliminated and others left as sheer exhaustion took hold. As I followed along with the coverage and read the Tweets of my friends covering the final table it was obvious they were all on their second, third, and fourth wind. Endurance is an important quality for poker players and that’s also the case for poker fans.

So does poker have a future as a spectator sport? There were huge lines winding through the halls of the Rio yesterday, they could’ve packed more people in if they had the space. Greg Raymer was quoted before play started that he hoped someday you might see a poker tournament played out in a football stadium, the stands packed with tens of thousands of cheering fans. I think that’s a bit optimistic, even the most popular players don’t have fans as, well, fanatical as sports teams. But as I thought about it the sport that kinda resembles poker when it comes to a spectacle is…cricket. Like poker, cricket matches can go on and on an on…heck, they have test matches in cricket that last weeks. You have constant activity in cricket, but not always decisive action. The ball gets bowled, the batter decides not to swing, the ball is bowled again…and this goes on all day. Sometimes the batter takes his whack and there’s running and scrambling, but there are long stretches where nothing much goes on.

And there’s a more laid back attitude in the stands. People have tea. They bring a book along. I watched a match once and there was a young couple sitting off by themselves who were engaged in a a serious make-out session. I’m not saying that you wanna have THAT kind of diversion going on in the stands but fans need to be able to get up, walk around, get something to eat, and come back to find some available seats. For a huge event like the November Nine you might see people willing to sit there all day, but if poker is going to attract big live audiences for more than the biggest prize in poker it can’t be a sit-there-all-day thing.

There’s also the fact that I don’t exactly know the rules of cricket, and many casual fans don’t exactly know the rules of poker. A more laid-back atmosphere in the stands could allow for discussion and debate about the hands as the play out. I concede that poker fans are unlikely to take such a genteel attitude towards the game, but a more laid-back attitude in the stands might lead to them being filled to the rafters more often.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Gene Bromberg | No Comments »

 

oter(); ?>