So, with all that in mind (out of mind?), I figured I’d just take the path of least resistance (read: laziness) and put together a list of random thoughts that have flashed through my addled brain over the past few weeks. Enjoy. I hope.

• 2008, the Year of the Pro – Ever since Nenad-Nenad Medic grabbed the very first bracelet of this year’s WSOP, it seems like the pundits have been calling this the year of the pro. Of course, the fact that a number of big name pros (Lindgren, Singer, Negreanu, Greenstein, Pescatori, etc.) have gone on to grab bracelets throughout the series – and even more have made impressive final table appearances (Andy Bloch and Chris Ferguson, anyone, anyone), seems to be adding credence to the claim.
  
  Still, for as well as the pros are running, I don’t think we can really call the 2008 Series the Year of the Pro unless a big name player takes down the Main Event. OK, maybe we can, but still, I think this title has a lot more credibility if someone other than a random donkey (cough, Yang), takes the title.

• The death of televised poker – Maybe “death” is a little strong, but it certainly seems like the game we love to loathe is in intensive care as far as broadcast television is concerned.
  
  GSN recently announced that it’s renewing High Stakes Poker, which is great news for all of us who love to watch our favorite degenerate gamblers in their natural habitat. On the other hand, the once mighty World Poker Tour has gotten the axe, and is currently being shopped around to disinterested buyers. Without a stable TV deal, it seems like the WPT could be sent to the rail and the $10K tournament circuit could be significantly smaller next year. All in all, pretty bad news for pro and amateur players alike.
  
  On the positive side, if the death of the WPT means never having to see Humberto Brenes and his annoying Chark anymore, I would personally consider this a mercy killing. See ya chum.

• It really sucks to be the Bubble Boy – Honestly, I’m not mentioning this because of any recent personal experience. Hell, I haven’t even sat at a poker table in more than two weeks (Big Donkey has been going Cold Turkey, but that’s another story).
  
  No, what brings this to mind is that, as I type, Howard Lederer just busted out of the $5K Seven-Card Stud Hi/Lo Championship one off the final table after playing for more than 16 consecutive hours. Ouch is an understatement. Even worse – fellow Team Full Tilter Chris Ferguson laid the smack down on the Professor. Still worse than that, Howard’s little sister Annie will be joining Chris at the final table when play resumes. (To say Annie has pwned Howard at past World Series would be kind, seeing as she’s personally knocked him out of four different events over the years. Ah, sibling rivalry – feel the love.)
  
  Anyway, it’s a good thing that Howard isn’t prone to tilting (as far as I know). Otherwise, a beat like that could lead a man down a very dangerous whiskey-soaked path.

• Random lists make for shitty posts – Yup, I’ll admit it. This is a pretty shitty post, even by my standards. Oh well, they can’t all be winners. If you want to see something more interesting, feel free to send your comments, stories and extra cash to us here at pokerfromtherail@fulltiltpoker.com.

I think that the game that is most translatable to poker is backgammon. It’s a great game of skill with a healthy dose of luck. It’s a complicated game because you’re dealing with a lot – you have to be thinking with every single move that you make. You’re constantly trying to minimize the effectiveness of the most likely rolls of your opponent and trying to maximize the number of possible good rolls for your next turn. You’re distributing your checkers in a way that makes them flow nicely over a wide range of numbers while trying to minimize the good numbers for your opponent.

In poker, you’re trying to do that all of the time. You’re tying to maximize the chances that the chips you put in the pot are going to come back to you with a nice, healthy return. You’re also thinking about a wide range of potential cards - tying to minimize losses when the cards go poorly for you and maximize your chance of winning when they’re in your favor.

Chess is also a great game – you develop discipline and good critical thinking skills, but there’s been a poor crossover to poker, particularly with players at the highest levels. Although chess requires a great deal of skill to master, it’s a game that rewards your skill too consistently – at least compared to poker. It’s one of the reasons people don’t really gamble at chess.

It’s certainly not a lesser game, but when you reach the level of grand master in chess, one of the skills that you really haven’t learned is how to deal with the luck. I think that someone who has reached that level has a hard time making the transition to a game where they might play great for an evening and then lose. It’s hard to deal with emotionally. On the other hand, backgammon players do this all of the time. And you see that a lot of the world’s best backgammon players have successfully made the crossover. Guys like Gus Hansen and Erik Seidel, amongst others. I can’t give you a list for chess.

Something else that’s developed with or through other games that’s relevant is competitiveness – the desire to beat your opponent. We’re hardwired to compete in this world. In the real world 10,000 years ago, this competition was for food or maybe a territorial skirmish where, in both cases, life was on the line. The beauty of games is that you get to satisfy these urges and no one dies at the end (usually). It’s the idea of engaging in competition, and the fact that there is honor in winning. 

I was a pretty good backgammon player, and I think that this competitive drive is what helped me. As my skill developed, I was able to be around world-class players. There was always a certain mentality, a certain approach that they took; it was an uncompromisingly self-critical ability that’s common amongst those who had become world-class. It was this mentality that I applied to poker. I really hadn’t been exposed to people like that before and, if I hadn’t, I don’t think I could have developed the critical ability necessary to become a great poker player. I believe that’s important for sure.

It might not be so much about the games themselves as much as being exposed to the players who have developed that ability. If you’re serious about poker, choose your friends wisely. Find accomplished people that are really excited about the game. That’s what will make you a better player.

Needless to say, the plan has drawn decidedly mixed reviews from the poker world. Those in favor of the plan (other than Caesar’s and ESPN) say the delay is actually good for the game, as it will give the media time to develop touchy-feely features on the players and play up the “schmuck next door donked his way into a million dollar payday” stories that everyone loves to hate.

Speaking of million dollar paydays, supporters of the delay also say the move will help bring additional revenue to the table as the last nine players will have better opportunities to score lucrative endorsement deals with poker sites like FTP and other businesses interested in promoting their wares to eager poker players around the world.

The pragmatist in me doesn’t like the aforementioned arguments, but I can see the merits of these positions. The argument that really tilts me, however, is the third “positive” that supporters of this plan cite in their reasoning: the break will give the remaining competitors the chance to recharge, study the opposition and, maybe, even work with poker trainers to plug leaks in their own games or devise strategies to help them win the bracelet.

For me, this just doesn’t feel right. I know there’s precedent for this kind of thing (as Howard Lederer recently mentioned, they do the same thing in the Poker Million), but I don’t think that justifies the change. The Main Event is a poker marathon unto itself. Part of the charm (if an 8,000 player event can have charm) is that the nine final tableists have fought and battled their way through this ridiculous field, and are now playing for what are likely the highest stakes of their lives while running on absolute fumes. It’s like watching the end of a Rocky movie – the cards are flopped in the center of the table and each player takes their best shot at knocking their opponent out. It’s drama.

When the final table starts, the nine players are working based on their experiences at the table over the past 12 days of play and on whatever reads, strategies and theories they’ve developed while starting at – and across – the felt. By giving them an extended break, they’re free to rest up and take time to analyze their games and those of their opponents, and to make changes they may not have been able to otherwise.

Howard may be right in saying that each player has the same opportunities during this break and that the time off doesn’t favor any single player over another, but I’m not sure about that. In the recent past when fields got truly huge, the player who has won the Main Event is the one who had the most stamina and focus at the end of the event. The one who was able to out-think or out-play his opponent in a key hand – maybe because he was sharper or his opponent had finally succumbed to the pressure and strain of so many days of consecutive play.

By delaying the final table, that stamina factor is effectively removed from the game and that, I think, does in fact help “weaker” players who may have not survived very long at the final table in the traditional format.

Of course, there are many more arguments both for and against the new delay and many people smarter than I have already weighed in on each side of this debate. When it comes right down to it, my opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing. The decision has been made, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I think that it (the delay) will be very cool. It will vastly increase interest across all media for the final event. Because we’ll have these nine players that people know are going to be playing for millions of dollars in a few months, it’s not over. It’ll be shown on ESPN as a news event, not something that happened three months ago. Think about the buzz that the mainstream media will generate: now all of a sudden you’ve got these nine people thinking about and dealing with the pressure of what’s coming up. We’re a reality culture – we want to get to know interesting people. Nine people who might win however many millions of dollars it turns out to be for first place are a lot more interesting to talk to than one person who won three months ago.

As far as taking an extended break goes, it is what it is. If those are the rules, everyone’s going to agree to them before they sit down to play. Everyone will know that if they are good enough or lucky enough to make it to the final table that they’re going to take a three-month break. Maybe they can work on their game, maybe they can get some coaching, or maybe they can even get some mainstream coverage or even professional sponsorship. Certainly, I think that the player that finishes fifth after this three-month delay will be much better known than the player who finished in fifth place last year. I’m not saying that it’s important to every player to become famous, but I think that creating famous poker players is good for the game.

Again, it’s a good thing overall. And there’s precedent for it. I played in the Ladbrokes Poker Million VI tournament where we played our heats early for taped TV in August of last summer. This built up to up to the Championship Grand Final that we didn’t play until December.

Of course things will turn out differently, but that’s how it goes in all of life. Your drive home might turn out differently if you leave an hour later. It just is what it is. It’s a three-month delay that’s going to create a lot of buzz and positive exposure for the game of poker – which is good for the game – and it will change the final table. How it will change it, we have no idea. But it’s all completely fair and I think it will be good.

The PPA was thrilled with how the Congressional hearing went. In particular, it was really good that it showed how ambiguous the law is and what a difficult time the regulators are having with this particular law. It highlighted the fact that the regulators, because they are having such a hard time, basically wanted to abdicate their responsibility and not clarify or create what one regulator called a “bright line” as to what is and what is not illegal Internet gambling. That’s the real issue here. The government – officials from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury – recognized it as a very difficult question to answer. Of course when the bankers sat down, they said “if the government’s not willing to answer that question, how can they ask the banks to?” Again, it clearly highlighted some serious problems with the regulations.

This means the regulators have a lot of work to do. If they want to create this “bright line,” it’s going to take them a long time. It was suggested at the hearing that it be made clear that sports betting is identified as illegal online wagering, and then develop a formal process for determining the legality of other activities. Of course this would be activity by activity and state by state. That would take a while, which is fine. I think that poker would do fine in that process and that poker would be declared legal, which would be a good thing. I would love to see that process happen. 

It’s important that we keep drawing attention to the difference between poker and sports betting; between poker and casino gaming. Poker is a game of skill and people love to play it.

Another really good thing was how bi-partisan the negative comments were about this law and the pending regulations. We saw Democrats and Republicans basically in unanimity making it clear that they weren’t happy with the law or the regulations. This was something new that we’ve not really seen. So far, this has been seen as a Republican law from the last congress which Democrats have been fighting against. In large part, this was because it was seen as a bit of political hackery.

There is a wing of the Republican Party – the true conservative wing – that realizes that this is a bad law. I think that those members of the party have wanted to come out against this and support the Frank and Wexler legislation, but felt that maybe they’d be going against their party and even costing themselves votes with the Christian conservatives. And I think that the more we see people like Pete King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R–TX) out there, in public, making it clear that this is not a good law, the more that wing of the party is going to feel that they can go out on the limb with them and maybe it’s not going to break. Maybe there won’t be negative consequences, in fact maybe there will be positive consequences, where these people will be voting for and promoting policies that they believe in. I thought that was really big. There is a real coalition here that is being built of the large majority of the Democratic Party and the true conservative Republicans. We’re starting to see this – it is starting to happen. It was one of the first times that we’ve seen this in a public setting.

The next steps will be that the coalition builds, momentum is gained, there are more hearings, and that the argument on our side of things – for online poker – will get stronger and stronger. Evidence in favor of online poker is growing as well. There are more and more studies about poker as a game of skill. And these studies show that online gambling isn’t a horrible thing that’s going to destroy civilization as we know it. And for the “doom and gloom” people on the other side, there is no evidence to support their views. It’s entertainment and people enjoy it – particularly when you talk about player to player games like poker.

It will take time to build up this coalition. It’s an election year and I think that we realize that it’s going to be tough to get anything passed. But I do think that next year is a very real possibility and I do hope that the regulations, or at very least the regulations that would severely and unfairly impact poker, wouldn’t be issued before we could get a legislative resolution.

That said, everyone seems to have certain “necessities” that they don’t leave at home. Here's what the pros said they couldn't go on the road without:

When I’m traveling – for a tournament or just for fun – I can’t live without my blow-dryer, iPod, cell phone and charger, or my laptop.

I’ve always got my laptop and a cell phone.

I travel with a Mac laptop and an iPhone (best smartphone ever made, and I try them all). Since the iPhone doubles as a video iPod, I listen to podcasts, watch TV shows and movies, surf the internet, do email, etc. on this one little device. I also have something called a Slingbox, which sits at home and allows me to connect to my TiVo and cable TV signal remotely via my laptop. I recommend everyone who gets addicted to a show like Lost or Prison Break run out and get both a Slingbox and TiVo. Whenever I’m at the airport I pick up an issue of Wired Magazine for the plane – it’s my “road” reading.

My laptop. I’ve got a wireless router that I can plug it into any modem outlet and use my laptop anywhere in the room – I’m always connected. I love most New York Times best seller novels, and I never travel without my iPod – I’ve got a very eclectic mix of music.

If I have my girlfriend with me, I’m all good. If I have my laptop as well, that’s a bonus.

I’m pretty low-maintenance, but I need my own shampoo and conditioner – I hate the hotel stuff!

To find out, we asked him – here’s what she had to say:

What does “poker lifestyle” mean to you?

It means thinking and talking about poker all of the time. You play poker 24/7, not just when you are at the table. And I never play poker just for fun.

Who’s the poker player you admire most?

I admire Barney Frank for standing up for personal freedom in the fight for online poker.

What’s the best line you’ve ever heard at the table?

“Well Doyle, you play your money and I’ll play THEIR money.”

—Sam Grizzle after Doyle complained about one of his plays. He is usually staked.

What is the one job you could never be paid enough to do?

I could never be paid enough to be the President of the US.

Away from poker, what do you do to relax?

I spend time with the family and enjoy going to movies.

What are your “desert island” book, recording artist, and movie?

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the Grateful Dead, and Paths of Glory.

Obviously, Howard is intense wherever he goes. But then again, if you lived and breathed poker like The Professor does, you’d probably be pretty intense as well.

Now, where’s that copy of Workingman’s Dead?

As always, this competition has very little to do with actually poker and we apologize in advance to anyone who we might offend (except for Mike Vick – fuck that guy). We just need to look busy for when our boss walks by the office, so we spend our time on this thrilling endeavor. Check out the full tournament bracket below, now on to the fight:

So there you have it. Howard takes down Karina by a score of eight to one, nearly pitching a perfect game in the process. That’s a shame. Who the hell comes up with these categories anyway? It’s like this competition is rigged or something. Rigged just like a certain poker website, which shall remain nameless. Check back next week for more fun, the good times just keep on rolling here.

If you want your questions to be answered, please email us at pokerfromtherail@fulltiltpoker.com. As The Sports Guy always says, these are real questions from real readers (except for the ones we make up – the readers, not the questions, that is):

Who are you guys? Why should I even bother reading this blog? Aren’t you just some know-nothing corporate stooges?

Great question, I’m glad you asked. Yes, we are “affiliated” with Full Tilt Poker in some ways, but I use that term loosely. Very loosely. So if that makes us a bunch of “know-nothing corporate stooges,” then that is a badge we wear with great honor and pride.

The reality of the situation is that we’re our own people and we get to do our own thing most of the time. It just so happens that we love Full Tilt Poker and would never, ever speak ill of them. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, even if all you’re getting fed is leftovers. Hey, we’re not picky.

Why should you read this blog? Well, because we think it’s pretty cool. If you don’t like it, that really hurts our feelings. And we’re going to tell our mothers.

Have you ever met any of the Full Tilt pros? What are they like?

I have actually had the pleasure of meeting a few of the pros. Yes, they are all extremely cool. Please allow me a moment to bask in my glory and drop a couple of names.

Andy Bloch – cool guy, plus he’s kinda smart too. Erik Seidel is one of the nicest people you’ll never meet. I can’t say too much about Howard Lederer, although there’s a reason they call him The Professor. As for Phil Gordon, well, he’s really tall.

Why the hell is Full Tilt Poker so rigged? What do I have to do to get my Aces to hold up around here? Full Tilt Poker? More like Full Tilt Joker…

You, sir, are a very cunning linguist. I myself have never had my Aces cracked playing on the site, so I’m no exactly certain what you’re talking about. As far as I can tell, the best hand wins every time.

In all seriousness, let me answer this question straight up. No, Full Tilt Poker is not rigged. Yes, sometimes the worst hand does win. Most of the time it doesn’t. When you play poker for a long enough time, live or online, you will see some ridiculous beats take place. There’s just no way around that one. With the sheer volume of hands that take place on the site, these beats come around more often than in live poker.

Does that mean Full Tilt Poker is rigged? Of course not. What it means is that this is a game of odds and percentages, and sometimes that translates to a player sucking out on you and hitting that one-outer on the river. As the saying goes: every river begins with a single tear. Learn it, live it, love it.