Loveable Rogues Poker

First published in Poker Player 

Several different prominent members of the media and poker community compile Player of the Year rankings, usually based on the players' tournament performances during a particular calendar year. ESPN does in association with Bluff magazine, as do Card Player and TopPair magazines, and the International Poker Federation, or IPF.

Even Phil Hellmuth computes his Poker Champion of the Year rankings that appear in ALL IN magazine, but more on that later. Poker Player is wise enough not to get involved, as doing so can be the basis for some controversy, as you will see below.

It's important first to differentiate between rankings and polls. For the most part, rankings are based on some sort of predetermined criteria usually associated with a points system that rewards players depending on how they finish in major tournaments. On the other hand, polls are generally opinion-oriented, and not necessarily based on fact. Think Gallup and Harris, for example, and you'll get my drift.

I thought it might be interesting to see how the final 2005 Player of the Year rankings compared when laid out side-by-side. Those players highlighted in red appear in the Top 20 of all five of the rankings compiled; those in yelloyellow show up in four; those in green make it into three; those in blue qualify in two, and those not highlighted only appear in one.

As you can see, only two players, Phil Ivey and Allen Cunningham, finished in the Top 20 in all five of the player rankings. Both had outstanding years, and certainly are deserving of being acknowledged for their exceptional achievements by all those evaluating their play.

Five players finished in the Top 20 in four of the five player rankings, including Chris Ferguson, Men Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen, Michael Gracz, and Michael Mizrachi. Consistently in the money in major tournaments, it comes as no surprise that these fine players would find themselves ranked by most as among the world's best in 2005.

Seven more players amassed enough points to finish in the Top 20 in three of the player rankings. They were Gavin Smith, Tony Ma, Ted Forrest, Erick Lindgren, John Gale, Antonio Esfandiari, and 2005 WSOP World Champion Joseph Hachem. While certainly no one could touch Hachem's earnings in 2005, all of these outstanding pros accrued the points necessary by three different compilers to attain this high level of recognition. Those who finished in the Top 20 in two of the player rankings include John Phan, John Juanda, Eric Seidel, Ming Ly, Vinnie Vinh, Nick Schulman, Freddy Deeb, Doug Lee, and Steve Dannenmann. The other 31 players who are listed on the above chart were recognized as being a 2005 Top 20 player by only one ranking body.

Surprisingly, only Chris Ferguson was ranked #1 more than once, and then only twice. So obviously, discrepancies exist among those involved in determining the overall Player of the Year. For kicks, I dug a little deeper to reveal some of the more interesting ones.

Let's start with John Juanda, who was rated #1 in Bluff magazine's power rankings at year-end and #17 by Phil Hellmuth. Juanda finishes number #22 according to TopPair, but you have to go all the way to #122 to find him in Card Player's rankings, and you won't find his name at all among the 100 players that the IPF ranks.

While not attempting to be critical, I found Bluff's rankings somewhat confusing, because they are based on the results of a trailing 24-month period rather than everyone else's who are based on the calendar year. As evidence of this, the results reported here are as of 1/24/2006, and are updated about every two weeks. Their previous rankings from two weeks earlier, which one would assume should have been year-end results, had Juanda #1 and Ivey #2, the same way they are listed here.

Yet on January 17th, Bluff announced that Ivey was their Player of the Year! The press release states, “The Bluff Player of the Year is awarded to the player that accumulates the most points in the Bluff/ESPN Poker Power Rankings.” So even though Juanda had 100+ more points than Ivey under their power ranking system at year's end, the honor was given to Ivey instead. One can only interpret this to mean that Ivey must have accumulated more points in 2005 than Juanda did, while over the trailing 24-month period Juanda had more, but the reader has no way of really knowing for sure.

Another interesting example is John Phan, who led Card Player's leader board for much of the year, only to finish second to Men Nguyen. While his sixth place ranking by the IPF is somewhat consistent with Card Player, Phil Hellmuth has him tied for 37th, TopPair has him #38, and he comes in a rather distant 61st according to Bluff.

Raja Kattamuri, ranked #2 by the IPF, lands 133 places down TopPair's list, is 140 places down on Phil Hellmuth's, finds himself #357 in Card Player's rankings, and is not ranked at all among the 250 players that Bluff ranks.

Perhaps the most interesting of all was that of Phil Hellmuth himself. Now I really like Phil's criteria for determining rankings, as it is simple and straightforward. According to his website, only WSOP and WPT events are considered, with different multipliers used to establish points depending on the significance of the event and the amount of the buy-in, the minimum being $5,000.

But then I noticed that Phil ranked himself #7 in his own poll, while not appearing in the Top 20 of any of the others, so I thought it might be interesting to explore this in more detail.

Here's how the poker icon ranks according to the others:

TopPair: #52

IPF: unranked out of 100

Bluff/ESPN: unranked

out of 250

Card Player: #683 Hmmm. What gives? So I delved a little deeper. It appears that Phil gave himself 400 points for winning the 2005 National Heads-Up Championship and its first prize of $500,000, although it is not a WSOP or WPT event. Now I'm not trying to minimize the significance of Hellmuth winning this prestigious title; it just seems that awarding himself points for it is not consistent with the criteria that is posted on his website.

In fairness, it looks as if Phil gave the other top ten finishers in this event points in his rankings also. But there's more.

In the 2005 Tournament of Champions, Phil finished 3rd, collecting $250,000. Now this is a WSOP event, but it is a freeroll, which seemingly violates Hellmuth's $5,000 minimum buy-in requirement.

In fact, Phil did not even qualify to play in this event; he was one of three players invited by Harrah's to participate, a move on Harrah's part that spawned quite a bit of controversy. According to his points system, it would once more appear that Phil gave himself 240 points for his 3rd place finish, which is what he accords players for that particular finish in a $10,000 buy-in event.

Again, in fairness, Hellmuth also gave the other top ten finishers points under his system for their respective finishes in the TOC.

Phil's only other qualifying finish under his own parameters in 2005 was an 8th place finish in a $5000 buy-in WSOP Pot Limit Omaha event, worth 75 points according to his ranking system. Adding the three events together, one arrives at 715 points, the amount he has posted to determine his 7th place ranking. But by adhering strictly to the qualifiers that are listed on his website, Phil seemingly finished with only 75 points rather than the 715 points he claims.

If Hellmuth is going to include the results of these events or ones similar in his Poker Champion of the Year standings, perhaps he might want to clarify this on his website to avoid conjecture in the future. The ambiguity of his rankings makes one question their validity. One could even make an argument that Mr. Hellmuth, particularly in light of where he finished in the other rankings, might be engaged in yet another form of self-promotion by deceptively manipulating his own rankings for his personal benefit. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I've already arrived at mine.

ALL IN magazine also conducted a poll by asking 15 top professional players who they believed was the Player of the Year. I want to emphasize that this was a poll, based on opinion, rather than a simple or complicated method of determining a player's ranking based on performance as the others listed above. The results are listed below:

#1 Phil Ivey

#2 Chris Ferguson

#3 John Phan

#4 Allen Cunningham

#5 Mike Matusow

#6 Ted Forrest

#7 Michael Gracz

#8 John Juanda

#9 Tuan Le

#10 Minh Ly

While Phil Ivey admitted to ALL IN that he was too lazy to participate in this poll, he nonetheless emerged as the landslide winner amongst his peers. These results, with the exception of Mike Matusow, who despite having a terrific year did not finish in the Top 20 in anyone else's rankings, are extremely consistent with most of the others and in fact lend some measure of credibility to them all.

So who really was the rightful Player of the Year in 2005? Unfortunately, until a unified ranking system is put into place that everyone agrees to abide by, the reader will have to draw his or her own conclusions.

by John Carlisle

First published in Poker Player

I am finding that most poker players do very little to help improve their overall game. A huge majority believe that they’ll miraculously improve simply by logging lots of hours playing online, dabbling in home games, and taking a few trips to the casino each year. While time at the tables is indeed an important factor, it is not always an optimal or effective means to personal poker betterment. I always try to encourage poker players to seek out alternate means of poker training. I compare this mentality to that of a coach of any sports team. The coach would never be so foolish as to think that the team will improve by merely scrimmaging. Instead, the coach would have a myriad of drills to promote the fundamentals of the game. We poker players can take these lessons to heart, as well. Let’s take a look at a few possible poker drills that have been a tool for some players in the past.

ESPN’s coverage of the WSOP included a humorous glance of a relatively silly game called “Blind Man’s Bluff.” This is a simple game of Texas Hold ‘Em with a twist: you hold your hole cards on your forehead for your opposition to see & you have no idea what you have. While this might seem like a goofball game reserved for drunken frat parties, it can actually be an excellent poker training drill. Without any knowledge of your own cards, all of the other important factors in poker reach heightened levels of importance. Position, bluffing, reading your opposition, and calculation of the variations of possible hands are the keys to this interesting and exciting game. When played seriously, this game can be a great exercise in poker psychology. Each player’s eyes roam between the hands of each opponent. The length of the gaze at your forehead may be a tell. The way your opposition glances at the flop and then instantly looks at your hand may indicate that you have a flush draw. At the same time, you are concentrating at not giving off tells on the strength of the hands that you can see. Put some money on the table and try some serious Blind Man’s Bluff for a new poker drill.

I encourage players to have a good poker book and a deck of cards in their possession. That way, idol moments waiting at the doctor’s office can be morphed into productive poker time. Take some time to work the deck of cards. Deal out a few dummy hands and see what might happen with the Flop, Turn, and River. With each card and each hand, see how well you can “feel” the odds and predict the outcome.

Too many players have become mired in memorization of charts, or are used to living through the percentages that appear on the TV screens when watching tournaments. Dealing out hands helps us to get a better feel for the cards and the game. The brain processes these hands more intensely than hands read in a book, simulated online, or even played in live play. The brain soaks in the visual stimuli while it compares expectations to the reality. In live games, we never know the hole cards of the opposition and we are distracted by seeking tells, money management, blind level, etc. Dealing dummy hands is a pure learning experience that old school pros swear by.

Reading people is what we all dream of being able to accurately do at the table. Luckily, there is no shortage of subjects to aid you with this endeavor. Daniel Negreanu used to hone his people reading skills by watching people at the local mall. He’d attempt to identify the emotions and mental state of passers-by by watching their faces, mannerisms, and posture. Joe Navarro is an ex-FBI counterintelligence expert who is using his insights into human behavior to become a wellrespected poker insider. You can work to sharpen your reading skills by watching the world through a different perspective. Watch people from afar in a restaurant or at work. Without hearing their voice, see if you can use their physical cues to identify the emotions. Find a way to always work on your poker skills in new and creative ways. Playing a lot of poker is not enough. Find some poker drills to get you toward your poker targets. .

Now go make it happen.

Russell Fox, E.A.

first published in Poker News

Editors Note: This article is limited to the one or more Federal tax issues addressed in the article. Additional issues may exist that could affect the Federal tax treatment of the transaction or matter that is the subject of this article and the article does not consider or provide a conclusion with respect to any additional issues. With respect to any significant Federal
tax issues outside the limited scope of this opinion, the article was not written, and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

Taxes for gamblers is a complex area. There is no such thing as ‘one size fits all.’ Here, though, are my top ten tax tips for gamblers.

10. The Tax Court recently made a very positive ruling for all gamblers. In Castagnetta v. Commissioner (T.C. Summary 2006-24), the Court held that non-professional gamblers can, in some instances, deduct other expenses incurred while gambling. These expenses include ATM fees, office supplies, and admission fees.

The Court also held that a professional gambler does not have to be solely engaged in gambling. That has been the position of the IRS in various appeals cases. Instead, the Tax Court said that gambling must be, “the intended livelihood source…[and pursued] for income or profit.”

Unfortunately, this is a Summary Opinion and is not precedential. However, it does indicate how the Tax Court would likely rule in similar cases.

9. The IRS doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as a professional gambler. It’s part of their mindset. Even though the US Supreme Court held that you can be a professional gambler in Commissioner v. Groetzinger (480 U.S. 23 (1987)), most of the personnel in the IRS still hold this view. It will take many years before this changes. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t file as a professional; rather, you should be aware that filing as a professional increases your chance of audit.

8. You might pay more tax filing as a professional gambler than an amateur. Professional gamblers must pay self-employment tax (social security and Medicare) on their net profits while amateurs don’t.

7. You can’t switch back and forth between being a professional and an amateur every year. Once you become a professional, you’ve made a career decision. You can switch, but expect trouble (audits) if you switch back.

6. You can’t net gambling wins with gambling losses unless you’re a professional. This is straight from the Tax Code. The Tax Code is law (Title 26, U.S.C.), and can only be changed by Congress. If you net your gambling results and you’re caught in an audit, expect to pay penalties and interest.

Why is this important? Gambling wins go on line 21 of Form 1040 (Other Income), and change Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). AGI is used to calculate limitations on many deductions, including student loan interest, medical deductions, and itemized deductions. Even if your net gambling income is $0, you could find your tax increase because you lose some deductions.

5. Live In the Right State. Not only do Americans have to pay federal income tax, most have to pay state income tax. Of course, if you live in Nevada, Florida, Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, or Wyoming you don’t have to pay state income tax. New Hampshire and Tennessee tax only dividends and interest.

Some states have very high income tax rates, such as California and New York. If you live in one of these states, you’re more likely to face the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Other states have income taxes that do not allow deductions for gambling losses. These states include Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio. If you live in one of these states, you face a gross receipts tax on your gambling wins even if you’re an overall loser. So if you are going to gamble, choose your state wisely.

4. You must report your gambling wins by session. That’s the law. So, what is a session? You can find an article I’ve previously written on this topic here.

3. The rules that apply to gambling in brick and mortar casinos apply to gambling on the Internet. This means that when you win a bet from an offshore casino, it’s income. If you try to tell the IRS that the money’s in Gibraltar, expect a chuckle from the IRS agent you’re dealing with. The United States taxes all income earned anywhere in the world. To prevent double taxation, you can deduct foreign taxes you pay (either as an itemized deduction on Schedule A or as a tax credit on line 47 of Form 1040).

2. If you have a Neteller or similar account with $10,000 or more at any time during 2005, you must report it to the government. You do this by checking a box on Schedule B of Form 1040 (and listing the country/ies) and by filing Form TD F 90.22-1 with the Department of the Treasury (not the IRS). It’s almost certain that if you do this you will be audited. The $10,000 rule is based on all such accounts on any one date. At this time, it’s unclear whether Internet cardrooms are reportable under this rule.

1. If you’re going to file as a professional, or you have any complexities on your return, see a professional tax preparer (an Enrolled Agent (EA), Certified Public Accountant (CPA) who specializes in taxes, or a tax attorney). We’re not that expensive, and if you’re a professional, you’ll likely be able to fully deduct the expense as an accounting/professional expense. Everyone’s situation is different. What is right for one person may be wrong for another. Just because you can file as a professional gambler doesn’t mean you should. A tax professional will look at the totality of your situation and give appropriate advice.

In closing, you get what you pay for. Tax software is wonderful in putting the numbers you enter exactly where you enter them. Tax software won’t make math mistakes. Tax software is ideal for simple returns. But if you have any complications on your return, the money you save not getting competent professional help you could lose by not getting all the deductions your entitled to. And if you’re thinking about not paying your taxes, ask Richard Hatch about the wisdom of that course of action.

Russell Fox, E.A., is licensed to practice before the Internal Revenue Service. He is the co-author of Mastering No-Limit Hold’em. He maintains a tax blog at taxabletalk.com

by Victor Royer

First published in Poker Player

The entire history of the United States, particularly the Western lore, were all about gambling, and in particular all about poker. Even though for many years playing poker was not considered something that nice people would want to do, the fact remains that many presidents of the United States going back to the Revolutionary war, and soon thereafter, and for all the years since, all played poker.

Poker played well is not a gamble, but a game of skill and knowledge. Although there is a significant element of luck, such is present in all aspects of human life, and not relegated only to poker.

Success in business, or the success in your job, or your career, or whatever it is that is your primary endeavor and the source of income, is always, and has always been, a combination of knowledge and skill. The more knowledge you have, the better equipped you are to be successful. The better your skills in transferring that knowledge into action, the equally better your chances of success. In all these endeavors, luck will always be present, both good and bad.

Sometimes no matter how knowledgeable or how skilled you are, bad luck will simply happen to you and you have to learn how to overcome it. Doing that is also part of your knowledge and your skills, and how well you do it also directly determines your success. On the other side of the coin, equally so good luck will also visit you many times during your life, no matter what your endeavor might be. So it is for poker, where there will be many times during your poker playing career where it will appear that you can do no wrong. Those will be the great and wonderful times, because everything that you do will always work out your advantage, all hands you play will always be winners, and all your draws will come to be and win you the pot. And so it is also in life. Poker is a microcosm of life, and it equally reflects all that is good and bad in human nature.

Not all people in the world are good and not all poker players will be nice people. Not all people in the world will be equally successful, and not all poker player will be equally as profitable as others.

How well you handle your life will be reflected in how well you handle your poker playing success. If you have learned how to discipline yourself in life, you will not have trouble disciplining yourself in the play of poker. If, on the other hand, you don’t know what personal discipline is, then you will have lots of trouble in poker no matter how much you learn. Learning the theory of poker, or the theory of games, is alone not enough. In fact, learning the theory of anything is alone not enough. In order for the theory to have any practical meaning, it has to have what is called “practical application”. This practical application is the skill by which a human person is able to transcend the theory into the actual doing of it, commonly called “putting the theory into practice”. In my books I have often called this “the workability principle”.

What this simply means is the ability to be able to take the knowledge and actually apply it to realworld situations successfully.

Many people have the ability to be able to apply knowledge into realworld situations, but very few of them have the ability to be able to do it successfully on a consistent basis. Being a consistently successful and profitable poker player is very difficult, and you should have no illusions about it. Yes, there will be times when you begin to play poker and you will get enormously lucky, something that is very often called “beginners luck”. This happens with startling regularity, and I have witnessed this amongst novice players many, many times.

But such luck is fleeting, and if you do not learn to tampered it with knowledge and skill, your overall endresult experience is bound to be unlucky.

The world of card rooms and casino poker rooms is full of graveyards of the hopeful who came equipped with a little knowledge, a little skill, a lot of hope, and a great deal of beginners luck, only to discover that such luck is fickle, and that a little knowledge and little skill is not enough, and is in fact very dangerous. Such players very often experience enormous highs as they glory in their initial success, and quite as often erroneously attribute their initial success to a misperceived sense of their own skills and abilities, as well as their own sense of greatness and invincibility.

Such are signs of early danger, and if the player does not understand them he or she is heading for an inevitable disaster. In fact, any poker player who allows himself or herself to experience such great highs opens himself or herself up to equally deep lows.

We will continue with this discussion in the next issue.

Victor H. Royer is the author of 22 books on casino gaming. His newest series of 13 books – including the new release Powerful Profits from Poker – are now available in all major book stores, or from The Gambler’s Book Shop at 1-800-522- 1777, or at Amazon.com.

Tournament poker percentage swapping, dealmaking, and final-table structures

by Mike Sexton

The poker world seems to be flourishing quite well these days, and that is a good thing. But, all is not hunky-dory in the tournament world, as there are issues of concern for everyone: players, those who work in the industry, those who produce poker TV shows, networks that air the shows, potential sponsors of those shows, and so on. Here are a few issues of concern:

1. Poker’s Great White Shark — Ken Adams (CBSNews.com) wrote an intriguing story with this title a few months back, concerning the integrity of tournament poker. In it, referring to the movie Jaws, he said, “Remember when the great white shark ate its first victim, how the Mayor of Amityville [actually, Amity Island] hushed it up for fear of hurting the tourism business on which the town’s economic prosperity depended?” He suggested that the leaders of the poker world had better be concerned about the risk of scandal posed by undisclosed partnerships among competing players. Adams said, “ … a major public scandal is inevitable. With tournament prize pools growing to tens of millions of dollars it is not a question of whether, but when.” He also stated, “The future health of tournament poker will be a lot better off if the risk of collusion is addressed openly and sensibly before a scandal erupts.”

It should be obvious to all that no matter how honorable the intentions of some of those who stake players or exchange a percentage of another player who’s playing in the same tournament might be, there are those who may be less scrupulous and are deliberately trying to get an edge. Either way, the perception will always be that anyone with a financial interest in another player may or may not play the same against him as he would against anyone else.

Should it be against the rules for players to “invest” in each other by swapping percentages or stake players who are playing in the same event? If so, how would such a rule be enforced?

Casey Kastle, the guy who led the way to get smoking banned in tournaments (the single greatest thing that has ever happened to tournament poker), is now campaigning to eliminate staking and swapping pieces with other players. He thinks it’s a form of cheating, and that those players who put themselves into tournaments and have no shares of others are at a disadvantage. He thinks it’s “humanly impossible” to play the same way that you might otherwise if you have a financial interest in another. He agrees with Adams’ statement: “They need to learn the lesson that the Mayor of Amityville [Amity Island] learned the hard way. Before the conflict of interest beast rises up from the deep and takes a lethal bite out of public support for tournament poker, they [industry leaders] should take preventive action.”

2. Dealmaking in Tournaments — Basically, many players like to make deals at the end of a tournament. Others who don’t like to make deals shouldn’t be put in a position of being the “bad guy” who refuses to make a deal. And, certainly, TV people don’t want any deals made (in fact, the World Poker Tour doesn’t allow them). They believe a no-deal policy makes for better play, more excitement, and much better drama for television. It also avoids the risk of losing potential sponsors who don’t want to be involved with events dampened by dealmaking.

Players realize that television enhances the number of entrants in tournaments. However, if nothing is being added to the prize pool, many believe that it’s the players’ money and they should be able to do with it what they want. I’m from the old school and agree with that. I do believe, however, that players shouldn’t be able to deal for all the money if an event is televised. As a compromise, why not allow deals for some percentage of the remaining prize money, but not all of it?

Let’s suppose that first place in a tournament is $1 million and second place is $500,000. Many players don’t want to flip a coin for half a million bucks. If nothing was added to the prize pool, in my opinion, it would be hard to tell players that they couldn’t save at least $200,000 each of that money and play for the remaining $100,000 and the title. Players are still going to be trying their best to win, and the $200,000 save would pay their expenses on tour for a year! Of course, this issue could be resolved very simply by organizers or TV people adding some money to prize pools. Once a substantial amount of money is added to the prize pool, believe me, you won’t have any players complaining about a no-deal policy.

3. Final-Table Structures in TV Tournaments — This is a hotly discussed topic among players right now. The vast majority believe that you play for four days in a big tournament and the conclusion results in a crapshoot (because the blinds and antes are increased every 30 minutes after several hours of play in a WPT event). Players say, “Give us more time to play at the final table.” Some have suggested never increasing the blinds to more than $20,000-$40,000 (most tournaments end at the $100,000-$200,000 blinds level). This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but players need to recognize the problems that go along with this.

Most WPT final tables end in five to six hours (some have taken eight hours). The first problem with lengthening a final table is production costs. It takes a large crew to put on a WPT final table. They are there setting up hours before a final table commences, as well as breaking down the set long after it ends. Overtime costs are substantial.

Money is not the only concern. Other problems arise if you lengthen final tables. The live audience provides tremendous excitement for WPT shows. How long can you expect an audience to stay? If they did stay for 12-14 hours, how much enthusiasm would they have throughout the show? And remember, no one at the venue can see anyone’s cards (meaning, it gets boring to watch). Unless someone has a vested interest in a player, it’s very unlikely that he will stay for a long final table. This is television. What would it look like if half the seats were empty at the end of the show?

If play at the final table were lengthened, it would also create serious problems for the editors. They would have much more material to review and then try to eliminate (more time and money). It’s tough now to get everything into a two-hour program. Think how hard it would be to do if the final table took twice as long. Some suggest making two programs out of the final table. Well, the Travel Channel schedules a program every Wednesday night, and I’m sure it wants an ending to every show.

Here’s another thought: The longer a tournament lasts, the more likely it is that a top pro player will win. Some pros might think that’s great, but in truth, this would not be good for them in the long run. It’s good for poker when an amateur wins a big tournament. It enables everyone to think he can also do it, and thus results in more people entering tournaments. We need to embellish this thought: “The beauty of poker is that anyone can win.”

Players have to recognize and understand that logistical problems do exist when events are televised. A great player once said to me, “Good players don’t bitch about structures, they adapt to them.” I really like that.

The world is not perfect, and neither is tournament poker. Addressing issues such as these will make it a better place.

Mike Sexton is the host of PartyPoker.com, a commentator on the World Poker Tour (which can be seen every Wednesday on the Travel Channel), and the author of Shuffle Up and Deal (which was on The New York Times best-seller list and can be purchased at http://www.cardplayer.com/). His e-mail address is sextonpartypoker@aol.com.