Loveable Rogues Poker

July 18, 2006
by Amy Calistri

first published in Poker News

Print

Email to a friend

Post a comment

 About half of the WSOP events have played to a bracelet, so I thought it was time to check in on the women at the WSOP. To date, no woman has won a bracelet in a 2006 open event, but there are definite silver linings for the gals.

Mary Jones of Henderson Nevada won the Ladies event bracelet against a record field of 1128 players in what turned out to be one of the most aggressive final table battles of the WSOP so far. The final table of the Seniors event found not one, but two, women vying for the bracelet with Clare Miller taking the jewelry and Judy Carlson scoring a fourth place finish.

Isabelle Mercier, Michele “The Black Widow” Lewis, and Vanessa Selbst have all made final tables in open events this year. And Marsha Waggoner had a final table appearance in the Casino Employees event. Jennifer Harman Traniello, Sarah Bliney aka “Aussie Sarah,” and Melissa Hayden just missed out on final tables, finishing 11th, 12th and 14th respectively in open events.

A few notables have made multiple WSOP money finishes this year. Kathy Liebert, JJ Lu, Mimi Tran, Cyndy Violette, Jennifer Harman, Sarah Bliney and Vanessa Rousso have all collected more than one 2006 WSOP paycheck.

Missing the cash out line so far is Annie Duke. Duke won a WSOP bracelet in the 2004 $2000 Omaha hi/lo event and made four money finishes in 2005, including a final table appearance in the $5000 Limit Hold’em event. In what has to be both assuring and frustrating, Duke has made it deep into almost every event she has played this year. One just has to believe it is a matter of time.

I’ve also noticed a few women have been getting in some time just down the street at the Orleans Open. Multiple bracelet holder and 1996 WSOP Championship final table participant Barbara Enright has had three final table appearances at the Orleans in the last couple of weeks. And the Orleans Open Ladies event was won by Razz bracelet holder and World Poker Tour announcer Linda Johnson.

There is still a lot of poker left in the 2006 WSOP and we’ll be tracking the women down the home stretch.

By: Michael Craig

First published in Bluff Magazine

At 12:32pm, Andy Beal won the last of his opponents’ $10 million. By 12:45, I knew he was destined to lose it back.

If Andy had been trying to “get poker out of his system” or “prove to himself” that he could play with the best in the world, this convincing four-day win gave him the opportunity for closure. But when he offered to follow the pros to LA, where they had a World Poker Tour event starting the next day, I knew the game had to go on until he lost enough money to become disgusted with poker.

There were, of course, two other possible outcomes. First, he could continue winning until they ran out of money to play. Andy Beal was theoretically good enough to accomplish that at these stakes, but he would have to win at least $10 to $20 million more to do that. A much smaller loss would drive him from the game and the chances of such a loss increased with time. The longer Beal plays, the worse he plays. The worse he plays, the more he loses. The more he loses, the worse he plays.

The other possibility was that negotiations over the next game would break down. Even though Beal reconsidered his offer to go to Los Angeles, the message had been sent: He would do anything to continue playing. It did not take a world-class expert at reading human behavior – and his opponents were twenty world-class experts – to know they had him right where they wanted him.

All Andy Beal had was their money, and that was about to change.

What Came Before

I first wrote about the heads-up games of high-stakes Texas Hold’em between billionaire banker Andy Beal and a coalition of world-class poker pros in The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King: Inside the Richest Poker Game of All Time (Warner Books, 2005). I described Beal’s return to high-stakes poker after a 619-day hiatus in The Banker, the Boss, the Junkman, and the Warrior Queen, in the April issue of this magazine. Beal lost $3.2 million during the five days of $50,000/$100,000 matches at the beginning of February and returned on February 12-15 to win $10 million, the entire bankroll the pros brought to the table.

Interregnum “Nothing is Non-negotiable”

Over the next three days, the pros let Andy know that they would play him again, but it had to be on their terms: stakes would be reduced to $30,000/$60,000, and they would use any players they wanted. (During his first nine February games, Beal had refused to play anyone he had never played before.)

Beal essentially conceded. His only reservation about the lower stakes was that he wanted to somehow continue the match as a one-denomination/two-chip/four-chip game. His movements at the table were so choreographed and precise that he was afraid any awkwardness could be analyzed by the pros for tells.

He was more concerned about unfamiliar players. Although there was no formal agreement, Andy made it clear that he would refuse to play anyone new if he was losing, and wanted a list of the new players the group might use. The pros complied by naming three: David Oppenheim, David Benyamine, and Erik Sagstrom. They also said Phil Ivey would begin play for the group on Tuesday afternoon, February 21.

Tuesday,February 21 A Gambler and a Gentleman

Phil Ivey was one of the few high-stakes pros with whom I had no relationship. I knew he was a great player, but he hadn’t overwhelmed Beal during the two days they played in May 2004. Why hadn’t he surfaced while Andy was winning $10 million the previous week?

Despite my initial skepticism, Phil Ivey blew me away on every possible level. There was his demeanor, his commitment to fairness and openness in gambling, his style, and, of course, his skill.

These games between Andy Beal and the pros are the most interesting story in the history of poker. Phil Ivey completely hijacked that story, establishing himself, in this unique non-public but ultra-conspicuous game, as the best poker player alive and maybe the best of all-time.

Objectively, three days of poker can’t do that. But legends grow from moments. In fifty years, no matter what happens to Phil Ivey, people will talk about what he did in these three days.

A Chip and Two Chairs 4:15 PM

Phil Ivey arrived and took less than a minute to resolve Beal’s objection to using different-denomination chips. Even though the pros had already let Andy know that it was not acceptable to play with the $25,000 chips as if it were a $50,000/$100,000 game and have the winner rebate the loser 40% at the end of each session, Ivey instantly agreed to exactly that.

Phil sat in Seat Two, draped his legs across Seat Three, and the cards were in the air.

Test of Wills 7:02 PM

There was no subtlety to Phil Ivey’s approach to playing Andy Beal. He would raise every hand on his button. At the beginning of the match, Ivey raised 21 of 24 hands on his button and folded the other 3. At the end, he raised 16 of 17 hands on his button and called once. Every time he raised, he would lead out on the next bet.

It was nothing less than a battle of wills. Who would impose his style on the other?

I had expected Andy to engage Phil Ivey in a war of attrition. After all, he had his opponents’ money and could better afford a bigger, wilder game. He also had experience with ultra-aggressive play and erased a $7 million deficit the week before by playing that style against Ted Forrest.

But Andy Beal instead decided to wage guerilla war, picking his spots to combat Ivey’s aggressiveness. At the start, he succeeded, keeping the pots smaller and picking the right times to bet Phil out. Just 25 hands into the match, Phil raised on his button and Andy called. After a flop of K-K-3, Beal check-raised Ivey’s bet but Ivey responded by reraising.

Andy again check-raised after a four appeared on the turn. This time, Ivey folded. Beal succeeded with this move several times during the first half of the session.

But the game started getting away from him. With Ivey raising so much, he got paid on his good hands, or when the board hit him just right. With K-7, Ivey got action after a flop of 7-7-3. Beal even checkraised that flop and bet the turn. Ivey won a $540,000 pot a few hands later with A-Q, after he caught a queen on the turn.

Suddenly, Ivey had the lead, and it looked like his aggressiveness was getting him exactly what he wanted. But Andy hung in, betting Ivey out of a pot when he absolutely needed it.

Four hands from the end of the day, with Phil widening his lead, Andy did it again. Ivey raised on his button. Beal check-raised after a flop of J-8-4. Ivey reraised. After a ten turned, Beal check-raised again. Ivey folded, conceding the $420,000 pot.

Phil Ivey finished the day ahead by $1.96 million. Because Andy had succeeded with several of his pick-off attempts, however, he planned to stick with this strategy.

Wednesday,February 22 Andy Beal Hangs On

For four hours, Andy Beal kept within hailing distance of Phil Ivey. With T.-7., he picked up a $480,000 pot when he flopped a flush. Ivey kept the betting lead with 6.-3., picking up the lowest possible flush when he rivered a fourth heart. Beal made the most money possible from the hand, calling all the way.

Several hands later, after neither side had raised on Andy’s button – a rarity – Ivey led the betting after a flop of J-8-2 with two hearts. After another two turned, Ivey bet again. This time, Beal raised, and Ivey reraised. The river card was the jack of clubs. Phil bet and Andy, after thinking for a long time, raised. Ivey, too, took a long time to think about it, riffling eight chips – the amount of a reraise – and looking at Beal, hard, before conceding the $600,000 pot.

But Beal needed to be perfect to play this way and win. As well as he was capable of playing, he wasn’t perfect. He called Ivey all the way on a board of T-T-2-T-7. Ivey turned over T-3.

Quads? It’s an uphill battle when you have to pick your spots to stay close and the guy has quads when you look him up.

Two hours into the match, Ivey won a pair of big pots and it looked like he was ready to start pushing Beal around. He bet and raised all the way with a board of 7-7-4-A-8. But Andy raised Phil’s bet on the river, building the pot to $600,000. Phil took a long time, again riffling the chips, trying to stare through his opponent to divine whether Beal wanted him to bet. Finally, he folded.

At 1:25pm, after being behind for more than four hours, Andy Beal evened the match. It seemed every pot was big and, after betting Phil Ivey out of several in a row, he took the lead.

The Ice Man Cometh

Today, I got to know Phil Ivey, which isn’t easy. To start with, Ivey is uncomfortable to watch. (He is also uncomfortable being watched, which is ironic considering how intensely he watches others.) His stare is penetrating, and he does not focus it only on opponents. On a few occasions, he watched me take notes with concern.

“These notes you’re taking,” he once asked. “You’re not showing them to Andy, are you?”

No, of course not, I quickly said. That was absurd.

His eyes bored into me.

“No, I’m asking you. Are. You. Showing. These. Notes. To. Andy?”

Despite some friendly banter later – Phil asked me what I thought he could get for a book and I looked into it – I moved from Seat Seven to Seat Nine the next morning. I wanted some visual distance between me and Phil Ivey.

Still, it was fascinating studying Phil at the table. While barely moving, he still conveyed athletic grace and coordination. His fingers seemed uncommonly long, bending around cards and chips like spiders. Whatever his posture, he always appeared relaxed. Every day, when Beal would tire and everyone around would wonder how much longer the game would go, Ivey alone sunk into the moment and accelerated.

Ivey’s most interesting move was what I called “Riffle Thinking.” He combined his deadly stare and casual coordination with the chips to study Beal while considering an important decision. Contemplating a raise on the turn or river, Ivey would suddenly become very deliberate. Without moving, it looked like he was about to fold. But he wouldn’t. Then he would take eight chips in his hand, like he was an instant from betting. But he didn’t.

He wasn’t trying to fake action. Instead, he seemed to freeze time and consider what would happen in his world if he bet, and what would happen in that same world if he folded. All the while, he would stare at Beal, contemplating these two opposing futures while silently asking, “What are you really afraid I’ll do?”

Consequently, Phil Ivey was oblivious to the idea that Andy Beal had somehow seized the momentum. He went back to work, regaining the lead. Not only did he refuse to relinquish it again, but he rapaciously extended it over the final three hours.

Beal’s attempts to take over the betting lead were turning into expensive failures. By the end of the day, big pots were becoming common and Ivey was winning most of them. As if he needed it, he also started getting lucky.

I realized how far Andy had fallen when, just after 4pm, Phil asked how long he wanted to play.

“About another hour,” he replied, “unless you clean me out.”

Beal was joking, but it was gallows humor. Just two-and-a-half hours earlier, the match had been tied. When they quit for the day at 4:20pm, Phil had won $4.6 million. As they parted, Phil Ivey offered a gift, albeit a barbed one: he said he would talk to his fellow pros about restoring the stakes to $50,000/$100,000.

Thursday,February 23 Last Day in Paradise

Nobody will say it, but today is destined to be the last day. Andy Beal has played for 11 days of the last 22 and, except for one night, has been confined to the property for nearly two weeks. Having lost back in the last two days what he won during the first nine, I know Andy is going to press for a resolution.

Phil Ivey arrived with what Beal considered to be good news. They can play $50,000/$100,000 today. Phil explained, “I believe in giving a guy a chance to get even.”

High Finance

As the game broke on Tuesday, Phil and Andy had to settle up on the rebate. Ivey had actually won $3.125 million of Beal’s chips, but had to rebate 40%. Before making the calculation, they flipped a coin for the “odd” $.025 million – that’s $25,000 – which Ivey won. The rebate amounted to $1.26 million. Ivey handed over $1.25 million and Beal took a verbal IOU for $10,000. Neither player had chips that small.

The next day, after it seemed Phil Ivey caught every possible break in the last two hours, there was a spare $50,000, for which they again flipped a coin. Andy called heads, and when it came up tails, he said, “Who didn’t know how that would go?”

Andy Beal’s Final Stand

For the first four hours, Andy Beal slapped Phil Ivey around. Ivey continued to control the game, but Andy got the cards to make Phil pay for his nonstop aggression and took over the betting often enough to keep Ivey off-balance. Key to this was keeping the pots small. He could get away from hands easier when the pots were smaller, and also push Phil out when he needed to assert himself.

Beal built a lead while winning, at most, half the hands. During the first half hour, he won 17 hands to Ivey’s 16, yet won $1.8 million. Of Phil’s 16 winning hands, Andy folded ten of those before the flop. During another early sequence of 29 hands, Andy won just 13 of them but still added $400,000 to his lead. Again, 11 of Ivey’s 16 winning hands gained him only the blinds.

Andy Beal’s control of this match was so precise that it took little for Phil Ivey to upset his equilibrium. At 11:30, he won the biggest pot of the morning, $1.5 million, with K-5 on a board of K-6-5-8-5. The pot grew gigantic because Beal three-bet on Ivey’s button, Phil four-bet the flop, Andy check-raised the turn, and Phil ended by raising on the river. Two hands later, he won another big pot with 5-5 on a board of 9-4-4-2- 4. Ivey put in a fourth bet before the flop and was called by Beal all the way to the river.

Five hands later, the match was even for the day.

Phil Ivey’s Next Career

“If I lose today,” Phil Ivey told Andy Beal on Thursday morning, “I’ll go to school and work for you.”

“You can actually make more money on Wall Street than playing poker.”

“I know,” Phil admitted. “I just never got into that.”

“We could always use smart people on our team. But now I have to stop talking. Otherwise, I’ll lose millions of dollars.” The headphones went back on.

“That was my plan,” Phil said, flashing a smile.

The Music in Phil Ivey’s Ears

A titanic struggle deserves a titanic turning point. The turning point for this game was when Phil Ivey threw my iPod at me.

The Wynn poker room was so busy that the noise – especially with no one to talk to – began to bother Phil. He took me up on the offer I made Wednesday to bring him my iPod.

He folded hand after hand while fiddling with the controls. After Beal rivered a straight to beat Ivey’s trip queens and win a $1.1 million pot, Phil yanked off the headphones and tossed the jumble aside. “You can have your iPod back. I should throw it in the garbage.”

Then he smiled. In the tension of the moment, it was like a light bulb popping.

Then he made quads three hands later and, because Beal made a full house, picked up a $1.1 million pot.

The Storm

Phil Ivey started to roll and Andy Beal helped, repeatedly collaborating to build giant pots. At 1:12pm, Ivey won with 8-5 on a board of 8-7- 3-7-J. Beal took the betting lead with A-K, check-raised the turn, and bet the river. Phil hung on and picked up the $1.1 million pot. Ten minutes later, he won a $900,000 pot with 7.-7., making a flush on the end when the board came up Q.-T.-8.-3.-5.. Beal made it three bets before the flop (and Phil made it four) and called all the way to the end.

On the next hand, Ivey raised with 5-4 and bet following a flop of 7- 4-3. Andy check-raised, then called his opponent to the river. Ivey had made trips with another four on the turn. Andy stared in disbelief for a moment when Ivey showed the hand, then mucked, conceding the $800,000 pot.

Beal occasionally won some of these big pots, taking down $700,000 with third pair. A few hands later, with J-J, he picked up an $800,000 pot after a board of 4-5-A-A-A.

Andy Beal went from extreme care at noon to extreme recklessness by 1:30pm, though the match was still close. Ivey raked in a $1.1 million pot with A-6 on a board of Q-2-Q-2-K. What kind of hand could Beal have to build a big pot with that kind of board, much less call at the end? He would have won with an ace, king, queen, pocket pair, or deuce.

At 1:50pm, Beal got within one big hand of catching up, winning $1.3 million with Q-J after a board of Q-T-Q. A jack on the turn made a straight for Phil (who held A-K), but a full house for Andy. The backbreaker came at 1:51pm, however, when it looked like Beal had the best of it with K-K against Ivey’s Q-3 and a board of Q-5-2-6. But a three on the river made Phil two pair.

The expression Andy Beal’s face was either pain or resignation; both were appropriate.

After this, it seemed every other hand ended in a million-dollar showdown. At 2:04pm, when they changed the decks and dealers, Phil Ivey was leading by $1.7 million.

In less than a half-hour, he won $2.5 million more, expanding his lead to $4.2 million. Beal four-bet with Q.-J. and bet after a flop of 9- 4-2 with two spades. Ivey raised and called Andy’s reraise. Beal bet both the turn and river, and Phil just called, winning the $1 million pot with 7-7.

Ivey was moving in for the kill. He emptied all his racks and stacked the chips in front of him in irregular multi-tiered towers. When he sat upright and faced Beal, they looked like a giant womb, nearly $15 million, growing taller, fuller, and wider.

Andy got his share of luck, winning a $1.4 million hand with Q-Q against Ivey’s K-K when he rivered a queen. As 3pm approached, he won a million-dollar pot when he caught a king on the river to go with his K-6 on a previously hopeless board of 7-2-2-3.

A few hands later, Beal won a $1.3 million pot without even showing a hand. After trading raises on every street, Phil simply folded to Andy’s raise on the river.

At 3:30pm, the game actually slowed down. For the next 25 minutes, they played in Andy Beal’s style. So great was Phil Ivey’s mastery today that he let Andy have his way and still increased his lead. No pot approached $1 million during this time, and each player won 14 pots.

Even so, the outcome was no longer in doubt. Ivey had enough left in his tank to pick off two bluffs by Beal, letting him bet all the way to the end, and taking pots totaling $1.3 million.

Phil Ivey knew exactly where he was on these hands, which was why he added $600,000 to his lead during this 28-hand sequence; not bad for a half-hour of work. The game had gone on too long, and Andy Beal was behind by too much, for this slow pace to continue.

The Beal Watch

Whenever Andy Beal tells me he is through with poker, I ask for his pocket watch, the one I described in Suicide King, that he keeps in front of him, attached to a binder clip. It has been modified to suit his use as a random-number generator. In his rush to exit the poker room at the end of the match with Phil Ivey, he left it behind.

As much as I coveted it, I couldn’t just take it like this. I called him after he returned to his room at the Wynn and told him he left it behind. He actually apologized for leaving so abruptly. “You can have the watch as a souvenir, Mike. I don’t need it any more.”

Now Comes the Hard Part

Andy got buried in the last hour. At 3:53pm, he was behind by $5 million for the day. In the next 27 minutes, he lost another $4 million. During that period, they showed down at least eight hands worth $800,000 or more. With so many big-pot showdowns, the river card was going to decide a lot of hands, and Ivey got a majority of the luck. He was sure to win this kind of game when the breaks evened out, though not this decisively.

This was what it looked like:

• Ivey (A-3) v. Beal (K-K) on a board of 8-6-4-A-3; $1.2 million pot.

• On the next hand, Beal (T-6) won a $1.2 million pot following a board of T-9-9-7-T.

• Ivey (8-5) won with a board of K-8-4-2-5; $900,000 pot.

• Ivey (A-4) v. Beal (8.-7.) on a board of 9.-5.-4.-3.-5.; $900,000 pot.

• Ivey (T-8) on a board of A-T-9-T-8; $1.1 million pot.

• On the next hand, Beal won $800,000 with A.-6. when he made the nut flush on the turn.

• Ivey won $1 million with 9-5. Beal raised on his button, then both players checked the flop of T-9-8. After another nine turned, Ivey bet and made it three bets when Beal raised him. Beal called after a king came on the river.

• On the next hand, Ivey won $1 million with Q-3, making bottom pair on the flop, but catching a queen on the river.

That queen on the river, at 4:20pm, hit Andy Beal like a punch in the stomach, increasing Phil’s lead for the day to $9 million. Andy held Ivey off for another half-hour, but even he knew how this was going to end.

At 4:56pm, Phil raised Andy’s bet on the river after a board of Q-5-3- Q-6. Beal paused for a moment, shrugged, and threw in his last four chips. Ivey showed his A-6 to take the $800,000 pot, the last of 5,000 hands played over the 12 days of the matches. Andy stood, reached out to shake Ivey’s hand, and said, “Good job, Phil. I’m heading back to Dallas.”

Then he quickly exited the room.

Never Never Means Never

By Saturday, I heard from Andy Beal. “I really feel like I snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I just feel embarrassed that I stayed too long and got stupid on the last afternoon. My biggest mistake was coming to Vegas in the first place. When I was ahead, I should have made them come to Dallas. I could play for four hours a day and not put myself in that position. Do you think Phil Ivey would come to Dallas in the next few days…?”

by John Vorhaus

First published in Poker Player Newspaper

I recently got an email from a guy asking, What about online propping, JV? Do you think it’s a career path or what? This brought to mind my own experience as a proposition player at the now defunct Regency Casino in good ol’ Bell Gardens, California. I thought it was just super that they’d pay me eight bucks an hour to play poker, and figured that with that kind of cushion there was no way I could lose. Well, I lost $300 on day one, lost $500 on day two, called in sick on day three, and gave up the pretense on day four. With a win rate of minus $50 an hour, I decided that this was a job I could not afford to keep.

Online propping is a slightly different, well, proposition. For one thing, getting stuck in a short handed game is much less of a problem for online players than it is for realworld players, since short handed games in casinos are generally quite tough, but online even the short games tend to be filled with a homogenous mix of good, bad, and really bad players.

Also, we online players have much experience with and no particular fear of short handed play. Many of us prefer it. So getting stuck in a short, and therefore allegedly bad, game is not that big a burden for the online prop. You can work at home, so that’s good. You don’t have any of the attendant realworld prop expenses such as transportation, meals, tips (taxes — did I say that out loud?) Granted, you still have the rake to deal with, though since the anchor of most prop deals is a rakeback scheme, this can be less of a problem for the online prop, too.

Still, to be a successful online proposition player, you have to be a winning online poker player, and many people are drawn to propping precisely because they can’t show a profit on their own merit, and hope that the monetary support of their prop deal, whatever it may be, will push them from the red to the black. Maybe. But you still have to put in your hours — lots of them if you intend to be the sort of prop who gets work. And if your game has leaks, even eensy-weensy tiny little ones, all those hours will drain your bankroll far faster than propping can prop it up. Not only that, if you lose your bankroll entirely, you can’t quit. Not unless you want to stop being a prop altogether and, you know, go flip burgers or something. Bottom line, then: If playing poker is a hard way to make an easy living, then propping is a hard way to make a hard living. Should you be one of the few who can regularly and consistently (and demonstrably over a span of years) beat online poker for good money, then you might be able to show a profit as a prop. But I put it to you that if you’re really that good to begin with, you don’t need propping. You can probably make more money with canny site selection and game selection, thereby exploiting the sort of options and opportunities that being a prop precludes.

by Tim Lavalli

First published in Poker News

Floor! You can’t walk around the main WSOP room for five minutes without hearing a floor call. The floor staff are there to settle disputes, interpret and apply the rules and generally keep the games moving smoothly. Sometimes they make mistakes. Today there was a colossal mistake made at the restart of the No Limit Hold’em Short-Handed Event #5.

Thirty-nine players were remaining at seven tables, I happen to be there when the chip bags were brought out and distributed to the tables. A short time later the players began to arrive and one of the early arrivals noticed that his seat had no chips. The floor was called and a simple mistake was made, someone assumed that the chip bag for seat 6 at table 118 had been misplaced or lost.

So, a runner was sent to the cage to check the storage locker, the report comes back: no missing chip bag. Meanwhile players are assembling at the tables and, per a new rule, showing identification to match their name on their chip bag before the bags are opened.

Now the reason I am at this particular table is that Gavin Smith (second in chips) is seated in seat #3 and in seat #2 is Daniel Negreanu (the chip leader) and oh by the way in seat #1 is Kathy Liebert. So as these professional poker players gather way down there at the far end of the table, they chat and laugh and have no idea that the player in seat #6 has no chips. The floor has now gone to the cage himself and while he is away a senior dealer supervising the tournament restart comes by and tells the dealer in the box to open the chip bag in seat #4 and stack the chips: “You are going to need to blind the player off until they arrive.”

The senior floor in charge of the event returns with a rack holding 101,000 in chips; this is the amount of chips the player in seat #6 had in the official chip count at the end of play the night before. No one except the players in seats #5 & #6 and this reporter see this happen.

Now I need to say here that members of the media have a certain standard of conduct when covering a poker tournament, at least the seasoned writers and photographers do.

One cardinal rule is that we never interfere in the table action. We do not comment on the action, we do not offer any advice or interject any of our thoughts on the play or on the interpretation of the rules. Sure, we may write about it but we are there observe play and not to effect it. Now I have to question whether, in this case, if that was the best thing for me to do at this point but that is what I did.

What I wanted to say was: “You have to inform the players what you just did. You may have just added 101,000 chips to the tournament. They at the very least need to know that a floor decision has been made.” This did not happen.

Next thing you know, cards are in the air and since this is a short-handed event, every six hands Gavin Smith is going to be in the small blind with an empty seat in the big blind and Daniel Negreanu and Kathy Liebert on his immediate right. Daniel and Kathy pounded on Gavin every time the dead blind situation came up. Finally, Gavin had enough and he defended twice and it cost him 50,000 chips – about 40% of his starting stack.

Finally, after just over four rounds, Daniel says:

“I wonder how long this guy is going to wait to show up, with these blinds and antes short-handed, he will be gone soon.”

Someone else says: “Do they know who this guy is?”

and then: “Was there a player in that seat last night?”

Daniel says he doesn’t remember anyone, nor does anyone else at the table. The player in seat #6 suddenly says:

“I wonder if those were supposed to be my chips?”

Oh, the floor brought me chips from the cage.”

Now I must say that of all the players on the circuit, Daniel Negreanu is one of the calmest and most reasonable players I have watched over the years. Daniel shot out of this seat and nearly shouted:

“They added chips from the cage to the tournament!”

Gavin and Kathy just sat there a moment and Gavin asked:

“Say that again.”

“They gave me new chips from the cage.”

Now Gavin is up and floor calls are being shouted:

“You added chips to the tournament?!”

“What kind of *#@!* decision was that?”

OK, just a goof right? Wrong! Gavin has been playing in a situation (with a dead big blind) for 3 plus rounds, a situation that should not have existed. Daniel and Kathy would not have been aggressively stealing blinds with a player in the big blind; that player should have been the player in seat #5 because there was no player in seat #4, not last night and not today.

They count down the seat #4 stack and it matches exactly what would have been in a 101,000 stack minus the 14,800 of blinds and antes that have been added to this tables play. Gavin has been put at a disadvantage, I will leave it to poker theoreticians to calculate how much of one.

The new floor decision is that the remaining chips in the phantom seat #4 stack should come out of play but the tournament is held up until Floor Supervisor Jimmy Sommerfeld is called to make the decision. Gavin is steaming, again I will let you decide and debate just how unfair the situation had become.

Some things to consider:

-at 3600 chips a circuit (6 hands) the blinds and antes totaled roughly 25,000 for the first one hour level and 5200 a circuit and 32,000 for the next level. In approximately 2 and a half hours the entire 101,000 extra stack would have been in the stacks of the other five players at table 118. Not just dead money but free dead money.

-Gavin Smith would have been in the same disadvantageous position for all of that time.

-Why didn’t someone look at the chip bag in seat #4 at any time?

What happened here, you ask. Well it’s really quite simply. Someone heard: “I don’t have a chip bag.” And assumed that a chip bag was missing. When, in fact, what happened was that in distributing the bags at the table someone read seat #6 and put that bag in what is normally seat #6 just to the dealer’s right of mid-table but in a short-handed tournament that is seat #4. No one ever looked at that chip bag or read the name or the seat number on that bag and five players playing for a total prize pool of $1,895,200 had their chances changed and also gain an advantage, however slight, over the other 34 players, as table 118 had additional dead money put into play.

Six and a half hours into the tournament, Gavin Smith went out in 12th place.