December 16, 2010

Wine & Whine O' the Week (v. 1.15)—
Cowboys Riding Ostriches on the Isle of Misfit Poker Bloggers (WPBT Tournament Report)

[Note:  This is the first of two posts about my recent Festivus / WPBT trip to Degenerate Mecca (a/k/a Vegas).  This post will cover the WPBT poker tournament held Saturday at Aria.  A later post will hopefully encompass all the hilarity and hijinks of the remainder of my sojourn.]

Who doesn't love the classic children's Christmas show, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? One of my favorite parts of the show is the Isle of Misfit Toys, which has among its residents this Cowboy who is inexplicably riding an ostrich:


Now, it's pretty obvious the Cowboy is a degenerate poker player who lost a prop bet and wound up straddling an ostrich on a glacier.  But really, who of us hasn't been on the wrong end of a similar bet?  Anyway, the WPBT Winter Classic tournament for poker (and quasi-poker) bloggers this weekend had me thinking about the Isle of Misfit Toys, not because most poker bloggers are social misfits ... well, yeah, actually that's pretty much it.  But they are misfits in a hilariously fun way!

Anyway, the tournament was hosted by the Aria poker room, using its excellent daily tournament structure, with 8K in starting chips, and 30 minute levels.  The Ironmen played this tourney last spring, highlighted by my trapping of buddy Sahara for most of his stack with my skillfully disguised almost-trips (Sahara:  "Five-deuce? What are you doing? Seriously, five-deuce? That's terrible!").  It's a great room with a great tourney—clearly doing some holiday charity by accommodating a bunch of poker degenerates!

The poker tournament was made even sweeter by the good folks at PokerStars and Full Tilt, who combined chipped in 15 player bounties, 10 "Hammer" bounties, bonuses for the final table luckboxes, a bubble-boy save, and a partridge in a pear tree (later deep-fried into beignets and served with a Southern Comfort-roasted chili dip at the Lagasse's Stadium football party).  Also, in keeping with WPBT tradition, most of the players brought along personal bounties to award to the player lucky enough to knock them out of the tourney.

With 97 runners and a nice Tilt/Stars overlay, the tourney was a veritable poker treasure chest.  Of course, I suck at tournaments, but I'm an SVB, so I had a fighting chance.  Now the tourney started at high noon, which is the equivalent of a 7:00 a.m. breakfast meeting. In other words, I might have been a wee bit sleepy.  Bring on the unlimited free hot green tea with honey (without tequila)! Thankfully I had the uber-organized Poker Grump as one of my teammates (along with the delightful card assassin, CaityCaity), so he had handled getting the "Knights Who Say 'Nit'!" registered for the last longer challenge. So, my only real responsibility was to arrive prior to noon, jump into the mass picture, and head to my table.

Where I was promptly confronted with one of my nemeses, the sneaky Katkin.  Katkin is a fascinating guy who has traveled an interesting path from the media industry to the poker industry.  I first met him a year or so ago after being introduced to him by poker socialite CK-BWoP.  He's one of those "quiet but witty" types who enjoys a little verbal jousting at the tables.  So, we promptly agreed to a heads up last longer bet for a round of drinks.

I played rather tight at the first table, just getting into proper tournament rhythm—open-fold, check-fold, limp-fold, order drink, joke with table, lather, rinse, repeat.  There were two hands of note.  In the first, I was on the button with A9 soooted.  There was a limper to me, so I decided to put in a small raise, hoping to take down a small pot.  Unfortunately, the guy in the big blind (whose name, like many others I met this weekend, escapes me) put in a decent raise.  Now, this guy handled himself like a solid player, and had been in a few skirmishes already.  I thought it entirely likely he was making a move of some sort, testing me (let's face it, I'm not exactly the most intimidating tourney player).  So, I called and decided to see how he acted postflop, maybe looking to steal on a scary board.

Instead, the flop came out T-9-9.  Donkey Kong!  Suddenly, I'm hoping he has a real hand, well, other than pocket Tens, natch.  He bets, I call.  Turn is a small card, nothing much changes.  He bets again, I call again. Now in hindsight, I really should've put in a value raise on the flop and/or turn, in order to play for stacks if he had an overpair.  The line I took looks too strong without many draws out there, plus not building the pot earlier makes it tougher to get him to feel pot-committed to a big river bet.  Like I said, I suck at tourneys.  Anyway, the river gave me a German Virgin fourgy.  Galaga!  My opponent thought and checked; about time he showed me some respect!  I thought a bit, then value bet T3000, about half of my opponent's remaining stack, and a little over half the pot.  He thought a while, then mucked his pocket Queens.  Of course, despite having a good full house, about all he could beat was a hand like JT, JJ, or maybe 88/77.  Dammit, I hate it when good players make disciplined laydowns! 

The second noteworthy hand at my first table involved Katkin, who limp-reraised me from under the gun, with me on the button or in the cutoff.  I called with AQ soooted (I think), and we saw a flop of 6-6-4.  Katkin bet, and I thought for a moment of making a steal attempt, but then folded like a CyClown in a meaningful conference football game.  Katkin started giggling like Allen Kessler at a hot video poker machine, then rolled over ... the Spanish InquisitionNobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, including me!  Thankfully my cat-like poker reflexes saved me from certain disaster, not to mention keeping our last longer bet alive.

With Hammer bounties being awarded like Hannukkah gifts—early and often—it was no surprise when our table broke and I was moved to a mostly new table.  One tough player from my first table—who I learned later was Dominic, a/k/a "No Limit Doc"—moved with me, and continued to own my poker soul on the rare hands I played, typically 3 or 4-betting me off hands preflop, or forcing me to make laydowns on the flop.  Since I respected his play a ton, I decided running away was the better part of valor.*  Call it the "Sir Robin" strategy:




Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

My second table was full of celebrities, including CJ, a/k/a "The Luckbox", a WPBT founder and hilarious poker taunter, and Jessica Wellman, new managing editor of Bluff Magazine, and the lone voice of reason on the Poker Beat radio show (the one must-listen poker podcast on my Stitcher favorites).  Jessica is a very attractive young woman, who came across as pleasant, down to earth, and intelligent during my time at her table, and during a brief chat during a break.  Also during my time at the table, Dan Michalski, the big cheese at Pokerati.com, dropped by to chat poker legislation with me for a few minutes. I kept up my strong play by hitting quad Aces with my Ace-Yak, as well as bringing home a small pot with Yaks.  I also managed to pick off one gal's attempted Hammer steal, and I later knocked out a short-stacked player (CaApril, I believe), who kindly gave me her bounty—a neat mechanical toy named "Cranky", which she claimed described herself, though she had been nothing but sunny and funny at the table.  Cranky is now proudly displayed in my office window 37 floors up in the tallest building in Des Moines, with a wistful westward view toward Vegas ...

After break, I was moved to my third table, and finally shook free of the pitbull Dominic. Unfortunately, I found myself back at a table with archnemesis Katkin.  Of course, the poker gods have a sick sense of humor, and my only hand of note at this table was heads up against Katkin.  Katkin was in early position and limped, I raised in the cutoff or on the button with KhQh, and Katkin smooth-called.  The flop was pretty good for me—Ace, Yak, Rag with two hearts—giving me the nut flush draw and a gutshot Broadway draw.  Katkin checked, and I decided to bet as as semi-bluff.  Katkin surprisingly pushed all-in.  Hmmm, that's awkward.  I finally decided I had enough outs to call, plus Katkin could be on a bluff. Or, he could be on Ace-Yak for altos dos pairs.  Awkward!  But a heart on the river gave me the win as well as a very close elimination of Katkin.  I won our last longer wager, a $100 Full Tilt bounty, and Katkin's other bounty—a stylish Fremantle Australian Football scarf which he had won in a previous WPBT, and which is required to be passed along each year to a new bounty winner.  Nothing like making myself a huge target for next year's WPBT!

Now on a near freeroll and with a large stack, I was moved yet again, this time to a table in the elevated area of the Aria poker room.  Most of the table were players unknown to me, but I spotted one suspiciously familiar player—"Dawn Summers", author of a dozen blogs, at least a few of which touch on poker.  Dawn's style of play would make "Action Dan" Harrington look like a Scandinavian maniac, basically consisting of folding every hand for three orbits, then randomly pushing her short stack all-in to either steal blinds and antes or double up.  Laugh all you want, but the turtle strategy got her safely to the final table.

I managed to take down another Full Tilt bounty by eliminating a short-stacked Alex Outhred, a dang good player who is certifiably smarter than a 5th grader.  I had Yaks against his AK or AQ, pretty standard race for the stacks at stake.  If he hadn't been crippled before my arrival, I doubt I would've fared so well.  My Fremantle scarf drew murmurs of respect, particularly from the scarf's original owner, Garth, a displaced Australian with a wicked sense of humor and a fellow Top Chef lover.  I also later lost a race with Yaks which took me from a comfortable stack well-above average to a stack barely twice the starting chips, with an "M" of ... well, who knows.  Blinds and antes were something like 800/1600/200, and my stack was under  T20K, so do your own math (and show your work).  Which brings us to the wine and whine portion of our show.

I had been card dead a couple of orbits, and with players dropping like drunks at the Geisha Bar, I was looking for places to steal—the blinds and antes alone were roughly 20%-25% of my stack.  So when it folded to me on the button, I looked down and saw the beautiful 85 offsuit, a strong hand not easily dominated by the traditional "power" hands like AK, with two flush draws and two quad draws as backup if a "big" hand like King-Jack outflopped me. So, I pushed.

Action was then on the small blind, "Drizz", an accountant and a Vikings fan, so pretty much the scum of the earth.  Now Drizz is a rather hilarious guy, as proven by what might be my favorite WPBT Tweet:

Reason #19 why Drizz needs to wear his hearing aids: Waitress "Hot Cakes?" Drizz "Bacon??" Waitress "Hot Cakes?" repeat 20x.

Drizz glanced at his cards, then pushed all-in.  As far as omens go, this was not a good one. The big blind scowled at Drizz's evil play, then reluctantly folded. Time to see what Drizz had—pocket Kings?  Seriously dude??!?  I've shown down Aces three times, Yaks twice, and quads-top kicker twice.  What part of that range is remotely touchable by Das Cowboys?? But, no worries at all!  I can crAAKK Kings!  I may even be a prohibitive favorite.  I flopped the gutshot straight draw, but imagine my shock when the turn and river each failed to bring my straight card.  Live poker is so rigged!

Despite the horrific suckout, Drizz deserved his bounty from me.  So, I presented him with an inscribed bottle of 2001 Penfold's Grange.  Now I chose this bounty for my first WPBT because my blogger nickname originated in the mists of internet antiquity when I first joined some random discussion board for something non-poker related, and needed a nickname.  Grange is not only the premier Australian wine, but a tasting of Grange is what converted me to a hardcore wine snob.  So, I went with Grange95 as my online nickname, as someone else had picked Grange (1995 being the year of the most dominant Husker football team ever).  It seemed only fitting that my first WPBT bounty be a bottle of my all-time favorite wine.

Drizz with his Grange bounty.  Bastard.

Grange tends to be a big, bold wine, which ages well and stands up to most grilled red meat.  The flavor profile in the vintages I have tasted tends toward blueberries or blackberries, dark chocolate, and sweet spices.  This is not a wine for casual drinking, but should be saved for special occasions.  I will be raising a glass of something less special in Drizz's honor whenever he pulls this bottle out for some unsuspecting guests.  I only hope he appreciates how lucky he got to avoid getting crAAKKed ....


--------------------------------------------------------------------

* As I was doing some final editing of this post, I noticed that Dominic had posted his own report on the tournament.  He also noted how he owned me at the table, but was kind enough to suggest that it was solely due to his having position on me most of the time. Although position may have played a small role in our clashes, I have no shame in honestly admitting Dominic simply outplayed me 98% of the time.  There was one hand where Dom 3-bet me preflop, and I decided I needed to make a stand, and put in a stiff 4-bet with something like 87 soooted.  Dom looked like he smelled a rat, but eventually made a very reluctant fold.  After that, I steered clear of him like a nun offered a slot tourney junket.

December 07, 2010

A Long December for Online Poker

A long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last ...


—"A Long December" by Counting Crows

The poker world has been abuzz recently with news that Senator Harry Reid, trying to deliver some pork to his political donors/masters in the casino industry, is attempting to backdoor an online poker legalization bill in the current lame-duck session of Congress.  The best summaries of the bill's legal provisions as it evolves have come from F-Train, who incidentally co-exists as a brilliant lawyer in the ethereal plane of an alternate universe (his summary of the initial bill, and his summary of the revised bill).  Breaking news updates on the Reid bill can be found by following the Pokerati crew (Twittering as Dan Michalski and Scarlet Robinson), and by keeping up with Bluff Magazine's Kevin Mathers and gaming law expert Stuart Hoegner.  Good commentary has been offered by Shamus, Bill Rini, BJ Nemeth, and Poker Grump (with a refreshingly contrarian take on events).

At this point, I really have nothing to add to the analyses offered by these esteemed members of the poker media.  Also, it's still unclear whether this bill has a reasonable chance of passing.  So much of what happens in these lame-duck sessions is a matter of horse-trading and nose-holding.  But, as written, it seems likely if the bill passes, online poker as we know it will undergo a seismic change that may dwarf both the Moneymaker boom and the UIGEA ice age.

A few of the significant provisions of the current version of the proposed bill essentially will require current online poker sites (e.g., PokerStars and Full Tilt) to cease operations within 30 days of enactment of the law, and refund all deposits to customers.  Then, there will be a 15 month blackout of all online poker in the U.S. while regulations are promulgated.  Next, current U.S. land-based casinos will be able to request licensing from state gaming boards, most likely limited to only either Nevada or New Jersey.  Finally, two years later, current non-U.S. and non-casino companies can request licensing.

The upshot of this bill is that current mega-sites like PokerStars and Full Tilt will need to go dark for a little over three years—a lifetime in the online poker industry.  Further, eventual licensing would likely be considered by the Nevada or New Jersey gaming commissions, which at least appear beholden to the land-based industry heavyweights such as Harrahs/Caesars, MGM, Las Vegas Sands, and Wynn.  So, licensing at a later time is no guarantee; all the gaming commissions would need to do is enact a regulation barring licensing to online gaming sites which violated any state or federal gaming laws in the past decade—not that they would ever act in a protectionistic manner.   Thus, this bill would place current sites between a rock and a hard place.  Comply with the rules, and they give up three years of U.S. revenues, with no guarantee of reentering the U.S. market, and after giving Harrah's/Caesar's, MGM, et al. a two-year head start in building client bases under the new regulatory regime.  Defy the law, and not only is licensing forfeited permanently, but current federal investigations into the legality of online poker sites and their monetary transactions would intensify exponentially, with new, easier to prove criminal acts and penalties in the federal prosecutor's quiver.

If the major sites do go dark, what will happen to all the online poker players?  I suspect many of these online players live within a reasonable driving range of a live poker room or casino.  But, online poker—with its microstakes, rakeback, multi-tabling, sit-n-gos, non-hold 'em games, guaranteed tournaments, etc.—is a far different beast than a typical live poker game.  Further, the skills and game strategy needed for successful live game play are different than for online play.  There are plenty of great live players who are donkeys online, and vice versa.  Also, many online players simply cannot fit live play into their schedules the same as they can online play.  So, will live games see an influx of online players?  Will live games become tougher?  Would this have a detrimental effect on live poker?

With a blackout period, there's also no guarantee that when online poker returns, it will be the same sort of game as it is currently, or as it was in its post-Moneymaker, pre-UIGEA, Party Poker heydays.  Will many current casual players move on to new hobbies, never to return?  Or will the easier—and legal—deposit structures, combined with regulatory controls over cheating and "name-brand" sites (e.g., WSOP, Venetian, etc.) bring in tons of new fish?  Has the poker boom passed for good, and will the new sites wind up battling for the scraps of hardcore players?

Along similar lines, will online poker become less lucrative for all but the most elite players? Regulated online poker means that online poker will be run by companies that already rake live poker cash games at up to $5+$1, and charge exorbitant juice on low buy-in tournaments.  Can online poker players say goodbye to rakeback as they currently know it? Regulated online poker also means that the IRS will be sniffing out whether poker players report their winnings, which means poker players will need to take taxes into account when playing, and which in turn will cut into profits as well as the money available in the poker economy.  Yes, I agree, poker players should already be completely compliant with tax laws—and they should also refrain from speeding.  The reality is that tax reporting requirements will have a real and noticeable effect on the online poker economy.  Online poker regulations may also prohibit data-mining software; how many online poker players need such "heads up" software to show a consistent profit?

The new online poker universe would also change the online poker economy, likely sounding the death-knell for the current "affiliate" referral model, where websites get paid bonuses based on the activity of the players they refer to the poker sites.  The land-based casinos—Harrah's/Caesar's, MGM, Venetian/LVSands, Wynn, etc.—already have large databases of poker players.  They can market directly to these individuals, as well as targeting new players through online advertising.  They have no real need to rely on referrals from online poker media sites, poker blogs, etc.  So, the passage of the Reid bill might mark the beginning of a shakeup in the poker media, and a significant change in the poker media business model.

Now, fully legal and regulated online poker offers many advantages over the current—and likely untenable—system.  Regulations can put legal teeth into prohibitions against cheating in all its forms—whether by players or the house—ensuring accountability and a fair game for all players.  Legalization would also bring a measure of respectability to online poker, taking away some of the stigma of being an outlaw form of gambling.  Of course, legalization would also make money transfers to and from poker sites a relative breeze compared to the current byzantine maneuvers required to avoid legal traps.

There's no question that legalization and regulation would bring a sea change to online poker as we know it.  Yet, somehow, the current proposal leaves "the feeling that it's all a lot of oysters, but no pearls".

December 04, 2010

Big Hands, Big Defeats

"Big hands, big feet.  You know what that means."

"Big gloves, big shoes."

In honor of my recent birthday, I took the afternoon off, and enjoyed a late lunch at Jethro's BBQ before heading to the Meadows ATM for some poker insanity.  The room was busy, but I got right into a 1/2 NLHE game, where I found a table filled with the usual suspects.  I wound up spending most of the evening next to "Pervert Mark", known for his love of telling dirty jokes, making risqué comments, being far too open about his love of strip clubs, oversharing about his sex life with his wife, and flirting with any woman within 20 feet of his table.  However, his schtick is harmless and rather amusing, though some of his quips are enough to make a sailor blush.  My favorite line this session was when he broke his chips into $20 stacks while pondering a raise, and stated, "If I think of these as chips, I play stupid.  But if I think of them as lap dances, I play smart." Not exactly Harrington On Hold 'Em, but solid advice nonetheless.

This evening turned out to be one of those sessions where my profit or loss would come from just a few key hands.  After a couple hours of sparring, I found myself in my first big pot.  A loose player raised preflop, and I called from the big blind with AdJd, as did a couple other players.  The flop was pretty meh, K-T-8 with one diamond (the ten).  I check-called the continuation bet, thinking I would reevaluate the hand after the turn, looking for a chance to steal on a show of weakness.  That plan went out the window as the turn brought the best card in the deck for me—the Qd—giving me the nut straight and the nut flush draw and gutshot royal flush draw as well.  Donkey Kong!  With the badbeat jackpot sitting at $112,000, I had visions of the river Kd giving me a royal flush against quad kings.  I check-raised for about half my remaining chips, and was called.  Regrettably, the river was a blank, but I pushed all-in and got the courtesy double-up from an overplayed AK.   And yes, hilarity ensued!

Later, I got into a big pot when I called a preflop raise in the blinds, along with five others, holding Ah9h.  The flop was a gorgeous 9-9-5.  Yahtzee!  I check-raised a c-bet, and got one caller.  The turn brought a disappointing 5, giving me the boat, but likely chopping the pot. I bet, was raised, and called, wanting to see the river before getting pot-committed for my stack—any Ten or Eight would give me pause about being counterfeited by a better boat. The river was a deuce, so I led out for $125, a little over half the pot. My opponent thought a bit, leading me to realize I had misread his turn action, and he likely held a smaller boat with a mere Five.  He finally made the crying call and indeed showed the Five. Good times!

I was contemplating whether to leave with my profit when three rather loose-playing friends sat down, and the action jumped a few notches to crazy.  These guys would ram and jam with next to nothing, then win with rivered two pairs or gutshots.  I decided to stay and see what happened.  One of them was eventually knocked out when on the turn, with the board showing 8-8-A-4, he bet $50, the tightest player at the table check-raised to $200, and the kid pushed all-in for another $100.  The tight player shrugged, called, and tabled ... wait for it ... an Eight.  Shocking.  River was a face card, and kid flashed ... wait for it ... pocket ducks.  Yup, he tried to bluff with a two-outer against a pot-committed, deep-stacked, uber-tight player showing strength who was basically telegraphing he held trip eights.  Again, not exactly Harrington on Cash Games.

After the kid left, another crazy regular, Brian, sat down.  Now Brian loves to gamboool, but is a good LAG player who is not afraid to make and call big bets.  On Brian's first hand, he posted in from middle position, and raised to $20.  I was in the big blind, and found pocket Queens.  I raised to $60 total, and got three callers, for a $240+ pot preflop!  Flop was T-6-4 rainbow; not bad for Queens.  I led out for $200 total.  First guy folded, but one of the maniacs pushed all-in for $201.  Brian then pushed all-in for $240.  I made the easy call.  Turn was a Deuce, and the river was a Jack ... giving Brian two pair with his JT offsuit.  Other kid flashed an Eight before mucking.  Fun times.

About an orbit later, I'm on the button when Brian raised yet again preflop, perhaps the 8th time in a row.  I made the call with Q8 of spades.  Error No. 1.  A couple of others call, and the flop came down Kh-Ts-9s, giving me a flush draw, gutshot straight draw, and straight flush draw.  It checked to Brian who led at the pot for $20, roughly half pot.  I raised to $60 total.  The small blind thought, then called.  Brian immediately pushed all-in.  Aiyiyi!!  My semi-bluffing ability just vanished in a poof of aggression.  I figured Brian had at least a King, but ... it was hard to tell, as he's capable of making a move with any two cards.  He has often shown down outrageous bluffs.  I started thinking about whether my monster draw was actually a favorite over his likely range, forgetting about the yahoo caller behind me.  Error No. 2.   Finally, I decided to make the call, figuring my monster draw gave me plenty of outs, plus there was a lot of dead money in the pot.  Error No. 3.  That's when the yahoo started thinking about calling, despite also having a monster stack. Say what?? I instantly knew yahoo had the nut flush draw, and I started wishing for him to fold. Regrettably, the folding fairy was busy over at the 3/6 LHE game for the first time since the badbeat jackpot went over $50,000.  Error No. 4.  Yahoo finally made the call with ... As6s. My monster draw immediately resembled Dracula with a garlic-laced stake through his heart. The turn and river rolled off as a red Nine and a red Four, and Brian rolled over KT offsuit to drag the monsterpotten.

Just goes to show I should heed my own mantra:

"There's always a better place to get it in bad."

December 01, 2010

D'Bag O' the Day (v.1.17)—
Daniel Negreanu Loves C*ck ... Jokes

I was working on a poker and philosophy post last night, and had thought about doing some editing on it over the lunch hour.  Instead, I got a little sidetracked by a Pokerati.com news update that reported on a weird prop bet involving Daniel Negreanu.  Here are the details from Dan Moore at the Cake Poker Blog:
When your career is playing poker, but you're so bored by the game that you make all-in calls with 8-6 offsuit whenever you play on TV, you have to figure out new ways to entertain yourself.  And last night Daniel Negreanu did, by paying some guy $1,000 to get a tattoo.  And not just any tattoo...  He bribed the guy to permanently mark himself with the message "Loves C---" for about the price of a night of bottle service at Tao.

Really?  Daniel Negreanu did that?  Let's go to the November 12, 2010 @RealKidPoker Twitter feed (here, here, and here):
I'm paying a guy to get his 1st tattoo. $1000 to put "Loves C---" on his arm. He's down! This is so funny wow! So fun.
The tattoo artist is like the funniest guy ever he's laughing and cracking jokes the whole time. Here it is:
Ladies and gentleman. Say hello to @ what a trooper. Courtesy of Simply Ink "exotic tattoos" haha!

Here's what Dom Matteucci, the man with the ink, had to say on Twitter (here and here):
Just got "loves cock" tattooed on my arm for $1000. Thanks @
Waking up. Tattoo still on arm. Shit.

Of course, there was a thread about the prank in the 2+2 forums, including this account of events by Negreanu himself:
Ok some of you guys are just ridiculous. This guy is an actor creating a pilot for a show where he does ridiculous things. I was with a group of like 10 people and we went to a tattoo place cause the girls were thinking of getting something. Dom was there too and the girls started messing with him like "how much to get a tattoo of ---- on your stomach?" etc.

Then he said he'd get that tattoo for $1000 so I called his bluff! Much like me on TV when I pay off the nuts, this guy was a man of his word and went through with it. It was all in good fun, there was no "exploitation" at all, this Guy is a comedian and he loves to shock people.

He came out with us again last night and said he loves the tattoo and he's keeping it! It sure is a solid conversation starter, that's for sure.

None of it was my idea, the girls wanted to see it happen and for $1000 I figured it was worth the entertainment dollar and we got it all on video for his pilot.

Now go back to your regularly scheduled hatin'

Oh yeah, I get it.  It's funny 'cause he's straight, and he got a permanent tattoo saying he's, you know, gay.  'Cause if you're a straight guy, it's really embarrassing for people to think you're gay.  Freakin' hilarious. But, as long as Negreanu and the guy with the tattoo thought it was funny, well, laugh with them or you're "hatin'."

Would Negreanu have found the stunt nearly as funny and as worthy of sharing with his nearly 70,000 Twitter followers if the tattoo's punchline contained racial or anti-Semitic overtones?  Or what if the tattoo had been a joke at the expense of women?  Well, let's go to the archives.  Remember that little brouhaha this past summer over Shaun Deeb dressing in drag and playing the WSOP Ladies' Event ?  Here's what Negreanu had to say about that "joke":
As for Shaun Deeb handling himself in a classy manner playing the event, at least he wasn't the guy using a tampon as a card protector, but he did dress in drag and his goal was to make a mockery of the event, which in turn simply mocks the women who choose to enter it.

I'm sure Shaun Deeb made some people laugh in his dress, and I don't doubt that tampon-card-protector guy got a few chuckles for his stunt, even if only from his buddies.  I'm also certain that the tattoo prop bet was absolutely hilarious fun for Negreanu and his entourage, and probably funny for many of his followers.  But here's the thing—funny and offensive are not mutually exclusive.

Even though I'm gay and have a good life, things are still tough for many gay folks, particularly gay youths.  Making being gay the butt of a silly prop bet isn't the worst insult gay folks will face.  But, it certainly isn't the kind of conduct one should expect from an ambassador for Team PokerStars and one of the leading media figures for poker in general. 

Turning back to the WSOP Ladies' Event debate, Negreanu stated:
I'm not a woman, so I couldn't fully understand the level of intimidation a woman would face when she sits down at a poker table full of men.  For some, it's no big deal, but for a large majority, I imagine they are a bit worried about "looking stupid" or being judged.  It's human nature.

Negreanu is apparently equally clueless about gay poker players.  I hear plenty of anti-gay jokes and comments every time I play poker in a casino.  Now, I just let 99.9% of it slide off my back because I enjoy the game.  Also, taking chips from yahoos is the best revenge.  But those kinds of anti-gay attitudes probably do keep many gay poker players away from the game. 

It's kind of sad that Negreanu is so eager to champion the cause of women who want to play poker, but thinks of gays as nothing more than a putdown punchline.

November 30, 2010

Comments On Comments,
With a Follow Up on Following

I greatly appreciate readers who take time to comment on a post, whether to give feedback or to offer a different perspective on an issue.  In fact, I would welcome even more comments than are the norm for crAAKKer; let me hear from you!  However, a couple of recent posts have received higher than normal comments, with a couple of minor issues arising which I think merit some brief meta-comment from me.

  1. Comments on crAAKKer always have been unmoderated, meaning comments post immediately without my prior review and approval.  The downsides to that approach are that occasional spam comments get posted, and I do not get to filter out other inappropriate comments prior to posting.  For now, I think the unmoderated system is working fine, given the volume of comments posted.
  2. I do not have a specific comment moderation policy, as I am a firm believer in free speech and the value of a robust debate.  Thankfully, to date I have only deleted a handful of comments, all because they were spam for various businesses of dubious nature.  I hope this continues to be the case, and I am confident crAAKKer readers will continue to comment in a civil manner.
  3. I would ask that readers leaving comments review their comments prior to posting to ensure that they are not an unfair personal attack on another commenter, and that their comment does not use unnecessarily inflammatory language.  Civility is the key concept; vigorous debate can be rough and tumble, but should always be civil.  A comment need not reach the level of defamation to violate the civility ideal.  Also, with a nod to Justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define incivility, but I know it when I see it.  I definitely reserve the right to delete comments which are defamatory, rude, inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate.  Unfortunately, I am unable to edit posted comments, so my only option with a comment that crosses into incivility will be to delete the post.
  4. I am actually A-OK with commenters who wish to link to other blogs or websites, if doing so advances their comment, or provides additional information about their comment or the comment author.  I only consider a comment to be "spam" if the primary purpose of the comment is to link to another site.  So please, feel free to link to your blog or website as part of your comment.
  5. If you have trouble posting a comment to crAAKKer, or if you have a concern about a comment, please feel free to email me directly, using this blog title at that gmail.com server.
On a semi-related issue, I have been gaining a number of new Twitter followers recently, which is also greatly appreciated.  Hopefully you find my tweets entertaining!  Because I get occasional questions about how I decide to follow folks on Twitter, here are some general guidelines:
  1. I do not vouch for anyone who follows me on Twitter.  I periodically review my followers and try to block those which are clearly spam, but there are businesses which appear legitimate which follow me. Use your own judgment as to whether to follow my followers.
  2. I follow people I know personally.
  3. I follow people who I find entertaining, informative, or interesting.
  4. I do not follow people whose posts are essentially hand by hand recitations of poker sessions. Highlight hands are great, but I don't want to sort through three dozen tweets about routine hands.
  5. I do not automatically follow someone merely because they follow me.
  6. I do not follow businesses unless they are a business I personally use and like, and they refrain from spamming via Twitter.
  7. I rarely follow people who protect their Tweets.  This is generally because, for people I don't know, I like to scan their Tweets to see if they are someone I'd like to follow.
  8. Similarly, please note that I do not do "link exchanges" with other blogs or websites.  If I like a website, and feel crAAKKer readers might enjoy the blog/website, then I will link to it, regardless of whether they link back to crAAKKer.  If I don't link to your site, it doesn't mean I don't like your site, it merely means I just don't think linking to your site is appropriate for my readers.
These are obviously general guidelines, but I've found that I need some basis for limiting the number of Tweets I receive each day.  Currently, I can expect to find 50-100 new Tweets to scan through every couple of hours during the day, and more on weekends.  I find y'all incredibly fascinating, but there are practical limits to how many Tweets any person can process in a given day.