Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Catching up on the Poker Blog Comments.... Part Two

More comments and my responses. Thanks for reading this little No limit Texas Hold'em
blog. Much apprecitated that it's finding some people who find it ineresting. I'll continue my break from
Online Sit and go poker tournaments to respond some more.

What did you think about the big Cheong-Duhamel hand?

Congrats! I hadn't checked the blog in a while and it was nice to come back for a win. Definitely post more details. I might be heading down to New Orleans for New Year's, so we should definitely hang.


Hi Keenan, I think I'll be in town New Years so I'm down with meeting up with you in the Harrahs poker room. Don't felt me too often. Sorry, I was light on the details of the that tournament I never really got back to. It was another event where nothing got going until it really mattered and then I really started to chip up, and had the luxury of exploiting the tightest guy in the field image I had built up by being dreadfully card dead.

The Cheong-Duhamel hand was impressive. It's easy to criticize Cheong for his play three handed but I think both he and Duhamel showed the guts needed to win one of those things. Cheong, I think felt he could get Duhamel off the hand and had the heart to follow that instinct to the end.

Credit to Duhamel, I don't think at any point he thought he was going to fold QQ. Granted hand ranks sky-rocket three handed but at some point with all that first place money on the line don't you wonder if he's thinking... I'm up against AK I'm not going to coinflip for 9 million, ESPECIALLY with the short stack in between us. I know that thought would be in my mind, but those two were playing for first. Though, if I was a pansy I would have called at some point but not folded.

That may be the difference between me and them, I think why not just call and see the flop but both those guys were going to outplay the other. Youth has its advantages. Phil Ivey tightened up at the Main Event final table last year, because he understands just how hard, if not, impossible it would be to get back. Two young-uns didn't even entertain the thought of playing more conservatively. That's also what got them there. I'm really slow to ever critisize a successful player for something they do at the final table. One, we all make mistakes and I would think after all that play, plus all those months of expecations and waiting it has to be torture.

Two, they probably did those things, and played that way just to get there, so why should they change their style. Granted, why not just wait til Racener was chipped away and then settle matters? Course Racener doubles up once it changes the dynamic completely. Then he's almost even with the guy he doubled through. Maybe Cheong and Duhamel both thought the other would slow down and they could exploit that little bit of conservativeness. I don't know but it made for really entertaining poker. What did you think?

VERY good blog, Sir. I was there that day playing in this tourney and even though Monkey can really get under my skin at imes, ok most the time, I was proud to call him a fellow poker player on this day. He completely showed his testicular fortitude in putting on hose, painting his nails, and wearing, a bra. Lets face it, Monkey is a force to be reckoned with, but damn for the greater good why the hell were they barred from this event? I mean who said what and why did they have the final say in this? Would love to know names but no one seems to have that same testicular fortitude to give up the names as Monkey and Kai did the day of the event. Great blog, and next year I think they should register a day in advance to protect thim from this bullchit KD-Gautier

Thank you for the kudos KD. Agreed on all points.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Catching up on the Poker Blog Comments....

First off, thank you to those of you who commented recently on this Texas Holdem blog. Sorry, I didn't "authorize" the comments sooner. I've gotten so disenchanted by the spam this blog receives recently that I've been neglectful in getting the comments on the site. So, of course I get a handful of really good ones and they just sat there. I promise to do better next time no matter if I'm off trying to play poker tournaments or not..

So I thought I'd post most of them here and respond where necessary.

kinda like the Gold, Silver, Bronze idea for Main Event Bracelets, that would be kinda cool. I was hoping you might be willing to swap blog links with me. I've already added you to mine @ http://atkinator.net Cheers, James

Will do James as soon as I get this post up (or sooner). By the way I could relate with your post about being a dad and its effect on poker. Seems like you can get back to the grind a little better than I have. And nice friggin' blog. Check it out people.



I think if the WSOP were to increase their main event to a $50,000 buy-in, as they do with a couple of events per year, or, better yet, a $100,000 buy-in it would be great. As much as I would regret not being able to play this ME without the good fortune of winning a "super super duper satellite," it would be good for poker for several reasons.



First the "wow" factor would be reinstilled into the event. I personally think $10,000 is life changing money for me, but apparently around 8,000 people per year do not.



Second, it's too difficult to market a bunch of strangers to the adience every year. Imagine if the cast of "Lost" or any other show were to change it's cast every year with random people off the street. No audience interest. Hell, Mizrachi was the "big name" at the event and he's about as charsmatic as paste. Duhamel? What a yawn for the industry.



If the stake is raised, your established players, like it or not, will be familiar faces time and time again with a few new faces that the audience would root for against the establishment. Pretty much like how peole root for anyone who plays against the Yankees. No one cares about the Brewers... or DUHamel. ZZZZzzzzzzzz. Like the idea or not, it would preserve, maybe increase ratings. KMan.



Thanks for reading KMan. I like your ideas. I think the Main Event is stagnant on the 10k because of the Moneymaker effect and they think they need to have an every man in contention every year. If I think about it, it was 10k way back in the 70s when 10k got you a hell of a lot more than it does today. They also like that giant field, that has become kind of a recent tradition, though maybe one worth keeping for the Main Event.



It has enjoyed growth most years and is inching back to the Jaime Gold record year, and I think Harrahs likes that. Maybe they could do both. Still cover the most ginormous (who knew the word ginormous was first used in 1948) poker tournament in the World, but finish the tournament with a nightcap of the ultimate high-rollers tournament but use most of hi-roller footage for the ESPN telecasts. I think they could have those guys come back in a November Nine format too. I guess they are moving in that direction a little bit with the Players Championship and the 40k last year. Still, both of those final tables had a lot of new blood too. We need Darvin Moon and Steve Dannemann, but you are right they need a foil with some accolades that aren't garnered online first.

To be Continued...

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Mo... Movember, Poker, and Thanksgiving


I once lost a mustachio bet. They weren't nearly as hip or cool as they are these days with James Franco rocking one without any irony. So, I had to grow one and go out with my friends sporting a stash. I went handlebars and tried to pull off bad ass. I didn't grow the perm or side-burns but I should have.
This time I grew the hair to match, but of course I forgot to take any photos with my hair comically coiffed. Oh well, that makes as much sense as Formula 1 betting because you drive a car. Anyway, I'm submitting some photos for the competition and I will have some mustache photos of me on here too, soon.
So, there I was with this gross third eyebrow over my mouth and I was stuck going to seeing Grand-mother. She's 95 so to say she's a little conservative, considering she predates the parents of hippies is to put it mildly. I don't think she approves of any facial foilage, especially a shaggy stache that looked as ridiculus as the one on my face.
Before we got to her, I had to see my parents first. I know they hated it. That was delightful. If my parents don't like an aspect of my appearence like the foolish earring I got in college they'll simply ignore it. Until it is brought up and my dad would say something clever like, "If you want to look like an idiot it's your choice."
So, we met them at a restaurant outside of Pensacola while my grandmother was napping. Of course they only wanted to see the baby or more accurately our toddler but as my mother greeted me I could feel her eyes studying my face. I felt like Drew Brees on the Oprah Winfrey show and my mother hadn't even said anything. Inside I found it to be... mustachtic.
She said nothing, yet I knew she was thinking "What a moron I have for a kid," as I would have if I were in her shoes.
My dad was waiting in the restaurant and he too tried to play it cool without saying a word. I turned my head to put my son in the high chair and I watched in the corner of my eye, my father literally do about five takes studying my mustache while I wasn't looking. I now knew what a lady with massive cleavage feels like when she purposelly wears a low cut shirt and all they guys get tractor beamed into the crease in her chest when she turns for just a second.
Again, I found this mus-tastic.
As per the competition rules, I could not tell him why I had a mustache and I was actually enjoying it. They didn't refer to it once not even a full day into the visit, so I know they HATED it. Hilarious.
I have a weird private sense of humor. Sometimes I'll share it with a close friend and say ridiculous things in public places loud enough for some-one else to hear just so I can laugh inside my head at what I know is going on inside the stranger's head. One of my favorite such things to say is to walk up on a stranger with a wrap-up sentence. A wrap-up sentence concluding a head-scratching conversation such as...
"...so yeah, anyway, that's how I got my third testicle," or...
"so after all that, and tranquilizing the poor thing, they finally got her arm out of the elephant's ass but here's the weird thing instead of her wedding ring it was some one elses," or one I springed with my kid in my arms out recently...
"so after taking the DNA test it was neither of our kids, turns out they must have given us the wrong baby at the hospital, but I'm not complaining this kid's a saint, we're keeping him."
... to be continued...

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Movember, Thanksgiving, and Poker but not in that order...


So we were in the middle of the letter from my cousin that got me Mo-tivated to do something Mus-tastic. Which by the way is my new adjective that I will wear out. I used to like delicious or turgid but now it's Mus-tastic. I will use it liberally where it totally doesn't apply.

Btw, Mus-stastic is a very postive thing. Like I hit a two outer at the upcoming Harrahs Poker Texas Hold em tournament, you'll hear me murmur "Mus-tastic" and nod my head in happy celebration. Actually, you'll see me mumble and imperceptibly move my head as I don't talk much when playing poker, but if you can lip read a mumbler I'll be saying Mus-stashtic. You'll notice I haven't settled on a spelling yet, but that's besides the point.

Next time I'm trying to learn Omaha poker online it will certainly be in the chat box. Okay, back to the letter from my cousin. Where were we… rule 5?

5. I will match the entire pot and donate it to prostate cancer research.
6. Absentee Portrait Photos will be accepted from absentee mustache growing men and they will be included in the judging. You don't have to miss this just because you can't make it to the party.
7. It is frowned upon to talk to the unenlightened about why you are doing this. A MAN suffers in silence. Show up to the party with an honest estimate of the number of times you fessed up. If it is more than once, we will divide your number of votes by that number. I admit to a few already -- very unlikely that I'll win this year.

Who is with me???

GentleMEN!! start your engines!!"

How could I refuse this invitation. A chance to sully a face with a hairy caterpillar for a good cause. For heaven's sake did you see the name of the bar they are going to afterward (btw, they live in San Diego) Thrusters? Can that be real. What better place for a cavalcade of mustachioed men than a bar named Thrusters.

Sure, I might get confused for a member of the Village People, but isn't the cause worth it? As for poker applications I can be that shaggy guy at the end of the table twisting his mustache for effect and kind of go incognito. The finished product had me able to morph into Gene Shallit or as my dad would say the neighbor from the Dagwood cartoon strip. Just so you know, I also grew my hair long.

For Halloween I grew out the Go-tee and the hair for my costume of Dr. Frankenstein, with the son as Frankenstein and the wife as Bride of Frankenstein. So, I already had a mop. I thought it would help with the contest but it didn't really but for those of you wondering that's why I was looking so shaggy. I thought the extra hair would really enable me to pull of an Anchorman 70s style look.

Didn't quite come to fruition. Though I did get a lot of weird looks at the tail end of the month. We went to the zoo as a family and I waited outside a dinosaur exhibit with the empty baby stroller by myself. I know people pondered what the creepy guy was doing.

I was hoping someone could engage me so I could say "picking up a kid today" or something benign but possibly dastardly in the mind of a concerned parent. Actually, not really, looking like a creep was creeping me out too. I found myself doing creepy things like cutting in line, wearing tighty-whities and bathing less frequently.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Thanksgiving, Poker and Movember

So, the wife, the kid, and not the dogs, and I are headed over to Florida to spend Thanksgiving with my parents, my sister, and my 94 year old grandmother. There is part of me that wanted to jet off to the Kennel Club and play some No limit Texas Hold'em in Pensacola and see how things are and get a taste of that live action. I believe the offer cash games and maybe Sit'n go tournaments. But every time I hear about the "sit 'n go" tournaments they are never spreading them. I think this is an antique from the old Florida laws to get around buy-in caps, but I'm not sure.

Only problem time is extremely compressed, and because of obligations we were already cutting our trip short.

First off, with little fanfare I did the mustache Mo-vemeber thing. Yes. I know what you are thinking, and yes, I will provide photo-evidence. Here's why, I got this email from my cousin:

"MEN,

Almost three years ago, I made a promise to my father, who carries a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer that as long as he was alive, I would grow my mustache out for the month of MOvember. He has already outlived many dire predictions of various oncologists. Maybe my mustache has nothing to do with this.... but a MAN keeps his word. Last year I donated my Salt Lake City mustache contest prize money to prostate cancer research.

This year... I planned to suffer in silence. Friends (mere boys) are looking for jobs, wives, respect... The excuses are flying all around me. Unlike The Mayor, my heart is easily swayed... I planned to let them off the hook. I didn't want to pull them down with me. But I personally cannot be deterred from my crusade.

However, I have been approached by multiple inspired MEN. MEN who want to support my father, MEN who want to look like cops, porn stars, firemen, race car drivers, or Tom Seleck. Simply MEN who want to feel like MEN for the month of November.

Yes Darren and Joel, I am worried that you all were hoping that if no one brought this up... MOvember would slip quietly by... no one the wiser. Let's face it... It might not be as hip as it was last year. But this is no fad!!! As the reigning KING I am obligated to bring the pain!

SO I THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET ---- RIGHT NOW!!!!

RULES ARE SIMPLE --
1. Start growing it now (I took a one week head start as home court advantage), if you are a habitual grower -- shave it off and start over
2. NOTHING BELOW the UPPER LIP -- this is about traditional suffering -- a MAN takes the pain this month -- no gorgeous goatees, no hip handle bars, no sexy soul patches, no lovely lamb chops, NOTHING metro, dressed up, or even remotely resembling a new fangled Justin Timberlake connecty thing.
3. $15 dollar entry fee to become a real MAN for a month
4. The pot goes to a "KING" judged at a contest/party at my house on December 11th (or December 4th if Sharon doesn't make me go to Texas that weekend). The vote will be secret ballot, polling the crowd. And we will go to the bar "Thruster's" -- en masse around 10:30pm -- and the KING may, at his option, wear his crown. The KING is free to spend the money has he pleases -- but a small donation to the charity would be cool.

-Letter to be continued in the next post...

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Improvements to the World Series of Poker November Nine part 2


Okay, my last post kind of just listed some of what ails the November Nine without really offering some improvements. I guess I could have also mentioned the World Series invested about 21 million, that the winners would receive for the No limit Texas Hold'em tournament, that was sitting around for 3 and half months with Goldman Sachs. That's supposedly the best of the best when it comes to investing and they made a whopping $459. Yes, in three and a half months 21 million returned $459. I'm not joking.

For the year, that rate is 0.008%. I've heard of safe but that's ridiculous. Granted people may be quick to say at least they didn't lose money so I'll say it for you... at least they didn't lose money... BUT wait they did. Had they put it almost any other safe investment they would have earned more, hell if they used it to online poker tournaments they would have made a ton more.

So the winner, Duhamel pocketed an extra $170 bucks or something, Racener an even $100. Matt Jarvis $5. Yeah. Oh, I hinted I wasn't going to bitch about that and I just did. Okay, let's get to some solutions:

Step 1, obviously, invest somewhere else.

Step 2, as I mentioned at the tail end of the previous post, the WSOP needs to mandate their broadcasting partner ESPN market the event. Plan, a blitz of the studios in the lead up to the finale. No half-assed participation either. Make the players agree to it when they buy-in, doesn't matter if they are Phil Ivey or Gene D, they make the final table, like it or not they are going to every TV outlet that will put them on (within reason). Not negotiable they don't want to agree to it, they don't have to play. WSOP can even pay them small stipends for their time out of their marketing money

Step 3, move up the play for the final table. I believe it is Saturday/Monday and aired on Tuesday. If they needed an extra hour so bad, give the editors an extra day. Go to Friday/Sunday format.

Step 4, likely this won't be the last year the heads up action pits a chip giant with a chip midget. Up the intrigue by coming back three handed. Granted they'll have less time to put together the show but that's why there's an extra day. Imagine if Cheong had come back instead of 22 betting Duhamel with Ace rag. Could have been a lot of interesting play.

Step 5, don't just award one bracelet. The Main Event is different. There is the World Series and then there is the Main Event. ESPN has programmed it like that because viewers think of it like that. So, award a gold bracelet to first, a silver bracelet to second, and a bronze bracelet to third. Got a Main Event champion that doesn't register or show a pulse, now you got three guys instead of one to push.

As poker becomes more an international game, there are three "winners" like the Olympics, to sell the game to different parts of the world. This year it would have been Canada, Florida and California, but it easily could have been a different Canadian, Italy, and another American. Besides poker keeps trying to get into the Olympics why not accept their format. There is a difference between a "medalist" and a runner-up, it's a matter of semantics, but that medal is more than just symbolic, it embraces the second and third best efforts, and gives them a little prestige as a winner and not a first loser.

Step 6 more events in conjunction with the November Nine. Schedule whatever legends tournament that year to also finish in November, despite the fear of Doyle Brunson making the finale and not making the finale—just kidding Doyle, we know you are going to keep winning poker tournaments for another 40 years.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Improvements to the World Series of Poker November Nine


Yes, I know the World Series of Poker Main Event is perfect, the November Nine has been a dream, and there is no need for improvement. Or not. Television ratings were down for the second year running. In fact, they were barely bigger than they were three years ago before they moved to the November Nine format. Also the odds on favorite Johnathan Duhamel won but he wasn't the guy the suits wanted to win.

The first year of the November Nine ratings took off and a lot of excitement was drummed up and the final table had the feel of an event. It looked like poker was going to carve a little spot into the crowded sports (okay sports/entertainment) television market place. Watching live poker is a bit like watching a pack of caterpillars change into a butterfly. It’s pretty much only interesting when the players have to expose the cards. That would be the moment, a cocoon opens up and out crawls the butterfly. Okay, I should have just said like watching grass grow or paint dry. Sorry. But point is it’s boring, and unlike the other two activities there are brief fleeting moments of excitement. Made all the more exciting if you did a little bwin mobile betting beforehand which I didn't.


The November Nine was an attempt to inject a live “feel” to the game and an event atmosphere to the finale. To a degree, they’ve succeeded at fulfilling those two goals. More and more people crowd into the theatre every year to watch the new champion get crowned and it feels like a Davis Cup Tennis match. The alarming aspect is the tv ratings have gone down.

Last year Phil Ivey made the final table, a guy that is a mainstream an icon as there is in poker save a handful of other players (maybe Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu, Doyle Brunson, Chris Moneymaker, Johnny Chan, and Mike McD) and ratings were still down on the year before.

That indicates there was some novelty in the first year numbers. Of course spoilers are out there and less people tuned in probably because of them (despite ESPN shortchanging all the action after Ivey was eliminated to show more hands with him on the table). This year, there were two changes to the format.

The first was the broadcast was pushed back an hour. Not good for ratings. Think about all those little baseball fans that had to go to bed and missed the World Series, that’s why there should be still day games, okay, sorry wrong sports/entertainment event… but similar thought. This was done to give the producers an extra hour to better package the heads-up action. Yes, an extra hour to fit in those two hands they showed when Racener came in a mammoth underdog , bluffed at the wrong moment and then was finally put out his misery.

Considering he doubled up to afford to bluff once, which wasn’t shown, doesn’t seem like adding that extra hour and losing all those viewers was really necessary. The second change was they streamed a live feed of the final table on the internet. Probably a lot of poker diehards watched that and then did, or more likely did not, watch the telecast because they knew and saw what happened.

Though considering the craziness of some of the hands I would have been motivated to see it again, but maybe that’s just me. So yes, the numbers indicate a poor return on the World Series November Nine format. Also, the media has turned a bit of a blind eye to the game. Even ESPN which is notorious for airing a product but not advertising it, didn’t really sell the Main Event.

Why wasn’t the Grinder on Cold Pizza, Sportsnation, and all over the network. It’s because the suits didn’t care.

... to be continued...

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Cam Newton an unsafe bet...

Uh oh. Yes, I'm an Auburn fan. But what I'm about to write will probably have me getting hate mail from War Eagle nation.

I thought the media would slam Cam, and when I saw noted contrarian Gregg Doyel (why two gs for Gregg I'll never figure it out) take up his side I thought popular thought would go the other way but it hasn't. I thought I'd be taking up for the kid but instead I almost feel like Auburn is getting it too easy. Cam Newton is an unsafe bet in more than one way.

Sure on messageboards they are getting fried but the mainstream media, the voters, and everybody seems to be taking a wait and see approach. Maybe it's because everybody secretly knows Auburn got shafted in one of the Reggie Bush years, they don't care if Auburn also cheats to get to the top of the mountain.

I'm a big SEC fan, but big time college sports pay their players. Want some easy betting tips at the beginning of the season, just figure out who has the biggest payroll. But remember they pay everybody. They pay the families of their players, and sometimes they pay the friends and hanger-ons of their players. John Wooden won 11 titles because the owner of the UCLA Men's basketball professional franchise was Sam Gilbert and he paid the players. Boosters and Alums everywhere have taken ownership of the players for the last fifty years, this is nothing new, and nothing changed.

The 30 for 30 featuring Marcus Dupree was one of the most interesting films I've seen on ESPN recently, and it was humorous how little things have changed. Dupree had a greedy revrend pulling his strings and getting rich off him. Apparently, Cam Newton's father, also a reverand tried to do the same thing.

Though in all the similarities, there were a couple of differences, Oklahoma and Texas laughed in recounting what they openly hinted at was an the illegal recruiting war for Dupree and Newton who is just as much a game changer, is at the center of a dispute that is anything but laughable.

Somebody went a ste too far in throwing mud at the Newton's, and perhaps that along with his Magic Johnson smile, and transformed Newton into a somewhat sympathetic figure. They released his grades and academic troubles which is a federal offense. MSU state ratted out that they might have gotten outbid for Newton's services but as much as they play the innocent card, nobody is innocent in the big business SEC. Over the last twenty years, every single member school including VANDERBILT and MSU have gotten into some sort of trouble.

Auburn is a repeat offender.

Clearly, there is something going on. What did Cam know and what did he not know? More importantly, what did people associated with Auburn pay and how well did they cover their tracks?

Everybody cheats, but that doesn't mean if you are dumb enough to get caught you shouldn't get punished.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Men in Women's only poker event at IP (5 of 5).


If the purpose of women’s events is to sell the game to new audiences, this type of lightheartedness should have been embraced not turned away. It’s scary when you think it through, that the reasons it didn’t happen were most likely because of personal ones and not for noble reasons.

I compared notes with another writer on another Texas Hold em
poker site once and we talked about the tone of “correction” emails. Usually, it’s when a player tells us we misspelled their name. Generally, especially for GCP which is really still more a service to the local community who play poker
than a business, they are very respectful and appreciative. Though, I’ve gotten a few that have been downright rude and accusatory. Oddly, they have always been from women and women only. These offending few have a chip on their shoulder it seems. And by the way, generally the warmest emails are also from women, so I’m not talking about ALL women or making any blanket statements.

Also, I’ve never had a man not be polite when they write to tell me I got their name wrong. Some might not even mention the typo until I see them a tournament months later, but if I get a woman’s name wrong and they write to tell me about it, at best I’m harboring indifference and apathy to their tournaments or their sex, and at worst I’ve been accused of being a sexist. The writer from the far more journalistic news site told me it was the exact same for him. Many women came at him like he intended to screw up their names, men never did.

First of all, by volume we make far more mistakes with men’s names than women’s names. Second of all, lighten up. I spelled your name wrong. My apologies, I’ll fix it. I got it wrong, but it’s not because I hate women or don’t respect you, it’s because I’m a bad proofreader and I’m sloppy. Attack me for that, don’t call me sexist because I spelled your name wrong. You want to call me sexist base it on something tangible... I'm sure you can twist something in these posts do so.

I bring this up, only because it is a small segment of the female poker community that looks for slights where there are none. Just as only a handful of women were opposed to Monkey and Kai playing, there is a small handful of women with their own agenda that is hurting the game for the own sex more than helping it—though they’d be happy to tell you otherwise. I wouldn’t doubt if they were the same handful.

***Look, before I get any hate mail, I love women, I respect women, and I’m all for equal rights. My wife, my mother, my sister and any other woman I've met are just as good as any man. There are millions of smarter women than me, a ton of better female poker players, and a huge number that are better writers than me (maybe a billion). I admit that freely, as I don't think women are inferior in any way. Though as a group there are some things men do better than women and vice versa. I'm pretty confident more women are better skilled at breast feeding than men and more men are probably more proficient at writing their name in the snow with their urine than most women.

I’m not opposed to women having women’s only poker tournaments or women’s only anything. I’m just pointing out the latent hypocrisy in the stated rationales I've heard for not letting the Monkey and Kia play and the real reasons they were excluded. The truth is a hand full of female poker players have an edge over the women’s fields, and they want to protect that edge and protect those fields. I don’t slight those women for feeling that way or protecting that edge, just don’t claim you were barring Kai and Monkey for playing for any other reason than personal ones.

Men in Women's only poker event at IP (4 of 5).



Continued from previous posts on men not being allowed to play the women's Texas Hold em poker tournament at the IP...

It’s framed in a way that I look like an ass by turning it down, and some people donate just for that reason. So some might not have spoke up to join the minority of women who did because they didn’t want to look like they wanted to turn down the charity. And had they played and won, in a way they are kind of forcing people to donate to that charity of their choice. Granted you can do with your winnings whatever you want in any poker tournament or Sit'n go, and nobody's complained about Barry Greenstein donating a chunk of his earnings to charity. Still simply playing for charity doesn’t grant you entrĂ©e into any event.

-Slippery slope

There are a variety of reasons that women’s tournaments are good for poker. I have argued they make poker more lucrative for men in the long run, and I think there is some truth to that (even if overstated and really not marketed at all to accomplish that). So even men should have a vested interest in protecting those fields as we should always be trying to expand and grow the game (a goal we sometimes forget when we let short term greed or anger color our emotions—which ironically, I’ll suggest was just the reason they should have played because it was short term greed or anger that were the prevailing reasons they didn't play... that's a mouth full).

The slippery slope which can diminish the efficacy of the cause of bringing women into the game is you let a couple of men in one year and next year you have five and the next year you have ten. Suddenly, it’s not a women’s event. They are already dubious enough in terms of their legal restrictions so it’s in the interest of the women that play to keep them “women’s” events. Again, this makes sense.

-Conclusions

So, I think some combination of all those reasons conspired to keep Monkey and Kai out. However, when you get right down to it, it was a harmless, fun-spirited and well intentioned effort. I don’t think those two playing would have hurt the women’s game at all, nor inspired a cavalcade of like minded cross-dressers in the future to show up to every LIPs event and turn it into a charity event.

It was a one off. And should have been embraced, as it was by most women there, as a light-hearted and noble tribute to breast cancer (which mostly affects women). In the grand scheme of things, the sanctity of a woman’s tournament was never endangered by Kai or Monkey, whatever equity the player would have given up by allowing them to compete, was small at best.

They only women that it would have minimally harmed were the female poker players that already love the game, not the ones we are “recruiting.” From a legal perspective, and I think this shows Kai and Monkey’s true intentions, had they wanted or insisted on playing they could have. The fact they didn’t, shows their intentions were as stated.

Why not let those guys look like bozos for a few hours? It’s not like this was the World Series of Poker with a huge “purse” to be won it was a small local ladies event. Poker should be about fun. If you really want to grow the game, let all these novices that are supposedly dipping their toes in the shallow end of the pool by playing in a ladies event, see it as a fun and lively endeavor.

They are far more likely to play more if it’s fun to play. Seeing some rule-bound nits excluding jocularity under whatever thin reason I’ve listed (or missed) is hardly going to inspire neophytes to play again in fact, it might deter them.

---To be wrapped up, next post---

Monday, November 08, 2010

Men in Women's only poker event at IP (3 of 5).


Part three of five...

You'd never have this problem with internet poker. Because on the internet every person that says they are a chick is usually a dude. Or maybe I just hang out at the wrong sites. Okay, back on track... say a drunk bachelor party stumbled into the poker tournament room and had never played Texas Holdem poker before and made the same offer, I’d be willing to bet they’d be welcome with open arms. Please come donate and enrich our prize pool. Don’t even worry about dressing in drag. Course welcoming Kai and Monkey meant that there was less of a chance any decent female player was going to win the big prize.

Though, this rationale is more about the female pros than the novice women giving poker a whirl. I get that some female pros may need that score for their bankroll, some women may COUNT on that score for their bankroll, so why would they want to make it tougher to win. Here it’s not the timid little lilies that are scared of a big, bad man it’s the better players scared of somebody else sipping from their honey hole. Course now the motivation isn’t about protecting the spirit of the women’s tournament, it’s about greed. Poker is about greed, so I’m not knocking this viewpoint, but let’s just be clear about it.

-It’s a women’s event not a charity event.

Let’s say you sell newspapers on a corner and a guy sets up shop next to you. Except he says “I’m selling newspapers with all the profits going to charity.” You watch all day as he takes all of your sales. In effect, all that guy is doing is making you donate to charity because you are the only one suffering. The other people are still buying newspapers preferring to buy the ones that help a charity then the ones that line your pocket. But now you have no income because instead of buying from you they chose to buy from the charity. Should you protest, the guy can counter “what you don’t want to help the charity?”

That’s a bad spot because it’s hard to argue without looking like an ass. Now, that isn’t completely analogous to two skilled men entering the tournament (because it’s far more likely they would have just enhanced the prize pool rather than win it all) but it’s close enough. Even worse, even if they didn’t cash, anybody they eliminated would have felt like the newspaper vendor because in their mind those guys shouldn’t have been there to knock them out in the first place.

Women could argue it wasn’t a charity event it was a women’s event. The charity aspect is a noble cause but it’s not one that has to be done during a women’s event. The women could argue the same benefit could have been conveyed by playing the nightly in drag, or a noon event. Jumping into a women’s event merely changes the event. To me this is the best argument and has merit.

Again, the following won’t be an exact parallel but I think the feeling it evokes in me is similar to maybe the one some of the participants had. I give to my charities as I see fit from home. I hate when a store or a promotion (or as supposedly the Ante Up for Africa event did with unmitigated hounding of some 2+2 ers at the WSOP) thrusts their charity in my face and tries to dip into my wallet by public guilting.

I don’t want to have to decline an overeager, earnest check out girl asking me to contribute to the stores charity in a loud and impassioned way to help some poor child without a face every time I pick up a newspaper from a Bookstore chain but I do.

... To be continued....

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Men in Women's only poker event at IP (2 of 5).


Part two of Five...

However, if there were all these newcomers in the Texas Holdem poker, those “scared” little lilies weren’t the ones clamoring for the ouster of Kai and Monkey. The new players that the TDs don’t want to scare off because they are there to learn poker were actually in favor of the antics, I’m told, but it was other females that weren’t.

Here are some of their possible rationales (ladies, this is just silly male speculation please have a sense of humor when necessary and forgive me my handicap of being male):

-They don’t like Monkey and/or Kai.

How can you not like Kai? … … … Just kidding Monk. Poker players are people and people are petty. Get on the bad side of one and they’ll look to make your life uncomfortable and unbearable. They’ll scream about banning you and all the important people they know… and sometimes they do know somebody. The little spats at even a 3-6 limit game can be over mindnumbingly meaningless things. In Atlantic City people will get stabbed for smaller offenses then you’d see in the playground of a schoolyard. So it’s possible there were a few women with a personal axe to grind with either of those two.

-They felt men in drag was making a mockery of their event.

Okay, I can buy this a little bit. But again even as I accept that viewpoint it’s kind of hollow. If women dress like men are they making a mockery of men? Don’t half the female players wear the same uniforma as a male player? Hoodie, shorts (jean shorts maybe), and sneakers? Are cross-dressers making a mockery of women? If Monkey and Kai were going to over-act in bad female stereotypes maybe this has some credence, but I think not.

-They were scared of the big bad men.

I’ll probably be savaged for implying the women’s field is softer and some of the participants have very thin skins when it comes to the stigma that female players save a smaller elite like Vanessa Selbst, Vanessa Rousso, and Jennifer Harman are inferior to male players (btw, they have thin skins because they are petty poker players not because they are women, the only generalization I’d make about women’s skin is it is generally softer--like their poker tournaments).

Course you could argue if the opposite was true, if women were the superior players, we’d have men’s only events and we don’t. But I’m mostly joking, I don’t think any of the women that complained would have any fear sitting down with Monkey or Kai in a standard tournament, or maybe better said, any more fear than a man would.

-They are not charitable.

For the most part I don’t buy this. To them the charity aspect of it was secondary… in a sense. Also, they could believe that “giving to charity” was just a cover story. I know Monkey and Kai well enough to know it wasn’t, but strangers might not believe it. Had they come with a representative for Breast Cancer they’d have more credibility but really who’s going to do that, and the charity aspect was for the women probably a nonissue.

-They didn’t want two of the best players on the Coast competing against them.

Ding, ding, ding. Certainly, this had to steer their opinion. Not that they are scared per se, of Monkey or Kai, but if you are running a race with a cash prize do you really want Carl Lewis in the blocks next to you, of course not, nor do you want somebody you consider you equal when you could win almost as much with them not there.

To be continued...

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Men in Women's only poker event at IP (1 of 5).


So recently two GCPers Monkey and Kai Landry and two other male players (who backed out on the day of) were going to play in the ladies Texas Hold'em poker event at IP World Series of Poker Circuit Satellite. They struck up a deal before hand with the tournament director and thought of a way to play and to make a charitable contribution at the same time. All their winnings would go to breast cancer research and they agreed to dress as women. All parties thought that it would be a fun, memorable and essentially altruistic endeavor.

As the story goes, Monkey and Kai showed up just after the start of things in the first or second level and they were barred from playing because at the Tournament Director’s discretion registration had closed before late registration was overall. Considering the TD had never used that discretion in any other event in the IPs poker tournament history in the past five years something was rotten in Steinmart. Several women that arrived after them were also kept out of the tournament (collateral damage). After some debate the registration was reopened and the two men, or on that day two UGLY women, were allowed to play… only for several women to speak up against their inclusion. As a result, Monkey and Kai did not play.

Based on everything I’ve read about male players trying to play in women’s events, which is legal, even without the sexuality disguises, women aren’t happy about it. Shaun Deeb, in drag, was vilified for it recently, just as other players have been in the past including a guy I think in Atlantic City who won the tournament he played in. So when I heard of this plan I thought things could blow up.

Industry insiders tell you the point of the women’s only event is to grow the game. Yes, men are excluded, but we should be understanding of that exclusion because the women’s game, so the rationale goes, is less threatening to other women. Ladies who normally wouldn’t play in the intimidating male dominated fields might play in the female friendly poker tournaments. And from there make the next step to the bigger multi-sex tournaments or to the poker room. Call it a gateway tournament. So men profit by it as well.

On the face of that, I would find that offensive if I were a woman. Really? Big bad men playing scare away all the women so you need a tournament without the men until they get comfortable. This is poker we are talking about right? Not bench pressing carborateurs? If we accept that on face value, men who want to grow the game should let these soft festivals of amateur hour continue unabated.

Is there some truth to that, afterall don’t the ladies only tournaments get far bigger turnouts by the ladies than a standard event? Course, that is skewed by the fact, the better female players realize those fields are by and large softer and might even plan their tournament budgets/schedules around those tournaments (I know I would).

There is also the social aspect which draws the ladies to that event time and time again, so it makes it better attended. And from a competitive side, Annie Duke excluded, I think most women would like the title Woman’s champion, I know I would if I were a woman. Though if you are Annie Duke you can just call yourself world’s greatest woman player even if you skip the women’s event. Though I can think of a lot of arguments that suggest or illustrate the stated “purpose” of those tournaments is unfulfilled.

To be continued... this is a rather lengthy post I'm breaking up into five parts.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Poker Update and Baseball Debate v...

Okay wrapping up the final installment of the baseball debate (that won't end) today. As it's my blog I gave myself the last word. Anyway, still on break from talking about Texas Holdem poker but I'll get back to it in my next post.

If you can't wait til then check out www.bwinpokerblog.com for some poker rich content in a blog form. Tasty.

Him (continued): If you don't want to call yourself a baseball fan, that's fine. But you have to concede the original statement that there is no sport more iconic than baseball. That isn't just here and now. That is throughout time. If you said Babe Ruth to anyone, they would know who he is. If you said YA Tittle to someone, I would give the average person on the street a 10% chance of knowing who he was. Red Grange maybe a 50%. Joe Montana I'll go as high as 75%.

Lou Gehrig would be around 70% (they named a disease after him!). Ted Williams 70%. Jackie Robinson would be close to 100%. I would be surprised if 50% knew who Walter Payton or Jim Brown were. I would go as far to say the most famous football player of all time is OJ Simpson, and that isn't because of his play on the field.

Me: Fact is more people have taken them than not? Did you read the Mitchell report? The real fact is probably the majority of major league baseball took them. Just about ever rock they sniffed under they found something. Just because the lucky ones escaped Canseco's book or the anything but exhaustive Mitchell report doesn't mean they are clean--and the Mitchell report suggests just that.

BTW, some of the names you pull out are clearly guys who were pre-steroid era and have already spoken against it in a "In my day..." kind of way. Why not Mike Schmidt, Phil Niekro, and Goose Goosage while you were at it.

And... of course none of the names are bigger than Bonds, Clemens, or ARod.

Also, considering the amount of horse steroids and other crazy steroid/hormone ingredients the "agents" in MLB's Latin America slave trade put in their youngsters before the MLB gets their hands on them I'd be hesitant to include anybody from Costa Rica or similar places in a "clean" list. You have a ton of them.

BTW, if you say Babe Ruth to 20 random kids under 14 I'm not sure 5 of them would have heard of the guy... much less all of them.

Your numbers are also laughably arbitrary 50% of people on the street know the Galloping Ghost? What... maybe 1%.

While I'm enumerating arbitrary flaws in your argument(s), there may be no bigger "baseball" state than Louisiana. Participation is high in every level of the game. College baseball interest rivals Texas and Nebraska and parts of California. Just because they can't support a 162 game MLB schedule doesn't mean they don't care about baseball here. So, no moving here hasn't colored my perception of the game... if anything it should have enhanced it.

Sure, baseball is iconic... I'm not arguing it's not, I'm saying it's not America's past-time it's past-its-time and is only iconic for those with good memories or a good knowledge of sports history. It had its place in America's history and will probably always be around but it is no longer our number one sport. It's a crowded market and baseball is no longer as iconic as you think it, nor do today’s kids care about the things you do.

For them Michael Jordan has more name recognition that Babe Ruth. So too, Muhammed Ali. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning right now do too, same with LeBron James and the rapist Kobe Bryant. Jordanesque is far more used than Ruthian. I can't remember the last time somebody outside of George Will or Ken Burns said Ruthian for that matter.

The Sunday Night NFL game had better ratings than the World Series game it was up against. As a participation sport basketball and soccer have surpassed it. Stop trying to peddle your idealized memories as relevant to today's youth. I talked to a college kid recently and he had no idea who Bo Jackson was... nor George Brett or Pete Rose.

As for iconic sports at different times in our history bicycle riding, horse racing, and boxing (and even wrestling) have all held that mantle. Baseball might have held on for a little longer but it certainly hasn't been top of the heap during it's lifespan (taking a back seat at times to all those other sports-sports/entertainment and now to the NFL).

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Poker Update and Baseball Debate iv...

Despite all the No limit Texas Hold'em games going on on the coast, this is another part of a "Baseball will remain America's Iconic sport" debate. You know you are headed for trouble when the very thing you are debating is nebulous itself. Easier to learn poker and all it's nuances than to settle this question? Mabye.


Him: You've know me for almost 20 years. Have I ever not cared about baseball during that time? Even during the strike, I wanted to see baseball. And if I remember correctly, I recall you being a huge Phillies fan in 93.

So what changed? Is it because you are now in an area that doesn't embrace baseball as much? Baseball is still alive and well on the west coast, the east coast, the Midwest, all places where teams are located. If there was a team in New Orleans, would you be more interested in baseball? If you want to watch a meaningless NHL, NBA, MLS game, that is fine.

That is your prerogative. All I know is tonight, I will be watching the World Series, where the drama of two great pitchers are throwing, one to win a World Championship, and the other to save the season for his team. Neither sport is going away, but that wasn't the original argument, which you so nicely deviated from. Baseball is still, and will continue to be a more iconic game, and because of that, will continue to be America's sport.

Me: Baseball's attendance has gone up with new stadiums, cheaper tickets, and the comparative value for a family outing compared to the other big sports. Like all of baseball's ill-advised quick fixes to problems bigger than the sport, they will... come back to bite them in the ass. Stadiums stop being new, they'll squeeze their cheap seats for more money, and concessions will just become too high for families to afford even baseball.

I've watched a no-hitter live at the Vet. Until it was the 8th inning it was the most boring live sporting event I ever watched. Even then, even as a kid, I realized watching "history" live was sometimes simply a matter of being there when an anomaly in statistics occurs. Tommy Greene didn't strike out 27 batters he got 27 batters out. Some made contact except all their drives happened to be caught or fielded fastly. Really, little to no difference between any other game, except the offense didn't connect.

I realize there are no hitters and dominating no hitters but the "record" books don't differientiate. That's a flaw not a plus, like you try to make it seem. The sport is beholden to statistics and as a result the savvy fan will realize the "records" are either enhanced outliers or normal statistical variance. The debates you treasure are meaningless because even in a 162 game season the sample size is relatively low considering what you are trying to measure. Careers yes. Seasons or games no.

I like the Phillies in late September and early October. My dislike for the sport now is the same as it was a kid in the 80s, a young adult in the 90s, and a cynic in the early 2000s. It has nothing to do with where I live.

Btw, please continue with your three for one icons to stars claim... that's one point you'lll have to concede.

SO far you've given me two. I'll help you out and give you Maddox, Glavine, Ripken, Jeter, Smoltz, and Schilling. That will give you three to one for Arod, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa. Now give me three for Bonds, for ManRam, for Gary Sheffield, for Jason (and Jeremy) Giambi, for Canseco, for Sheffield, for Santiago, for Dykstra, Brian roberts, for Andy Petit, Chuck Knobloch, David Justice, Mo Vaughn, Miguel Tejad, Kevin Brown, Eric Gange, Wally Joyner, Palmiero, Ken Caminiti, Rick Ankiel, Troy Claus, Jose Guillen, Matt Williams, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Brian Roberts, Magglio Ordonez, Mike Piazza, David Ortiz... Yeah. have fun with that one.

I'll be waiting... for your three for one. Course your list will invariably contain some lucky guys who just didn't get caught or who baseball refused to give up (hint... who do you think introduced Brady Anderson to the stuff).
Him: The fact is more people haven't taken them than have. You listed 3 (possibly 5) players who could be considered icons. You listed 9 (up to 11) stars, and the rest are nice players.

If you are asking me to list 60 players (I'll go from star...s to icons to Hall of Famers) in that era who I believe haven't done PEDs, I can easily do that: Pedroia, Youkilis, Tony Gwynn, Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Miguel Cabrera, Frank Thomas, Matt Holliday, Roy Halladay, Mariano Rivera, Bernie Williams, Todd Helton, Andre Dawson, Rickey Henderson, Wade Boggs, Will Clark, Don Mattingly, Paul Molitor, Mark Teixiera, David Eckstien (to counteract the Chuck Knoblauch argument), Paul Konerko, Jorge Posada, Nomar Garciaparra, Carl Everett, Bobby Abreu, Alfonso Sorianno, Scott Rolen, JD Drew, Ichiro, Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon, Vlad Guerrero, Carl Crawford, Vernon Wells, Randy Johnson, Johan Santana, David Wells, Roy Oswalt, Brad Lidge, John Olerud, Mike Greenwell, Barry Larkin, Ozzie Smith, Kirby Puckett, Roberto Alomar, Jim Edmonds, Chipper Jones, Jermaine Dye, Andruw Jones, Carlos Delgado, Garrett Anderson, Jason Varitek, Mike Lowell, Michael Young, Beckett, Lowe, Billy Wagner, Trevor Hoffman, Sabbathia.

I think that should be your 3 for 1 (which I never claimed). Baseball, like football, is tainted by a few players. Not every football player goes out and sexually assaults a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. Not every football player takes pictures of himself and sexts it to a reporter. You don't hear about the good stories in sports, just the negative.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Poker Update and Baseball Debate iii...

This is mostly a poker blog. And 90% of the content is about that, but taking a little break from Texas Hold em poker and some other issues I've decided to reprint this lengthy debate. If it holds any interest good, if not, I'll see you in few posts.

Then I'll be talking about poker tournaments at the IP. The fact GCP's bloggers are on a bit of heater headlined by the recent successes of Monkey, Jonathan Little, Shannon Shorr and Kai Landry.

Me: Look, I loved the Phillies in October, and it was exciting to see the Red Sox get over the hump a couple of years back but you can keep the rest of the season. I'd rather watch a meaningless NBA or NHL game--at least something happens. Live baseball can be fun... but only because you don't have to pay attention, but as sports are now a TV game, baseball will go the way of cricket, and pretty soon that's all you'll hear in a broadcast... crickets, well, also the snores of your children.

Him: Then why does baseball attendance increase year after year? Baseball's revenues are strong, much stronger than the NBA's, who is talking contraction. Baseball has the fan base, but you don't see it in New Orleans, a city that does not have ...a major league team. Even though the Patriots are the most dominant team in the last decade, the Red Sox are still the kings of the town.

Even though the Giants won a Super Bowl, it is all about the Yankees, and to a lesser extent the Mets. St. Louis and Chicago are baseball towns. Los Angeles lost their football teams, but baseball flourishes there. Even when I visit smaller market areas, like Pittsburgh where football should be king, there is talk about the Pirates and when will the get better. Baseball is strong because it has a long season. A family can still afford to go to a baseball game, whereas the other sports have priced themselves out.

Baseball will continue to be America's game because of the history of the game. I would guess more people could tell you who played in the World Series last year, 2 years ago, 40 years ago, than the Super Bowl. Why? Because more people have baseball ingrained in the mind. As a culture, it represents the American public in a greater way than football. Baseball is a melting pot. From when Jackie Robinson first played, to the Latin stars, to the Asian players that are now playing, baseball offers an opportunity for people to play.

And while I can't deny that football can be exciting, it also suffers the same maladies that you claim baseball has. Being at a football game is not as much fun as being at a baseball game. You are too far away from the field of action in most cases. For baseball, there is a chance for history to happen almost every game, with a no hitter, a perfect game, and if you want to look at hitting, there is the home run. Now one could claim the steroid era took away from some of the purity of the game. Kind of like how some people claim that when Maris broke Babe Ruth's 60 home run mark in 1961 it shouldn't count. Steroids were a part of baseball.

Balls were hit farther, but you still had to have the talent to hit the ball. Steroids make you stronger, and that in noncontroversial, but even people who took them were not always stars. In fact most were athletes who might not have made it without them. For every Bonds, I can give you a Griffey. For every McGwire, I can give you a Pujols. For every Clemens, I can give you a Pedro. You look at the negative in this argument, and forget that it is a great sport. You complain that the season is too long, and I see that as one of the great things about baseball. You talk about the steroid scandals, but that happens in football as well.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Poker Update and Baseball Debate ii...

As I said, while I was over at the IP playing some quality Texas Hold'em poker I’ve also been engaged is some trivial debate about baseball. Guy has some quality points, I like mine better but I can see his side of things. It’s not like we are arguing the right and wrong way on how to play poker or something like that. In about 20 years one of us will be proven right and the other one wrong.
Him (continuing): It's the debate over who was the best hitter of all time, who was the most dominant at their position, what would Ruth or Cobb do in today's game. It's baseball that draws together generations because the game hasn't changed in any great way in over 100 years. Grandfathers and grandchildren can talk the same sport. Baseball stars are remembered throughout generations, and stories are passed down. Baseball is exciting because most of the players are not physical freaks of nature. You don't have to be 6'5", 260 to play the game at a competitive level. Football has gained popularity and perhaps passed baseball for the time being (lockout 2011 looms), but baseball is America's game.

At least 93% of baseball is clean. We know this from 2003 when the study that led to the current rules was taken. I would say it is greater than 93% clean, and has the most stringent drug testing in all of sports, especially with the new HGH testing. Face it, the NFL's "policy" is lax. There are a hell of a lot more people taking PEDs in football than are getting caught. This came out right after the Panthers lost in the Super Bowl when a good number on that team were caught. I am not naive enough to believe that baseball is 100% clean, but you shouldn't be that way with football. To say that every icon in the last 20 years has been dirty is 100% wrong. For every "star" that has been proven guilty, I can name 3 that are not. Most of the people I won't put in the "icon" category, but I will call them stars.
Me: Okay Ken Burns... Never said football was clean. However, baseball sold their soul when after the strike they tacitedly endorsed their players bulking up to produce the long ball spike that did bring their fans back. All a fraud--nice th...at you don't care that they constantly spit in your face and take you for granted as a fan.

The game will die as "america's game" with our generation--you neglect to refute that todays kids could care less about the sport.

Why is it that baseball runs replays in all that inactivity and it's still a snoozer? Why? What's worse than watching a slo-mo game? Watching slo-mo in slower-mo. NFL is more exciting in those 5 second bursts, than balls, strikes, and fouls. And the NFL replays can be even more exciting.

Never said NFL was clean either, however, the biggest stars of that game aren't marred by performance enhancing scandal like the MLB or Tour De France. Course the NFL doesn't pride themselves on all these records that you mention, like the MLB does, like it's been one 100 year long even playing field (which is hasn't), and then sell their soul to make most of those records meaningless to bring the fans back in.

Baseball... Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa, and ARod. The biggest names in the sport during the Fraud era, challenging all your hallowed numbers in a cheap going out of business ploy that you and your ilk are too naiive to realize manipulated many of you into caring again after a decade of labor disputes.

Monday, November 01, 2010

Poker Update and Baseball Debate...

So, I have a ton of live Texas Hold'em poker poker to discuss. Ran through a mega to win 2k in tournament chips at the IP. That was fun. Finished about 15 or so from the money in a $350 tournament ring tournament and that wasn't so fun considering I played for 11 or so hours for nothing. Had some mistakes and some postive things to move on with, and a couple of hands I will discuss.

Also congrats to Monkey for his success in hold'em and omaha at the IP. I keep telling myself I am going to use my Omaha poker online experience to good use but never do.

Before I get into the poker, somehow I've also been busy having a pointless debate that I wanted to share with the world. I'm sure I'll turn off a lot of you with my "anti-american" opinion. This is from a baseball debate me and a friend have been having on facebook. He's probably more right than I am, as my dislike for the sport colors my opinion too much, although I could argue it's probably somewhere in the middle as his love for the game pushes him a little to far from reality.

Anyway him first: Baseball is still the most iconic game in America.

Another poster: Keep tellin urself that.

Him: What are the hallowed records in football? Can you tell me any?

Other poster: It all ended with Hgh, steroids, and adderall

Him: You mean like Brian Cushing, Shawn Merriman, and JaMarcus Russell (purple drank)? The majority of baseball players are clean. Face it, baseball is truly the sport of champions, like it has been since the early 20th century. People remember ...baseball players, the World Series, and the important records within it. Ask any baseball fan (or most sports fans for that matter) what these important numbers are: 4256, 714 (756 and 762 as well), 56, 406 and 90% will tell you. I don't know of anyone who knows how many yards Emmitt Smith had, Jerry Rice had, or Brett Favre threw for (yeah, he is done after tonight).

People remember these marks for baseball. People forget football. That's why baseball was, is, and continues to be the national sport. Baseball brings together generations, stories are past down from generation to generation because the rules do not change significantly.

(I bite) Me: Yeah except for the next generation that, like many of us in ur generation, could care less about those hallowed numbers, the dull lulls in anything resembling activity that makes up most of the game, and finds the playoffs the only part of... the season that taps into the adrenaline rush one regular seaon football game offers. Every baseball icon in the last 20 years save jeter and ripken has been proven to be a cheater. Congrats baseball you are the tour de france of american sports... relevant for one month a year and filled with cheaters.

Him: That's funny, I thought over 75% of the "time" in football was when the players were in the huddle, when absolutely nothing is happening. TV has to show replays during this time because nothing is happening. Football is a flash of exciteme...nt and lots of downtime. Everyone forgets about the downtime because the way TV has set it up.

Football is also a product of where you grew up. People in the south tend to gravitate towards football because the discussion revolves around it. When you go to other areas of the US, the discussion is about another sport. But, again, going back to my original statement, baseball is the most iconic game in America. There are no figures that transcend society like the ones in baseball have.

There is a reason that the greatest players in their sport are called the "Babe Ruth" of their sport.

-To be continued in my next post or two...