Free Las Vegas Dollars

Today my review of Paul “Dr. Pauly” McGuire’s Lost Vegas appeared over on the Betfair Poker site. For those of you who haven’t picked up a copy yet, check out the review to learn what the book covers and my overall take.

Book reviews are always a bit challenging to write, for a variety of reasons. One problem I always end up facing is having to choose between several different points I want to make about the book. That is, I can’t reasonably share every little response or observation I might have had while reading the sucker, so I have to be selective and often end up setting aside certain points in order to keep the review at a manageable length.

One point about Pauly’s book I had written down but didn’t end up including in the review regarded his account of the 2005 WSOP, in particular his description of Binion’s Horseshoe where the Main Event was concluded — the last time the WSOP was played there.

As is the case throughout Lost Vegas, Pauly doesn’t shy away from telling it like it is when it comes to describing Binion’s, noting how the place had deteriorated by then into a less than desirable destination for anyone traveling to Vegas, let alone for the WSOP.

However, as Pauly notes, “What Binion’s lacked in class, it made up for in character.” Here Pauly ends up writing a nifty little elegy to the Horseshoe, a tribute of sorts to the birthplace of the WSOP focusing on the moment the WSOP left it for good. Rather than go on at length here, I’ll let those of you who have picked up the book read what Pauly has to say about how “Benny’s Bullpen was a post-modern version of the Roman Coliseum where gladiators fought to the death.”

Like I say, I ended up leaving that comment about Pauly’s discussion of Binion’s out of my review. I was thinking about it again this morning, though, as I read some of the rumors about Harrah’s having finally sold the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino.

Some are saying the deal has been done, and thus the WSOP will necessarily be looking for a new home in 2011. Pokerati’s short blurb about the sale a couple of days ago appears to have gotten the rumor mill churning in earnest this week. However, the official word from the WSOP appears to be that as far as its concerned the Rio remains a Harrah’s property and thus plans for the 2011 WSOP — at the Rio — continue to proceed.

Actually, rumors about the WSOP leaving the Rio began back in the spring, and there was a lot of talk this summer about where it might possibly go. When I interviewed Nolan Dalla, the WSOP Media Director, for Betfair last month, I asked him about the rumors, knowing full well that even if he knew anything he wouldn’t be able to tell me one way or the other what was up.

Dalla’s answer to me was nevertheless forthright. He said to me that “anybody who thinks they know the answer to that question [then, in early July] doesn’t know what they are talking about.” He added that the issue would be examined by Harrah’s soon after the WSOP concluded, but that “those discussions really haven’t started that much yet.”

Whatever happens with the WSOP in 2011, I think it is interesting to compare what people are saying about the WSOP perhaps leaving the Rio with the often nostalgia-tinged sentiments expressed back in 2005 when the Series left Binion’s.

Of course, for me the WSOP and the Rio will always be closely associated, given that I’ve never had the chance to see it played anywhere else. I haven’t any particular fondness for the place, but it has seemed to me a suitable enough location to accommodate the spectacle the WSOP has currently become.

Will be curious, though, to see what happens next for the WSOP. And — if it does leave the Rio — what sort of “elegies” (if any) will be written about the WSOP during the Rio years.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Having started to cover tourneys in a variety of places, I can say that we are especially well provided for in terms of our working conditions in the Atlantic City Casino, where I am this week helping cover LAPT Lima. And I’m not just talking about those helpful signs above our work stations.

First off, the LAPT, PokerStars, and Atlantic City Casino folks are all extremely supportive and looking out for us at every step. The wireless network by which we access the internet is very fast and reliable, too. And we enjoyed what I thought was a fairly incredible meal at the casino buffet during one of our breaks. Another one of those sample-dozens-of-things-without-necessarily-noting-what-they-were type affairs, with just about everything being equally tasty.

The running of the tournament has gone well thus far, too. There were 40 tables set up for play yesterday — 20 filling the main poker room, and 20 more taking up most of the outer area there on the second floor of the casino. They were ready for 400 players, maximum, and ended up seating 384, which came close to breaking the record (398) for entries in an LAPT event.

At one point during the day I went through to see where everyone was from, and counted 33 different countries being represented. Probably two-thirds or more are from South America, but there are a number from the U.S., Europe, and even a couple from Asia.

As was the case at the start of the EPT event in Kyiv, it was a bit of a challenge early on identifying folks. There were a few familiar faces — particularly the PokerStars pros who were there — though there were many with whom I was previously unfamiliar.

Of course, we had a lot of fun with one particular PokerStars pro, Maria “Maridu” Mayrinck, who for a short while early in the afternoon was wearing a disguise. But being a shamus, I was able to see through it, and so got our photographer, Carlos, to snap some pics.

Eventually we learned several new names and had a lot to report. Working alongside Reinaldo (writing for the Stars Spanish language site) and Sergio (writing for the Portuguese site) helped, as did working together with the PokerNews guys, Marc and Rick.

Speaking of PokerNews, Lynn Gilmartin was there yesterday, having arrived Vegas with a story about being delayed in Houston. Like me, she’d had an extra six hours or so added to her trip and hadn’t gotten to Lima until five a.m. or so. It was the first of a few coincidences that marked the day.

The other two happened about the same time, about halfway through the day’s play. Just as the fifth (of eight levels) began, I got messages of support regarding a tournament I was apparently playing against Vicky Coren. She had tweeted that she was “Heads up! Just me and Seamus the blogger left” in a Stars tourney. Shortly after, she tweeted that Seamus had won.

Alas, it was a fellow named Seamus McCauley — also a blogger — and not me who took down the sucker.

It was right about then we heard the news that a Dutch man named Joran van der Sloot, once a suspect in that 2005 case in which the U.S. teenager Natalee Holloway had disappeared in Aruba, was now suspected of killing a woman in Lima.

Adding to the weirdness of it all, the woman had been killed on May 30 — the five-year anniversary of Hollaway’s disappearance. Not only that, van der Sloot and the victim apparently met at the Atlantic City Casino, and some of these reports were saying he was in Lima for the LAPT event. Last I heard yesterday, he had fled to Chile and a manhunt was on.

We were knee deep in covering the tourney and so couldn’t really devote much attention to tracking down further details about van der Sloot or the murder. Kind of reminded me of a plane trip Vera and I had taken back in June 1994. We had changed planes in Chicago, then later learned we were there at the same time O.J. Simpson had been. (Recall Simpson had flown to Chicago the night of the murders.)

I imagine we’ll hear a bit more today about the van der Sloot situation, but again I anticipate being occupied with much else. Will certainly be a long day, as the plan is to play down to 24 before we stop. Check in over at the PokerStars blog to follow along.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I occasionally talk here about how impatient I sometimes get with poker-related analogies. For instance, about a year ago I referred to the Poker Shrink noting how he wasn’t “a big fan of the ‘Poker is like Life’ books and articles” because, in his view, most of them end up being “too general to carry any more wisdom than a dribble glass.” I agreed with the Shrink in saying I also didn’t care much for these analogies — most particularly when they end up making one’s meaning more vague rather than helping clarify what it is one is trying to express.

In other words, I ain’t too keen on someone proclaiming “Poker is like life” and leaving it at that, though I do often appreciate the many ways poker presents us with situations that resemble those we face elsewhere, and thus occasionally provides interesting ways to talk about and assess those non-poker situations. And yeah, I, too, will indulge in such making comparisons now and again, as it is both fun and occasionally even useful.

That said, one has to be careful not to introduce unwanted vagueness when making such comparisons. Another danger one faces when choosing to employ poker-related metaphors is to fall into stale, overused phrases and clichés — also not recommended if the goal is to engage an audience.

The abundance of poker terms and phrases in everyday English is testament to the game’s popularity and significance. But this abundance also means many of these terms and phrases have become pretty well worn by now. People everywhere are constantly bluffing each other. Or upping the ante. Or noting when the chips are down. Or passing the buck. Or trying their hand at something. Or singing that he can’t read my, can’t read my, no he can’t read my poker face. Or warning you about that guy being a wild card, with an ace in the hole. Or up his sleeve. Or simply being an ace.

I’m reminded of George Orwell’s still relevant 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” in which he laments the decline of the language in various contexts, but most especially in political speech and writing. Among his many warnings listed there, Orwell advises readers to avoid “dying metaphors” if at all possible. In his list of examples Orwell does include one poker-related one — “playing into the hands of” — and I’d imagine he’d list most of those appearing in the previous paragraph, too, as often introducing an unwanted “loss of vividness” in one’s language.

Last week Tiffany Michelle appeared on Fox News to chat with Neil Cavuto, ostensibly to discuss the current status of President Obama’s efforts to introduce health care reform and all of the legislative tangling — and political fallout — that has occurred in connection to those efforts thus far. Why Michelle? Well, because she’s “a professional black jack and poker player” — i.e., a gambler — and someone thought it would be a good idea for a person who understands risks and rewards to comment.

Bill Rini wrote a bit about the segment last week in a post that also has the embedded video. Then he came back and transcribed the whole sucker. As Rini points out, the conversation between Cavuto and Michelle — coming in at just under five minutes — is more than a little cringe-worthy, primarily because of the not terribly successful attempt to describe everything in terms of poker or gambling metaphors.

It appears that Cavuto (and Fox) mainly wanted to say that Obama has “a bad hand” here and should fold. And perhaps — as Cavuto hastily adds at the end — also to charge that the President isn’t playing with his own money, but with the taxpayers’. So they brought Michelle on to help communicate that message, but Cavuto’s questions were so imprecise those (essentially banal) observations barely came through, if at all.

If you’re curious, check out Rini’s transcript and/or watch the video. I actually wouldn’t fault Michelle too much here — she does pretty well, I think, to try to respond to Cavuto’s garbled clichés, and in fact probably saves the whole segment from becoming utterly inscrutable.

The hosts of The Poker Beat discussed the segment a bit on their show last week, and there tourney reporter B.J. Nemeth did a good job summarizing why it failed — and why I am sometimes impatient with poker-related metaphors that tend to obscure more than clarify. “The whole point of an analogy is to try and make something easier to understand,” said Nemeth, “and I think what they did is took something the [viewers] had some grasp of and made it incomprehensible.”

Then again, as Orwell notes, what Nemeth is describing is often what happens when language is employed for political purposes. Writing in the wake of the second World War, Orwell notes how “Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Perhaps the stakes were a bit higher then (to use a dying metaphor). But Orwell’s desire for us to view “language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought” is still worth reiterating.

Related posts:

1. Satellites Now Running at DoylesRoom for $1,000,000 English Poker Open Taking place from September 15th to 17th, the inaugural…
2. DoylesRoom.com offers last Satellites to English Poker Open Online poker site DoylesRoom.com is giving players the chance…
3. Free Monday Night Football and Poker Parlay from True Poker Every Monday with TruePoker.com , you have the chance…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

J.D. Salinger died on Wednesday at age 91. Been a while since we’d heard from him.

Been a while also since I’d thought much about Salinger. Like most, I encountered The Catcher in the Rye as a young person, and like some I went on to read Nine Stories and everything else I could find. As a teen I suppose I identified somewhat with Holden Caulfield’s frustration. And puzzled over Seymour’s suicide in “A Perfect Day for Bananafish.”

But like I say, haven’t thought much about Salinger since, other than occasionally to wonder what he’s been up to, and whether he ever wrote anything again since 1965 when the last story of his to appear in print — the lengthy “Hapworth 16, 1924” — was published in The New Yorker. Perhaps now that he’s gone, we may find out more about what he’s exactly been up to these last 45 years. (Or not.)

Many have speculated about why Salinger — once a genuine literary celebrity, famous not just in academic circles but well beyond — stopped publishing and so thoroughly withdrew from the public eye. One oft-repeated story, appearing in The New York Times article from yesterday about Salinger’s death, concerns him having been interviewed by some high school students for what he thought was going to be an innocuous piece in the local paper. The interview wound up on the editorial page (not on the high school news page), and Salinger apparently was so upset he soon began refusing interview requests.

He also built a six-and-a-half foot fence around his property.

Publishing is a tricky business. One never knows exactly how others are going to receive your words and ideas. As in poker, there’s always an element of risk that must be weighed against whatever reward may come from putting yourself “out there.”

Just so happens that on Wednesday — the day I wrote about driving a lot — I was in the car listening to a National Public Radio segment that had to do with blogging and the way one potentially loses control of one’s message when putting one’s words and ideas on these here intertubes.

The story was about the Pope who is apparently considering whether or not to start some sort of blog. A few experts were asked for their thoughts, and there was some funny, irreverent humor in there with people giving the Pope advice about the need to blog every day, to use hot links (not footnotes), and so forth.

One such expert, David Weinberger (a technology pundit and blogger), came on to address this issue of what happens when one publishes online. “Putting a message out on the internet is exactly the same thing as losing total control of your message,” said Weinberger. “People take it up, they republish it, they make fun of it, they contextualize it, [and] the simple message becomes incredibly complex.”

As if to confirm what Weinberger was saying, there was another story about Apple announcing its new iPad in which the reporters noted that there probably weren’t any women involved in the naming of the new tablet computer. Without being specific, they were alluding to the instantaneous reaction on the internet to the name “iPad” which saw some associate it with a woman’s product. (Some may have noticed that “iTampon” became a “trending topic” on Twitter within an hour of Apple’s announcement.) I suppose you could call that another example of having (somewhat) lost control of the message, with the speed of the ’net significantly accelerating that process.

I’ve been well aware for a long time how keeping a blog — or writing and publishing, generally speaking — necessarily involves “losing total control” of one’s message. But really, who wants “total control”? If, that is, these are indeed “messages” we are delivering, with a hope that those messages might be heard and perhaps responded to in some fashion, and not just “broadcasts” (or sermons?) for which we neither expect or desire feedback.

No, publishing means being willing to share the “control” over one’s messages. Otherwise we’re just talking to ourselves. Like playing solitaire — no risk of losing, but not much to gain, either.

In a rare interview from 1974, Salinger told a reporter of how content he was not to be publishing. “It’s peaceful. Still. Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy. I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure.”

I can respect that, but that’s about all I have to say about it. Not much one can say in response to someone who prefers sitting out to playing.

Related posts:

1. Time Is Money; or, the Return of the Waiting Game I know many regular readers of this blog also…
2. Response to Shady Promoter’s Attorney “Thank you for your timely response. …
3. Make a Point to Double-Check, Double-Check to Make a Point This summer at the WSOP I finally got around…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Ooh, I left this here cup of coffee on the burner too long. Bitter. Gotta remember to grab that sucker more quickly next time.

For many, New Year’s Day is all about making resolutions, setting goals, and doing a general rethink of whatever it is about yr existence seems in need of such.

Well, maybe not right off. Could be all that important work of self-analysis comes later — after the effects of the previous evening’s let’s-party-like-there’s-no-tomorrow activities have sufficiently skedaddled, thereby allowing for relatively clear-headed cogitatin’.

I’ve certainly gone that route on January 1 numerous times. Might even be more tempting to do so here on the first day of the science-fictiony-sounding 2010 — a new decade. This-is-the-year-I’m-gonna… and then you fill in the blank. Or blanks.

Three years ago I kicked off the year writing about “Getting Off to a Good Start.” Was referring to something Barry Tanenbaum once wrote about beginning new sessions, but applied the idea as well to how one might approach any new stage in life.

Two years ago I began with a post titled “Looking Back & Looking Forward” in which I outlined a bunch of specific goals. Did accomplish some of those that year, but a couple got left behind pretty early on. One goal I set at the start of 2008 and did accomplish was the one of posting here every weekday, which I continued through last year, too. Not planning at the moment to deviate from that one in 2010.

Then I began 2009 writing about the “False Start” — the most frequently-called penalty in football, actually. There I suggested that false starts frequently happen at the poker tables, too. We’re excited just to be playing, and somehow it takes us a hand or ten to get our heads on straight and find our game.

Am a little too spent this year to do much more than look back at those earlier New Year posts. One reason is all the energy I put into a Betfair post, this one documenting the “Top Moments in Poker, 2000-2009.” Go check it out and let me know if I missed any of the biggies.

I will say this, though, as kind of a general introduction to 2010. I’m optimistic. Lots of reasons not to be, I suppose, if one has been reading any of those other, non-poker related “2000s in Review”-type articles over the last few days.

But I can’t help it. Like I say, I’m sitting here drinking this burnt-tasting cup of coffee, and while I should be grimacing, I can’t seem to get rid of this goofy grin.

Last year was a good one for me in terms of writing and poker, but I have higher expectations for this one. Am also anticipating other big “life stuff”-type changes in the new year, too, some of which I’ll chronicle here for sure.

Meanwhile, I think I’ll go get myself another cup of java. This one will be better.

Related posts:

1. WDIAV Kicks Off 2010 Right by Giving Away a $1,500 WSOP Seat in their New Year’s Day Tournament (Las Vegas, Nevada) 2010 will start out on a…
2. Women in Poker: A Guy’s Perspective With 611 participants in the Ladies’ Event at this…
3. Win $2010 in Daily Prizes with Titan Poker “2010 New Year Promotion” TitanPoker.com is getting ready to celebrate the coming 2010…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.