There was *another* article about poker in the NYTimes today. I’m not even going to link to it – to borrow from a list of cliches, if the NYTimes is giving poker this much coverage, it must already be past its prime.

—

Ok, so HORSE tourney time. First off, let me say that I am EXTREMELY disappointed that Full Tilt doesn’t have hand histories. That blows BIG time. Why do I want to play at a site where I can’t learn from my mistakes as easily as at other sites? Then add to the mix that there were only 3,000 players connected last night, AND the fact that the fish were few and far between, and it’s a recipe for “me-no-wanna-play-here”.

Anyway, I really wanted to go through my HORSE tournament hand history blow-by-blow and dissect a few key hands, but clearly that can’t happen. I did have the foresight to grab my “stats” from the site’s stat page before closing up my session last night.

[Bleh, I was gonna post the stats here, but I can’t seem to get Blogger to format them properly. No matter what I do, it keeps deleting all the whitespace between my columns.]

Remember, a HORSE tourney is played 8-handed, so on average you would expect to win 12.5% of your hands. My Holdem (7/60), Omaha (4.5/34), Stud (4/37) and Stud-Eight (3.5/27) stats are all fairly average, but look at those Razz stats! 9 for 43, and a whopping 3 for 3 on showdowns. Clearly, my Stud game needs work, as I was only 1 for 3 on showdowns there, meaning I’m either over-valuing what’s a good hand or not reading people’s boards well enough. I’ll take 3 for 4 in Stud-Eight, even if they were all splits, and 2 for 3 in O8. The one 08 showdown that I lost, I knew I was beat before I called the river.

If only I hadn’t self-destructed with those Hellmuths in the fourth round of holdem… ah well.

Another Unique Holdem Tournament

I don’t understand why I’m losing. Maybe I have some kind of tell.

[looks at cards]

Hot mama I’m livin’ in flush town! Population: Artie!

–Artie Ziff

No, no, not another post about losing. There have been plenty enough of those! This one is about yet another unique holdem tournament, albeit somewhat more conventional than the last tournament I posted about.

A friend today sent me details of a WSOP Main Event super satellite being run here in NYC. The game is No Limit Holdem, $385+45 entry, food and beverage to be provided, entrants capped at 50. So far, nothing all that out of the ordinary, eh? Here’s the prize breakdown:

1st: Entry into 2005 WSOP Main Event ($10,000 value) + $2,000 in cash

2nd: 50% of remaining prize pool

3rd: 30% of remaining prize pool

4th: 20% of remaining prize pool

Still pretty ho hum ordinary. Then comes the fine print:

“If the winner of our satellite wins $100,000 (gross) or more in the WSOP, he/she will pay all of other satellite players (including 2nd, 3rd and 4th) a total of 10% of his/her winnings. Note: Winner will take responsibility for all taxes, to keep this simple.”

Personally, I think it’s a bum deal. I don’t play satellites into bigger events just so I can give the other satellite players their money back (and then some) if I cash in the bigger event. They all have just as much of a shot as me to win the satellite and get the buy-in to the bigger event; why should I subsidize their bad luck / bad play if I am successful at the second stage?

It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that this tournament is being run by investment bankers. Always trying to hedge their bets…