Casino Planet Cash

photo by flipchip • lasvegasvegas.com

A radical new look for the coveted gold bracelet that goes to the winner of a 2010 WSOP event.

Some like them, some don’t, according to a very unscientific poll taken by the eavesdropping method. Like it or hate it, the gold bracelet remains the most sought after prize in all of poker.

He’s probably hoping that it’s not too late to ask the Wizards for more dollars too.

Gilbert Arenas has fucked himself over this 2010 NBA basketball season. Most teams are trying to get rid of their own guys to sign the LeBrons and the Wades in the coming 2010 free agency, and with Arenas getting himself to so much trouble this year, I guess he’s just making it easier for the Wizards organization to cut their ties with his overpaid ass.

But lo and behold, the Washington Wizards got rid of two thirds of their big three before this season’s trading deadline, that being Antawn Jamison (who was sent to Cleveland) and Caron Butler (who was sent to Dallas) leaving the team all alone for Gilbert Arenas to lord over.

Now I don’t know what the deal is here. Why in the world will you keep a guy like Gilbert Arenas who, let’s face it, hasn’t really done shit for you? Go figure. But as far as Arenas is concerned, all he can do at this point is take advantage of the Wizards’ stupidity and ask for more dollars. Of course, he needs to admit to his mistakes first to, at least, save face.

And he did just that.

In an interview with Esquire magazine, Gilbert Arenas said he has messed up the legacy of Wizards owner Abe Pollin, who recently passed away last November.

”I have a painting of him in my garage. I just walk by it…”

As Easter is the season of resurrection and with Tiger Woods due to return to action at Augusta next week, Eliot Pollack thought it was high time we had a close look at the sporting (and spiritual) icons who have made successful comebacks…

Yesterday it was announced that there will be a “Tournament of Champions” at this summer’s World Series of Poker, reviving an event that last officially took place in 2006. The new TOC will be a 27-player freeroll tournament with a $1 million prize pool, $500,000 of which will go to the champions’ champion.

The field will include 20 players voted on via an internet poll. Only “living WSOP bracelet winners” are eligible as candidates. (No dead guys!) In his article about the event, Stephen A. Murphy notes there are currently 521 living bracelet holders.

Only one vote per email address, so ballot-box stuffing will only work to the extent that a person uses multiple emails. Voting is now open and will remain so through June 15. One can track how the voting is going by checking the current “Top 50” vote-getters (presented in random order) on the WSOP site. Should be interesting to watch that list over the next three months to see which players prove most popular.

Five more spots will be filled by the TOC winners from its last incarnation (2004-2006), Annie Duke, Mike Matusow, and Mike Sexton, plus last year’s WSOP Main Event winner Joe Cada and WSOPE Main Event winner Barry Shulman. The last two seats are being reserved for “wild card exceptions” — no word as yet what that means, although Harrah’s VP Ty Stewart has said it could be that those spots will be taken by winners of online tourneys.

Sounds like the TOC, like the Main Event, will have its own delay (of sorts) insofar as the tourney is set to begin on Sunday, June 27 and then conclude on the following Sunday, July 4 (an off-day for the Main Event). This will be a televised event, too (on ESPN, natch).

I’m referring to this as TOC 3.0 because the “original” TOC — the one envisioned by Mike Sexton in the late 1990s and run from 1999-2001 at the Orleans Casino — while not specifically connected with the WSOP, not only shared the same name but had a couple of features not completely unrelated to those of the new TOC.

That original Tournament of Champions lasted for three years (1999-2001). There was an entry fee ($1,500 the first year, and $2,000 the next two), but it was not an open tournament. Rather, one earned the right to enter by various means, including winning a WSOP bracelet, winning a TOC-sanctioned event, winning the TOC itself, or being a member of the Poker Hall of Fame.

Reading about the original TOC online, I’ve encountered conflicting reports on those qualifications, but you get the picture. The idea was to create a “champions” event involving the best of the best — sort of like the “Tour Championship” that comes at the end of the year in golf to which only the top money winners for the year are invited.

One other nifty aspect of the original TOC — it was a mixed-game event that featured different games throughout. The first two days players rotated between limit hold’em, Omaha eight-or-better, and seven-card stud. Then on the final day, the last 27 players played no-limit hold’em.

That first year, 1999, there were 664 entrants, and David Chiu was the winner, with Louis Asmo finishing second and Doyle Brunson third. There was a somewhat famous hand between Chiu and Asmo at the final table, one in which following some preflop action Chiu folded pocket kings face up, and Asmo revealed he held pocket aces. Click here to read Lee Munzer’s description of that hand, along with an interview with Asmo.

In 2000, 440 players entered the event, with a computer programmer named Spencer Sun taking the title. The great poker reporter Andy Glazer participated that year (as he did in ’99, I believe), and finished a respectable 35th. Glazer reported on the event for PokerPages, and you can read what he had to say here: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3.

In 2001, there were 402 entries, and Brian Saltus won, defeating T.J. Cloutier heads up. Scotty Nguyen finished third, and Miami John Cernuto fourth. Lee Munzer wrote up the first day of action for PokerPages here (giving Andy Glazer a chance to concentrate on playing), then Glazer wrote up Day 2 and Day 3.

The TOC was discontinued, then the name was used again for that one-table, ten-player event won by Annie Duke in 2004. I mentioned this one last week — no entry fee, $2 million prize pool, winner-take-all. Harrah’s had recently acquired the WSOP, and as they donated the prize pool, the TOC became associated with the WSOP.

In 2005, 111 players earned their way into the event by winning either WSOP bracelets or WSOP Circuit events. A bit of a hubbub that year also as three additional players — Phil Hellmuth, Doyle Brunson, and Johnny Chan — were allowed to play as “sponsor exemptions,” and in fact all three did well, finishing 13th (Chan), 10th (Brunson), and third (Hellmuth). Mike Matusow won the event and the $1,000,000 first prize. The rest of the prize pool — another $1 million — was divided among the other eight players who made the final table.

In 2006, the TOC was reduced to a 27-player invitational tourney, with the nine WSOP Main Event final tablists and 11 WSOP Circuit event winners all playing along with seven other “exemptions.” Mike Sexton won that year, defeating Daniel Negreanu heads-up. Again, the prize pool — donated by Harrah’s — totaled $2 million, with half of that going to Sexton for winning.

Now, after a four-year hiatus, the TOC is back. Already seeing debates on Twitter and in the forums about the new format. Kind of a popularity contest, really, as far as who will primarily make up the field. But it should prove interesting nonetheless — another good buzz-creator.

I see Dr. Pauly has already shared his voting guide. Who is getting my vote? Billy Baxter FTW!

You ready?

As we move deep into the month of March, we inch ever closer to the 2010 March Madness bracket tournament and the madness that ensues each and every spring in college basketball. With just one week remaining in conference play, the right to automatic bids are already up for grabs.

On that note, here are the top five teams lording over the college basketball right now, starting with the best of ‘em all, the Syracuse Orange. Syracuse’s rise to the top of the national polls produced an Orange infusion in the college basketball power rankings.

The Orange’s 95-77 victory Saturday over Villanova helped Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim regain his position as the no.1 coach in the power rankings too, them rankings that measure the nation’s top performers at each position. Picked before the season to finish sixth in the Big East, Syracuse already has clinched at least a share of the conference title. With a 27-2 overall record and an incredibly effective two-three zone defensive scheme, Syracuse should be the team to beat once the brackets are here.

Following at the second spot are the Kansas Jayhawks. After suffering their first conference loss, the Jayhawks are determined to bounce back. Coach Bill Self said, ”I am believing we can get something out of (the OSU loss). I don’t think the thing is broken. I do think we need to evaluate our things. We need to take great pride in the things that help us win, especially this time of year.”

The loss at Oklahoma State could be a sign of fate for Kansas as the last time the Jayhawks visited Stillwater back in 2008, they suffered a one-point defeat. Then they went on to win out, capturing the NCAA title. The defeat also meant that the only team to ever go undefeated in Big 12 play remains the 2001-02 Jayhawks squad coached by…

Betfair markets react to poll which shows Labour gaining on the Conservatives…

Boris Johnson stated his love for political betting in The Daily Telegraph today and Betfair have offered to place a bet of £1,000 on the Mayor’s behalf on the outcome of the election, with all profits to go to a charity of his choice.

The outspoken Tory claimed Betfair is ‘uncanny in its accuracy’ and urged readers to watch the betting rather than the opinion polls, as he reacted to Sunday’s news that the gap between his party and Labour could be a small as two percent.

What he didn’t say, however, is that the odds of a Conservative majority have taken a notable dip on Betfair in recent weeks, now at 4-6 (an implied 60% chance) from 4-11 (a 71% chance) just three weeks ago.

Betfair has an incredible track record when it comes to political predictions, only predicting two states out of 50 wrong for the 2008 US Presidential Election.

Betfair spokesman Mike Robb said: “It’s great to hear Bojo backing Betfair and its role as a source of predictions. However, there’s no doubt the gap is narrowing in the betting as well as the polls, whatever Boris may think.

“So that the Mayor can back up what he says we will place any bet of his choice up to £1,000 on the election, with all proceeds going to a charity of his choosing.

“Come on Boris - put our money where your mouth is!”

To win majority at General Election - Betfair bet: 4-6 Conservatives, 15-8 No Majority, 14-1 Labour, 469-1 Any Other Party

Woo hoo! Canada won the Gold for men’s hockey too! Just like they did for women’s hockey. The country set a record by winning the most Gold Medals for any Olympics, winter or summer. I’m half Canadian, so this victory is great for my Canadian side, which sometimes resents living in the shadow of the side that bullies like, and pollutes on the scale of, an Empire. Living in the shadow of an Empire can be bad for your health and self-esteem too. The Olympic Gold for a game that Canada invented is good for my Canadian self-esteem. Oh, and another reason I’m glad, Robert Gibbs lost a bet and will have to wear a Canadian jersey for 15 minutes of a televised press briefing. Heh.

Saw that “Power 20” list put out by Bluff Magazine recently, a list of “the most influential and powerful people in the poker industry” here at the start of 2010.

The magazine has compiled similar lists in the past, polling media types and other industry insiders to create it, and has usually included not just individuals but companies or organizations, too. The idea for such a list likely comes from other, similar catalogues of important, influential types from various industries. That annual “Forbes 500” springs to mind — a list of the 500 top U.S. companies that identified the “largest” companies by looking at various factors, including sales, profits, assets, market value, and number of employees. They turned that into the “Fortune Global 2000” a few years ago, following a similar rubric to compare companies around the world.

The Bluff list of powerful poker people doesn’t come accompanied with a particular set of criteria other than to say these are the “movers and shakers” of the poker world, which I take to mean folks whose actions necessarily get noticed and have some substantial effect on everyone else involved in poker, such as players or others whose livelihood is shaped by poker in some fashion (e.g., casino employees, media, etc.).

Of the 20 spots, nine are occupied by professional players, most of whom have numerous ties within the industry that help extend their influence: Howard Lederer (#4), Doyle Brunson (#6), Joe Cada (#7), Tony G (#9), Daniel Negreanu (#10), Phil Ivey (#11), Mike Sexton (#13), Joe Sebok (#17), and Barry Shulman (#18).

The rest of the list is comprised of two folks who represent important poker industry entities, Mitch Garber (Harrah’s) at #3 and Ty Stewart (the WSOP) at #5, two agents (Brian Balsbaugh [#15] and Per Hagen [#20]), the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance (John Pappas [#12]), a tournament director (Matt Savage [#19]), a television producer (Mori Eskandani [#14]), a lawmaker (Barney Frank [#8]), and Bluff’s editor, (Lance Bradley [#16]).

I didn’t really want to get into the merits of the list itself, which certainly names a lot of important people but — as always happens with such things — seems to omit some obvious ones, too (e.g., no Annie Duke?). For more discussion of who got picked and who got left out, see Wicked Chops’ post on the list as well as the one over on Pokerati. (The latter includes a number of interesting and insightful comments as well.) They also talked about the list some on last week’s episode of The Poker Beat.

I did, however, want to say a word about the top of the list, where one finds not individuals but two online poker sites, Full Tilt Poker (#2) and PokerStars (#1). Their listing is preceded by a disclaimer that “Given the murky legality involved in owning an online poker site, the top two names… both asked to have their names removed from the list” and Bluff did so.

While not entirely surprising, I nevertheless find this to be the most intriguing aspect of the entire list — the fact that the most important two individuals in poker as voted upon by more than 100 industry folks and members of the poker media are uncertain about being identified at all, never mind being highlighted as especially powerful within poker. Says a couple of important things about the industry as a whole, I think.

For one, the list seems a pretty strong argument for the centrality of the online game and the influence of online poker over just about all other aspects of the industry. Many, many jobs within poker are tied directly to the health of online poker, and in particular to the continued growth and success of a couple of two “U.S.-facing” sites. We knew that already, but the list certainly clarifies that to be the case.

Secondly, the fact that those who own those two sites shun this sort of publicity says something about the highly uncertain status of the online game at this moment in time, most particularly in the U.S.

Regarding that subject — and speaking of Forbes — an article appeared on the business magazine’s website today with a headline asking “Are the Feds Cracking Down on Online Poker?”

The article notes how PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker together “account for maybe 70% of the $1.4 billion in revenue the U.S. [online poker] industry brought in last year.” Speaking to the issue of the legality of operating an online poker site that serves U.S. customers, the article reports that “PokerStars, situated on the Isle of Man, claims it has legal opinions from five U.S. law firms saying it is not violating any laws.” Forbes tried also to talk to Full Tilt, though their representatives “did not respond to requests for comment,” likely because Full Tilt “has deep roots in the U.S. and close connections to famous American poker players who can be found in Las Vegas regularly.”

The article goes on to summarize recent history, including the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and its aftermath, PartyGaming founder Anurag Dikshit’s guilty plea to violating the Wire Act back in 2008, and the seizing of $34 million by federal prosecutors in 2009 from companies processing payments for Stars and Full Tilt. It also mentions Barney Frank’s current efforts to get online gambling licensed and regulated in the U.S., as well as that June 1, 2010 deadline for banks to start implementing the UIGEA.

Thus are we in a world where “Online poker operates in the law’s shadows.” And since the entire poker industry is so enormously affected by the status of the online game in the U.S., anyone appearing in poker’s “Power 20” today may well be more vulnerable than their listing might suggest.

In other words, they have the “power” right now, but everyone continues to worry and wonder — could others come in and pull the plug?

Saw that “Power 20” list put out by Bluff Magazine recently, a list of “the most influential and powerful people in the poker industry” here at the start of 2010.

The magazine has compiled similar lists in the past, polling media types and other industry insiders to create it, and has usually included not just individuals but companies or organizations, too. The idea for such a list likely comes from other, similar catalogues of important, influential types from various industries. That annual “Forbes 500” springs to mind — a list of the 500 top U.S. companies that identified the “largest” companies by looking at various factors, including sales, profits, assets, market value, and number of employees. They turned that into the “Fortune Global 2000” a few years ago, following a similar rubric to compare companies around the world.

The Bluff list of powerful poker people doesn’t come accompanied with a particular set of criteria other than to say these are the “movers and shakers” of the poker world, which I take to mean folks whose actions necessarily get noticed and have some substantial effect on everyone else involved in poker, such as players or others whose livelihood is shaped by poker in some fashion (e.g., casino employees, media, etc.).

Of the 20 spots, nine are occupied by professional players, most of whom have numerous ties within the industry that help extend their influence: Howard Lederer (#4), Doyle Brunson (#6), Joe Cada (#7), Tony G (#9), Daniel Negreanu (#10), Phil Ivey (#11), Mike Sexton (#13), Joe Sebok (#17), and Barry Shulman (#18).

The rest of the list is comprised of two folks who represent important poker industry entities, Mitch Garber (Harrah’s) at #3 and Ty Stewart (the WSOP) at #5, two agents (Brian Balsbaugh [#15] and Per Hagen [#20]), the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance (John Pappas [#12]), a tournament director (Matt Savage [#19]), a television producer (Mori Eskandani [#14]), a lawmaker (Barney Frank [#8]), and Bluff’s editor, (Lance Bradley [#16]).

I didn’t really want to get into the merits of the list itself, which certainly names a lot of important people but — as always happens with such things — seems to omit some obvious ones, too (e.g., no Annie Duke?). For more discussion of who got picked and who got left out, see Wicked Chops’ post on the list as well as the one over on Pokerati. (The latter includes a number of interesting and insightful comments as well.) They also talked about the list some on last week’s episode of The Poker Beat.

I did, however, want to say a word about the top of the list, where one finds not individuals but two online poker sites, Full Tilt Poker (#2) and PokerStars (#1). Their listing is preceded by a disclaimer that “Given the murky legality involved in owning an online poker site, the top two names… both asked to have their names removed from the list” and Bluff did so.

While not entirely surprising, I nevertheless find this to be the most intriguing aspect of the entire list — the fact that the most important two individuals in poker as voted upon by more than 100 industry folks and members of the poker media are uncertain about being identified at all, never mind being highlighted as especially powerful within poker. Says a couple of important things about the industry as a whole, I think.

For one, the list seems a pretty strong argument for the centrality of the online game and the influence of online poker over just about all other aspects of the industry. Many, many jobs within poker are tied directly to the health of online poker, and in particular to the continued growth and success of a couple of two “U.S.-facing” sites. We knew that already, but the list certainly clarifies that to be the case.

Secondly, the fact that those who own those two sites shun this sort of publicity says something about the highly uncertain status of the online game at this moment in time, most particularly in the U.S.

Regarding that subject — and speaking of Forbes — an article appeared on the business magazine’s website today with a headline asking “Are the Feds Cracking Down on Online Poker?”

The article notes how PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker together “account for maybe 70% of the $1.4 billion in revenue the U.S. [online poker] industry brought in last year.” Speaking to the issue of the legality of operating an online poker site that serves U.S. customers, the article reports that “PokerStars, situated on the Isle of Man, claims it has legal opinions from five U.S. law firms saying it is not violating any laws.” Forbes tried also to talk to Full Tilt, though their representatives “did not respond to requests for comment,” likely because Full Tilt “has deep roots in the U.S. and close connections to famous American poker players who can be found in Las Vegas regularly.”

The article goes on to summarize recent history, including the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and its aftermath, PartyGaming founder Anurag Dikshit’s guilty plea to violating the Wire Act back in 2008, and the seizing of $34 million by federal prosecutors in 2009 from companies processing payments for Stars and Full Tilt. It also mentions Barney Frank’s current efforts to get online gambling licensed and regulated in the U.S., as well as that June 1, 2010 deadline for banks to start implementing the UIGEA.

Thus are we in a world where “Online poker operates in the law’s shadows.” And since the entire poker industry is so enormously affected by the status of the online game in the U.S., anyone appearing in poker’s “Power 20” today may well be more vulnerable than their listing might suggest.

In other words, they have the “power” right now, but everyone continues to worry and wonder — could others come in and pull the plug?