My biggest problem with multi-table tournaments is that they typically take an eternity to finish. I find it unlikely that the average fish, who registers for $22 in a large field MTT, actually looks forward to an 8 hour marathon. If he could take his equity and leave after 3 hours of undoubtedly lucky play, he would be all too happy to do so.

Why not let him? Who would mind? The sharks, yes, but sharks would be allowed to leave when they want too. Just add a button saying ”drop out” or something, and people would be free to register for the tournament without risking to miss TV-shows and sleep if they get in the money.

There are other ways to solve the ”marathon threat” as well. The tournament could simply end at a predetermined time, and the one with the most chips wins followed by the one with the second most chips etc.. This should result in some wacky moves near the end. There might already be tournaments like these, though. I am not sure.

A tournament, which might appeal to ring-game players, is a tournament, which is also a ring-game. Players register and may when the tournament begins choose how much money (not tournament-chips) to put on the table, and they can add or remove money when they wish. The blinds are constant. The tournament ends at a predetermined moment. The player who makes the most money wins 1st price in addition to whatever he already had made. 2nd price goes to the 2nd most winning player etc.. A cruel variant would punish the biggest losers as well. You can drop-out at any time, and your win or loss on the table will count on judgement day (the end of the tournament).

This isn´t really groundbreaking, but I have always wondered why players in multi-table HU-tournaments have to wait for all the other duels to finish before starting on the next round. Just let players who have reached the new round play against each other before all duels are done.

I also don´t understand why poker-rooms don´t let players make (truly) custom tournaments. People are creative. They will make tournaments with entertaining payout-structures, blind-structures and stuff. In the magical world of online video-/computer games, the players often change the game if the game lends itself to that, and the result is more entertaining games. Just don´t let the players have full freedom over the size of the fees, because then the poker-rooms will gloriously fall one by one.

Last week, the $25,000 buy-in World Poker Tour Championship drew just 337 participants, down significantly from 545 of a year ago. Meanwhile, in San Remo, Italy, a €5,000 buy-in EPT event drew a massive field of 1,178. As such, the EPT first place prize nearly eclipsed the first place prize in the WPT Championship. Three years ago, most people would have probably felt comfortable laying 100:1 odds against this ever happening, and it nearly did this year! After all, the WPT Championship used to give nearly $4M to its winner.

So what happened that can explain these two poker tours heading in different directions? I would suggest there are two primary reasons:

Global Recession

The recession might not be affecting small stakes online poker games, but it is most certainly impacting ultra-high buy-in live tournaments. An event with a $25,000 buy-in will attract virtually zero fish during a severe recession. With no dead-money in the prize pool, many pros adequately bankrolled for the event might find it wise to pick a better spot for their money, such as the San Remo event, which has a buy-in of just $6,500.

Online Qualifiers

The biggest reason why the WPT Championship only got 337 players and EPT San Remo got 1,178 is because of online poker satellites. No online poker rooms run satellites to the $25,000 buy-in WPT event. Since the UIGEA was passed, U.S. casinos are no longer willing to take the legal risk of accepting registrations directly from online poker rooms for their tournaments. This is what caused the WSOP Main Event to drop from 9,000-some players to 6,000-some players in just one year.

However, online poker rooms do not have this issue in most parts of Europe, including Italy, which is why they were able to send hundreds of players to San Remo. Additionally, since packages to the San Remo event were priced in the ~$8,000 range, it wasn’t too terribly difficult for players to win (whereas winning a package to a $25,000 event would be much more difficult).

In short, the WPT is being killed right now by having too many tournaments with too large of buy-ins and a government that is hostile towards them accepting registrations from online poker rooms. To their credit, they are attempting to circumnavigate these issues by holding more events overseas. However, it’s probably too little too late. The EPT is the new WPT and that fact may likely never reverse.

Needless to say, a proposition of this nature attracted some interest from high stakes professionals. First on the docket to take on Dwan is Finnish superstar Patrik Antonius. The former tennis player turned poker pro has been a fixture on the high stakes poker scene for a couple of years now. Understandably, he estimates that even if Dwan has an advantage over him (which he conceded will be the case, at least initially, while they are four-tabling since Antonius typically only plays 2 or 3 tables of heads-up) that the million dollar overlay in the final settlement would make it worth chasing.

Almost a month into the challenge, things are progressing slowly. The two have played several sessions, but have only booked a total of 6,633 of the 50,000 hands required so far according to Durrrr Challenge. Currently, the match is a virtual dead-heat. Dwan leads by a paltry $1,392! The odds of this match being as close as just four big blinds after over 6,000 hands have to be astronomical. Look for there to be much more variance in the remaining 43,000 hands. Phil Ivey (who is next in line to play Dwan, for the record) commented that he thought a challenge of this nature could leave one party broke before 50,000 hands are ever able to be played.

At different points throughout the challenge, both players have obtained leads of around $150,000 on the other person, but the pendulum, thus far, has inevitably swung back the other direction.

The durrr challenge is taking place at Full Tilt Poker at specifically designated $200/$400 tables.

Here are a few major things that stick-out on from the schedule:

• To mark the 40th anniversary of the WSOP and also to meet players’ demand for an ultra-high buy-in no-limit event, a $40,000 buy-in tournament will be held. This is the first open-field (meaning anyone can participate) tournament of the series. It will be interesting to see how a recession effects participation in this event. For fun, I’ll guess that 212 players will come together for this one.
• Rebuy events have been removed from the schedule. In recent years, players have complained that events like the $5,000 buy-in 2-7 Triple Draw with Rebuys event gave an unfair advantage to pros. The whole “buy a bracelet” argument is kind of a stupid one though, if you ask me. It still takes a ton of talent to win any rebuy event at the WSOP. Any bracelet won from such an event is fully deserved. Chalk this one up to another instance where a bunch of needless complaining ruined an otherwise problem-free operation.
• A new “triple chance” tournament added. Perhaps as a way to ease players into the idea of no rebuy tournaments, there is a $3,000 buy-in “triple chance” event. In this event, all players will be given a standard starting stack along with two lamers. These lamers can be redeemed for a second and third starting stack at any time. Certainly from a game theory standpoint, the lamers should be redeemed immediately. However, without a doubt, there will be some players who are too risk-averse to do this. But to be fair, a complete fish might actually be correct in not trading in their lamers right away. It gives them a couple extra chances to mess up.
• A $1,000 buy-in no-limit tournament is back on the schedule. Three years ago, $1,000 buy-in tournaments appeared in a few instances on the schedule. They were removed following player complaints that the buy-in is too small to award a bracelet to. This year, perhaps due to the recession, a $1,000 event has made its way back to the schedule. I think this was a good move. It makes it easier on amateur degenerates to convince their wives to let them sneak away to Vegas in a time where discretionary spending is tight. Smart move, Harrah’s!

Beyond that, the 2009 WSOP schedule is pretty straight forward. You can see it here: 2009 WSOP Schedule.

So while 2008 was boring, it wasn’t exactly a bad year for poker. The uncertainties that surround the game from a legal standpoint leave most people feeling that no news is good news.

The problems that face the poker world for 2009 have less to do with game-specific regulations (such as the UIGEA) and more to do with the state of the global economy. In the U.S., a new administration and a heavily-Democratic Congress make it all but certain that no further anti-online gambling legislation will be passed. (But let’s not take it too far; those who are hoping that Barack Obama will overturn the UIGEA are nuts). So the main threat to the poker world in this new year is an economy that forces many casual players out of the game.

Thus far, it appears that the world’s economic problems aren’t affecting poker too significantly. Online poker prize pools, in particular, have been doing especially well. Just last week, PokerStars held a $200 buy-in tournament that attracted over 13,000 players and a $10 buy-in tournament that set a Guiness World Record with 35,000 players! According to PokerScout.com, a site that tracks trends in online poker rooms, the past six months have actually seen an increase in the number of online poker players during a time when most major financial indexes have dropped 20%!

Could it be that a global economic slowdown will actually lead to growth in the poker world? High-stakes cash games and tournaments will probably decrease in popularity. There will simply be less “rich fish” willing to casually risk money on a card game. However, it certainly seems possible that small-stakes online poker games could experience a burst amidst a global recession. People have more time on their hands and are generally more desperate for money. This coupled with the fact that small stakes games seem harmless (after all, how much can you really lose playing $.25/$50?) and fields of 35,000 players in a $10 tournament might become more common.

Watch for a shift to occur in the poker world this year. The pyramid will become more heavily weighted towards the bottom as high-stakes games dry up while low stakes games are fueled by a barage of newcomers with too much time on their hands. Stay one step ahead of the curve and polish up on low stakes poker strategy. This could be a very opportunistic year for those patient enough to grind it out in small stakes games.

Poker took a hit in the fall of 2006 with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Online poker still managed to grow, though the land-based casinos had to keep their distance from the US-facing sites. The WSOP was smaller in 2007, but still managed 6358 entrants.

Poker’s greatest near-term may not be government regulation though. The US finally got around to implementing measures to block gambling transactions, though its still very unclear how effective they will be. Online poker though may not be plagued by gamblers’ ability to place bets; rather, it may be their will to place bets.

With the stock market collapse and record unemployment, everyone is fearing for their economic health. One of the first places they will cut back is gambling expenditure. While most poker players are overconfident and think they are ‘good’ players even when they are not, dire economic circumstances will bring many to grips with reality.

The most affected will be the high buy-in land-based tournaments. The main fish in these tournaments are typically wealthier middle-aged and older men. Most likely, these players have endured huge losses in their stock portfolios and are not willing to gamble with what money they have left.

Many of the better poker players are simply obtuse with the outside world. They may not have money in the stock market, so they do not understand how it will affect them. They will begin to notice though as the games get appreciably harder, especially the large buy-in tournaments. 

In the United States, it is hard to imagine that the Treasury Department will spend too much time on the UIGEA regulations. They have too many other important things to deal with right now. However, if it turns out that there is an easy, effective way to block payments, that could deal another blow to poker.

We have already seen some mergers and acquisitions in the online poker world. We may see some more, as companies aggressively attempt to cut costs. There may be added jealousy among the European online poker sites at the ones that still accepts US players. The European sites may ‘assist’ in helping clamp down on the US-facing sites, since those sites are also successfully poaching many of the European players away too.

Prior to the advent of online poker, it was uncommon to hear of a young player excell mightily in the game. One anamoly to this is Phil Hellmuth who won the WSOP in 1989 at the age of 24. Hellmuth held the record for youngest player to win the Main Event for 19 years before Eastgate’s win.

Another historic instance of youth triumphing over seasoned players is the story of Annette Obrestad. Last year, Obrestad won WSOP Europe at the age of 18. It was the first live poker tournament of her life. How did Obrestad manage to pull that off? She started playing (illegally, mind you) online poker at the age of 15. After three years of around-the-clock practice, she managed to close the gap in skill between herself and professionals three times her age. Indeed, she did more than simply “close the gap”. Obrestad is one of many under 25 players who are now better than their older counterparts who have spent decades honing their skill under the roof of a casino.

Online Poker Makes it Possible

Poker is not unlike most other games in that you must practice to get better. The only true way to practice the game of poker is to sit down and start gambling! If one does this in a brick-and-mortar casino game, they can expect to play about 30 hands per hour. In an online poker game, they can play more like 60 hands per hour. Of course, it depends on some factors such as: speed of the site’s software, number of players sitting in the game, betting style being used, etc. But a good rule of thumb is that you can play about one hand per minute at an online poker game.

So with this in mind, it seems that one could learn about twice as fast playing online instead of in person, right? But here’s where online poker really leverages an advantage: the ability to play more than one table at a time!

For obvious reasons, you can only play one table at a time in a live poker game. However, in an online poker game you can play anywhere from 8 to as many as 30, depending on which site you’re playing at. For beginners, trying to play more than two tables at a time is likely to be very challenging. But once the basics are learned, it’s not hard to start playing somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 tables at once. This is the reason why young players have gotten so good, so quickly relative to their older counterparts: the ability to play ~10x the number of hands in the same amount of time!

When online poker exploded in popularity in 2004, young players in college dorms all across the world began playing online poker in their spare time. Another appealing feature of online poker relative to live poker is the stakes. Understandably, casinos do not want to waste floorspace or staff on a penny-ante game. However, there are no such overhead considerations for online poker sites. For this reason, poor college kids were able to practice playing online poker for literally next to nothing.

In some cases, they did play for nothing! Almost all online poker rooms have “play money” games where nothing is being wagered. However, these games are generally full of players who aren’t taking the game at all seriously. After all, it’s not like they have anything to lose.

Next time you sit down at a poker player with a seasoned pro and some young kid in sunglasses, don’t be too quick to assume its the seasoned pro you should be concerned with. In all likelihood, it’s the young kid who has actually played more hands of poker in his life than the old guy!

I don’t know much about the details of the case. I definitely remember her pimping out Full Tilt from the beginning. I mean, Clonie’s hot; I paid attention.

What I find kinda funny is how she claims Full Tilt is worth $4 billion. Yeah right. PokerTips.org did some analysis that shows this number is incredibly optimistic given the values of the publicly traded online gambling companies.

It’s kinda funny how she’s suing a company that may very well be operating illegally in the United States. It’s kinda like someone suing a drug dealer, claiming the drug dealer stiffed him on advertising fees the person did for the drug dealer. What is the judge supposed to say? Mr. Drug Dealer, please pay the appropriate advertising fees; I value your drug dealing business at $X million?