Sponsors, tells, and etiquette
Editor's note: Send your poker questions to Steve Rosenbloom. He will answer as many as he can each week.
From tanlogic: "Your recent article titled 'Sponsor's decision irritates freerollers' came at the same time a friend and I were discussing and wondering about sponsorships or subsidies for a tournament such as the WSOP main event. Can you please tell me if the WSOP or anyone involved in the tournament (including ESPN, Harrah's, or sponsors/advertisers) pay the well-known names and players to come and play in the tournament to help increase exposure? Or can it be said that the legacy of the WSOP main event is so strong that players of all caliber are willing to pay to get in?''
I've never heard of an instance where the World Series of Poker, the World Poker Tour or a major casino has paid a player's entry fee for a standard main event. This excludes freerolls, invitationals and such things as the WPT's Professional Poker Tour events where players gain entry based on previous accomplishments.
But just to make sure, I checked with Brian Balsbaugh, president of Poker Royalty, the premier agency for many top poker players, including Phil Hellmuth, Howard Lederer, Daniel Negreanu and Erick Lindgren.
"From time to time, a non-Vegas casino will contact me seeking a top pro to come to their local event and play in what amounts to a small event for the top pro, but is a very big event for the local casino ($1,500-$2,500 buy-in). In those situations, I have negotiated an appearance fee for pros,'' Balsbaugh said.
"The European and overseas events are an entirely different matter. As in golf, these events have to go the extra mile to attract good fields and a lot of times that includes paying a pro an appearance fee. If you see a client of mine participating in a large buy-in overseas event, it is a good bet they are doing so at the request of their online sponsor or because they are being paid travel, buy-in and a fee.''
************************************************************
From Mike in Buffalo: "As an online poker player, I think it's awesome to have the opportunity to go to Vegas and play next to the greatest poker players in the world. However, I think that the main event has been cheapened by all of us online qualifiers. I think a true 'world championship' should be devoid of satellite qualifiers. In other words, you either pay the whole $10K to play or you don't play. That ensures only poker's best (or at least richest) are competing for the title of 'world champion.'"
There has been much debate about the state of the main event. Many of the pros consider it a lottery more than a tournament. I look at that as the price they pay for the game's incredible popularity. Online qualifiers have been the biggest reason that the prize pools have hit jaw-dropping numbers. Can't have it both ways. And the pros know that in theory, at least, they are positive equity because there is a finite number of them and an infinite number of other competitors.
Don't confuse the best poker players with the richest. I believe there are many players who have terrific skill but not the financial wherewithal to travel the circuit and get on television and become famous and blah, blah, blah. Satellites might be the only way for these players to show their skill in big events. Last month, for instance, a 24-year-old kid names James Caporuscio won the U.S. Poker Championship, but only after he played in an office satellite where half of the home-game buy-in was set aside for the winner to buy into the USPC -- and Caporuscio couldn't even afford the full weekly buy-in. But he showed he could play -- and beat -- the best at a final table that included pros John Juanda, Men "The Master'' Nguyen and Steve Brecher.
As for a world championship for the well-heeled, Harrah's VP Jeffrey Pollack said in my last column that the WSOP might begin a big-money buy-in event that, I'm guessing, conceivably could cost $50,000 or $100,000.
************************************************************
From Joe Bethany: "What's all the rage about tells based on body language with the new guru of tells being Mr. Navarro? Hey, don't you think once his preaching becomes widespread that players will just do the old act-strong-when-weak-vice-versa thing by using false body motion? It's still and always will be the luck of the draw.''
Can't argue with the luck of the draw idea. Nobody wins a tournament without some luck, even the best players in the world. If there were no luck involved, Phil Hellmuth would win every event, or so we've heard from Phil Hellmuth.
And sure, some players will attempt to create reverse tells, as they always have. But I'll tell you what, with so many new players coming to the game, it's a good bet that they aren't the least bit familiar with tells to start with, so any education they can get is well-served.
************************************************************
From Adam in Iowa: "Pollack's assertion that he didn't know what happened before he was there is a bit absurd. Are you telling me that he was brought in to the largest chain of casinos and not given a little 'heads up' about what they were doing with the Tournament of Champions? Furthermore, I would think that it is his responsibility to go back and figure these things out, seeing as his 'No. 1 goal is to make sure that the players feel as though they are valued customers by this company and by the World Series of Poker.' Lastly, if he is in the position of VP of sports and entertainment marketing, he must surely have some sort of a business background. Thus, when he says you have faulty accounting with the extra $2 million, he is wrong. Last I checked $2 million plus $2 million is $4 million, not $2 million as Pollack's 'correct' accounting would indicate."
Hey, I'm with you on the math. I don't get it either. When Pepsi came in with $2 million in sponsorship money, and with Harrah's already committing $2 million to the Tournament of Champions for the WSOP circuit qualifiers, there should've been $4 in play. Or at least $3 million to make up for the qualifiers' loss of equity when Pepsi asked -- and Harrah's approved -- the sudden free entries given Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan and Phil Hellmuth because they are involved in a Pepsi ad campaign.
I asked the question. He gave his answer. My accounting scenario was incorrect, he said, adding that Harrah's has the right to do what it wants with its tournaments. I wasn't going to get a different answer, short of putting Pollack in a headlock, I suppose.
As for Pollack's background, indeed, he is grounded in the business of sports -- working for the NBA, NASCAR and founding the SportsBusiness Daily publication. He is not grounded in the ways of poker, and in this case, the concept of tournament equity.
But I think he is now. ************************************************************
From Nils Dahl in Houston: "I can't fault Harrah's and ESPN for riding what's hot; I would too. But the World Series of Poker should be about more than just Hold'em. The loss of the H.O.R.S.E. tournament is particularly acute. Furthermore, Harrah's risks dilution of their product. At this rate, someone could win 10 bracelets in one year.''
Man, I'd like to see that. But I never will. And neither will anyone else. Not with the size of these fields. Look, you could make every WSOP event no-limit hold'em, and I still don't think you'd see anyone win more than three. I mean, it was phenomenal that Mark Seif copped two this year and that Scott Fischman came second in the same $1,500 buy-in no-limit hold'em event that he won the year before.
And not so fast on lamenting the elimination of the H.O.R.S.E. event. In my last column on Pollack's vision for the WSOP, he indicated that you might see an adjustment in the 2006 schedule, and you might hear it soon.
************************************************************
From John in Halifax: "My problem is pocket queens and how to play them. I have played both aggressive and passive with very bad results. They have killed me in three recent tourneys. I understand there are many variables, but I am completely lost and have come to despise getting the Q's in critical situations. Could you provide a link if you have answered this before.''
I haven't answered this before. I don't know that there is a good answer, other than don't play any hand with a queen in it.
Without knowing exactly how good your opponents are or how they play, let me offer some general guidelines with queens: If you're facing a preflop raise in position, then call; if you're facing a preflop raise when out of position, reraise and try to win the pot right there. In "Phil Gordon's Little Green Book,'' the author and well-known poker pro notes that an ace or king will hit the flop about 35 percent of the time when you have Q-Q, so reraising is a better play than trying to trap an opponent on the flop.
************************************************************
From David in Texas: "Question on poker etiquette: I was playing in a Limit Hold'em game at a big Las Vegas strip casino. At the conclusion of one hand with a decent-sized pot, two players heads-up, the last to act called the bettor. The bettor turned up his cards and won the pot, while the one who called began to muck. Another player not in the hand asked to see the loser's cards. The dealer took the cards and, over the protestations of the losing player, tapped them on the pot, tapped them on the discard pile and then exposed them to the table. This generated much discussion at the table with the dealers (a couple of them were players, too) saying it's a poker rule most folks are not aware of. What is the rule?''
Pretty simple: "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.'' This citation comes from Robert's Rules of Poker, the work of respected poker author Robert Chiaffone.
Many people say this rule was put in to eliminate cheating -- soft-playing, two players catching a third in a raising war, things like that.
Funny thing about the rule is, it recently has become considered bad etiquette to ask to see the losing hand or hands. I don't know exactly why. Perhaps some losing players feel it embarrasses them. But if you were dealt in, you have that right, and it remains a legitimate way of gathering information about the types of hands your opponents are playing.
************************************************************
Steve Rosenbloom is a regular contributor to ESPN.com, writes a syndicated poker column for the Chicago Tribune, and is the author of the upcoming book "The Best Hand I Ever Played." To leave Steve some feedback, check out his mailbag.
SPONSORED HEADLINES
MORE POKER HEADLINES
- Steve O'Dwyer wins EPT Grand Final
- Daniel Negreanu wins WSOP APAC main event
- Make it nine! Ivey wins APAC Event 3 bracelet
- Jim Collopy captures PLO bracelet at APAC