The Dreaded Pocket Kings, As Heard on TV

Did you watch ESPN's WSOP coverage Friday night???  Did you miss this?  

Lon McEachern, long time ESPN poker play-by-play man, the voice of the WSOP, used a phrase that should be familiar to all readers of this blog.  Check it out:

That's right, he said, "The Dreaded Pocket Kings"!!!  This was the night after that infamous hand that I discussed last time (here), which was Aces vs Kings vs Kings.

(I apologize for the poor quality of the video, cell phone video taken directly off the screen of a dated TV is not ideal.  Still, you can hear it, right?)

I was involved in something else when this aired live, but my pal Lightning36 heard it and immediately texted me to see if I had caught it too. Fortunately my DVR was recording the coverage and I was able to find the reference in my recording.

Lightning immediately tweeted out the following tweet:

Hey @NormanChad and @lonmceachern - please credit @Robvegaspoker with the term you used tonight - The Dreaded Pocket Kings.

I retweeted that myself but to the best of my knowledge they never commented on this, either on the air or on Twitter.

Now even though I never actually copyrighted the phrase, my blog is proof that I originated it, and I will be contacting my attorney, Pete P. Peters, for legal advice in protecting my rights.  At the very least, if no monetary compensation is offered, I should get to do the "Shuffle Up and Deal" at the next main event, right?  Right?

Of course, I'm kidding.  It was an honor to hear my coined term for the dreaded hand on national TV.  Very cool.

In the meantime, how'd you like the main event this year?  I must admit I didn't stay up for the entire heads up final table.  I did have it recorded and watched the last few hands in the morning, after learning the result.  Both of the final two guys played great and it was very entertaining to be sure.  Congrats to Tony Miles and especially John Cynn, a very worthy champion.

All the guys at the end were solid.  Still it would be nice to see a woman make the final table next year.

I'm sure Kate Hoang (below) would agree.  

And whoever makes it, watch out for those dreaded Pocket Kings.....right Lon?

The Dreaded Pocket Kings (Squared)

You saw it, right?  If not "live" then you surely saw it on poker media the next day, right?  The hand everyone's talking about, one of the most incredible hands of poker ever seen at the Main Event of the WSOP.  It happened Wednesday night.

Just to recap, the situation was that there 10 players left in the main.  Play would stop as soon as one more player busted out, creating the "official" final table of nine.  Each of those nine would be guaranteed at least $1MM (now that's a min-cash I can deal with!).  The bubble (well, the final table bubble) would have to settle for a measly $850K and perhaps more importantly, an opportunity to continue playing for the $8.8MM top prize and the coveted bracelet.   

And then this happened.  Watch it yourself (mostly likely for the fourth or fifth time, right?)

Wow, some hand, huh?  Never have the dreaded pocket Kings been so damn dreaded.  Dreaded times two.  Or dreaded squared, right?

Also…this isn't just Aces vs Kings (another theme I've addressed a lot on the blog).  It's Aces vs Kings vs Kings.  Wow.

Is that crazy or what? 

The hand played out as expected.  No four card flush for one of the players (or worse, for two of the players).  No straight (wheel) for the guy with Aces.  No King-high strait for a chop for the two guys with Kings.Nothing totally bizarre like four Queens and a deuce on the board so the Aces would win that way.  And nothing like a 9-8-7-6-5 board so that everyone chops.

The Aces held.

What was interesting was the discussion afterwards of the preflop play.  The question was, should Antoine Labat, who initially just called Nicolas Manion's raise, have folded the dreaded hand when it came back to him after two all-ins?

Fold pocket Kings preflop?  Even I don't do that (though of course I should….every damn time).  A lot of top players insisted there was enough info for Labat to fold.  Do you agree?  Can you really be sure one of the other players has to have Aces there?  You're sure not putting either of them on Kings.

Of course the situation is critical here.  They are one player away from the final table.  But they are well into the money of course.  Do you tighten up there?  Do you think there's no chance one of the other two players has Queens or Jacks and maybe the other has Ace-King?

All I can say for sure is that whenever I watch TV poker and hear the commentary, I realize that these pros are playing a totally different game from the one I play.  I realize how out of my league I am.  So I can't really say.  All I know is that I can't really imagine myself folding Kings at that point.  And I'm the all-time leading Kings hater, right?

The play I find most unusual is that Labat flatted the initial raise, he didn't three-bet.  That makes Yueqi Zhu's three-bet look less like a really big hand.  He was short-stacked and would have shoved with a wide variety of hands.  If Labat had three-bet and then Zhu shoves, you know he's very likely got Kings or Aces. 

But then what to make of Manion's shove?  Of course, with Aces he's going to do that no matter what.  But if Labat had three-bet and then Zhu shoved and then Manion shoved, then Labat has to know he's behind one if not both hands (hey, if two players had KK, it's possible instead that two players had AA, right?)

The question then, however, if Labat had three-bet, would he be pot committed to calling no matter what?  I guess it would depend somewhat on the size of Labat's three-bet.  But since he didn't three-bet, his call there makes sense to me. 

What do you all think?

Here's the punchline of the story.  The next night, at the final table, Labat, the short stack, got pocket Kings again and of course shoved.  He got called by pocket Queens.  And wouldn't you know, there was a Queen on the flop and Labat was the first bust-out from the final table.

Dreaded Pocket Kings.

Well, I guess it's safe to say that if there's one person on the planet who hates pocket Kings more than I do, it's Antoine Labat.

Oh and by the way, check out this tweet from Poker News.  "The Dreaded Kings."  Hmmmm….I really should have copyrighted the phrase "Dreaded Pocket Kings."  You don't suppose they left the word "pocket" out because they were afraid I'd sue them, do you?

Some Thoughts On The Main Event

For the first time in, like forever, I watched a whole lot of the WSOP main event this year.  Although one of the things that got me into poker was seeing some televised poker, I really haven't spent a lot of time watching the game on TV since I actually started playing myself.

I did watch some of the November 9 coverage last year, mostly because I was recovering from my triple by-pass and I didn't have a lot of other things I could do to keep me busy or entertained.  Even so, the time of the coverage meant I didn't see all that much of it, and missed the critical moments of the coverage, including the final hand (hey, I couldn't stay up forever, I needed my sleep). 

But this time I watched a lot, including the entire final table.  I kind of surprised myself with how much I watched.

I definitely feel the change in the way they covered it on TV had a lot to do with my watching so much. I really liked the fact that they had live coverage on ESPN or ESPN2 virtually every day.  So much better than the canned, tape delay shows of hands months after they took place.  It kept me interested in following the progress of the players.  I didn't subscribe to PokerGo, but watching a few hours of the main event every day kept me interested and enhanced the stories I was following online.

When the final table started Thursday night, I was familiar with all the players and the big story lines.  And thus watched every bit of it.

So first off, congratulations to all the final 9 and of course most of all to Scott Blumstein for an incredible main event run.  He is a worthy champion and bracelet winner.

Blumstein played great of course. To my non-expert eye, however, I think the best player at the final table, and certainly of the final three, was Benjamin Pollak, but what do I know?  He just couldn't get the cards to cooperate.

And runner up Dan Ott picked a terrible time to become totally card dead, didn't he?  Once it was heads up, Blumstein seemed to get the better cards time after time after time.

I will say I think Ott made one of the worst plays at the final table, when he shoved with King-9 after Pollak's shove.  As  soon as I saw his hand after Pollak's all-in, I thought to myself, "No way he's calling, he has to fold."  Of course, he did indeed shove.  All the commentators agreed that it was a bad play on Ott's part.  Lay it down there, hope Blumstein calls and knocks Pollak out, and get heads up without risking another chip.

But no, he shoved, Blumstein called both with Ace-Queen, and Ott managed to get to showdown with the best hand when a King hit the flop.  I tweeted this out at the time:  "Ott's all in there was terrible yet he was rewarded for it. #skillgame. #WSOPMainEvent."

Just my opinion of course.

And what can I say about the awesome John Hesp that hasn't already been said?  The 64-year-old Englishman was a delight to watch, and made for some real entertainment.   Everyone is saying he helped bring back fun to poker.  It was so refreshing to see someone just out there having a great time playing, wasn't it?  No doubt he was good for the game.  Hopefully the sheer joy he exhibited while playing will become contagious.

I had a couple of observations watching so many hands.  The first was that, for long stretches, I wondered why everyone at the table was playing like me!  And by that I mean nitty.  Seriously, I saw a whole lot of really, really tight play. They were folding hands that I would play!  I dunno if it was the pressure of such a big moment, or if my style of play is catching on.  I kind of think it is the former.

The other thing is that, well, everyone was card dead!  I mean I couldn't believe how many bad hands there were.  It just seemed like there were very few premium hands delivered to the players.  Take the first night.  We saw pocket Queens dealt three or four times in the first couple of hours (and every time to Hesp if memory serves), but I remember thinking that it took forever for someone to wake up with pocket Aces or pocket Kings (once each on the first night I'm guessing).  And I don't think anyone ever had pocket Jacks.

And once heads up play started, as Norman Chad pointed out, there were no pocket pairs to either player for almost the entire run of it. It was only the second to last hand that pocket 6's were the first pocket pair dealt. I don't recall a whole lot of Ace-Kings either.

It seems when I play a tournament, I'm seeing pocket pairs, and even premium pairs, shown by players all the time.  It struck me as odd.  Maybe it's because in a tournament I play in, I don't see all the cards and am maybe assuming they have big hands when they don't.

Whenever I do watch TV poker, I try to use it as a learning experience as much as possible.  I was happy that I correctly predicted what Antonio Esfandiari would say about a situation a lot of the time.  When I couldn't (or guessed wrong), I would listen carefully to his explanation and try to make a big mental note of it.

That said, I'm not sure how much I will be to incorporate into my game.  The issue is, he is basing his thinking on opponents playing at a certain level—a level high enough to run deep into the main event.  I'm not sure most of the players I face in the $125 tournaments I play are using the same thought process these players were.  When Antonio explains why a bet or a check means a player couldn't have X, I know in the games I play, there's at least a 50/50 chance the player could exactly have X.  Still, it was great to hear the thinking of a successful pro.

Oh, and what was with all the ridiculous slow play of some of the players, Damian Salas in particular?  I don't mind taking your time in a tough spot, but Salas seemed to be stalling, sitting there tanking on no-brainer plays.  I mean, if you have 7-2 and there's been a raise and a three-bet, couldn't you just fold instantly instead of taking 10 seconds to stare into space before the inevitable fold?  Seriously, that's bad for the game.

Anyway, this was definitely the most TV poker I've watched in a short period ever.  And I really enjoyed it, and maybe it brought my enthusiasm for poker back some.

Good show, WSOP and ESPN. 

Oh, and how about that deuce on the river?

So Long November 9, Hello July 9

You've probably heard by now that there's a big change at the WSOP this year—no more November Nine.  Instead of delaying the final table for four months as they've been doing for the past several years, they are going to keep going and finish the tournament in July.  Well, they'll be a slight delay.  There will be two days off after they reach the final table.

The two days is fine.  It's being done for television considerations (like the wacky ways they schedule playoff games in all the major sports), but it makes sense.  The final 9 players will have played an awful lot of poker when they reach the final table—7 days of 12-14 hour days almost all in a row.  Nothing wrong with a couple of days to decompress and rest up a bit.  And it will give the media plenty of time to introduce the final 9 to the poker fans who are following along. 

I've always hated the long delay—it just seems ridiculous.  Imagine if they delayed the Super Bowl for four months after the conference championship games.  Although, I have to admit, on a purely personal note, it worked to my advantage last year.  The November 9 took place during my convalescence from my triple by-pass surgery, and the coverage then helped entertain me for a few nights when I wasn't physically able to do much more than watch TV.  But that was just a fluke.  I'm hoping I won't be recovering from open heart surgery again this coming November.  Or any surgery, for that matter.

Also it sounds like there will be a lot of live, contemporaneous  coverage of the early rounds of the main event on TV, both on ESPN and via live stream from Poker Central.  That can only be a good thing.  In the past, poker fans had to follow along reading written reports online, then watch three-month old recordings leading up to the live final table.  This seems so much better.  Kudos to the WSOP for realizing the November Nine wasn't really working and coming up with a much better delivery system for their product.

Of course, this change won't affect me personally, except as someone who will be following along as a champion is crowned.  I'm not playing in the main event.

But there are some other changes that might affect me more directly.  I already mentioned one a few months back, the new tournament, The Giant (see here).  Another change is a rule involving calling clock on players.  Players will be encouraged to call the clock on players who are tanking too long.  And when the clock is called, the TD may run it for less than 60 seconds at his or her discretion.  You can read about it here. 

The other change that caught my eye, however, has to do with food.  The highly unpopular Poker Kitchen is being replaced with a "Grab & Go Poker Kitchenette."  They really haven't explained what that means, but I'm assuming it'll be chips, fruit and premade sandwiches and the like.  Hmmm.  I understand the thought—they want to make it a lot easier and faster to get food during those 10 to 20 minute breaks.  Whether this will actually work remains to be seen.  I mean the sheer volume of players looking for food at the same time will still be a challenge.

But the other thing that really caught my eye was this:  "Hot dog carts will also roam throughout the tournament rooms, to service players looking for a quick tableside bite."

Now you're talking!.  Although not exactly health food, at least it's a hot bite to eat that can be consumed obtained without leaving the table for any great length of time.  Of course there are some issues here.

Eating what is essentially finger food while playing cards isn't ideal.  Too easy for mustard or onions or relish (but never, ever mayonnaise) to get on the cards.  And of course, you really don't want to touch the food you're eating with your hands after you've touched those filthy poker chips.  Perhaps the hot dogs will be served so that you don't have to directly touch them?

And I'd like to get reviews of the quality of the hot dog when this rolls out.  A good hot dog (such as Nathan's) is a wonderful thing.  But a bad hot dog—no thanks.

The reason I'm mentioning this is that it has me possibly rethinking whether to play in the Deepstacks this year.  I've played a few in the past.  But last year they made a change and eliminated the 30-minute dinner break.  Considering how crowded the place is, 30-minutes isn't really enough, but at least it's something.  But now, the first two breaks are 20-minutes and then it's 15-minutes after that.  I had no interest in playing them last year.

I've written here about how I think a dinner break for these long tournaments is necessary.  And the good thing about the tournaments around town during the Series is that most of the long ones that start mid-day or earlier have dinner breaks.  So why don't they have them for the 2PM, $235 Deepstack at the Rio?  It doesn't make sense to me.  That tournament is likely to run until the wee hours of the morning the next day.  With no easy way to eat.

Well until now.  Maybe you can get something to "grab and go" fast at the new kitchenette.  And we'll have to see how often that hot dog cart comes around.  Maybe, just maybe, I might consider playing in a 2PM Deepstack or two this year.

Or maybe not.  I'm still not sure that's the best tournament option for me.  Yes, they are hugely popular and create huge prize pools.  But that means you have to survive among a huge field to get the money.  Instead of outlasting 300-400 people at an alternative tournament, you have to outlast maybe 2,000-3,000 players.  Those are tough odds.

True, the number of players means more players are in the money.  But from what I've heard, the pay distribution for those who aren't near the very top is pretty bad.  I always complain about that, but my understanding is it's even worse for the Deepstacks.  Playing 15 hours to get less than double your buy-in back isn't an appealing thought.

Another issue for these Deepstacks is that the Rio is famous for not cooperating with the players when they want to make a deal at the final table. The players are on their own.  I've heard more than one horror story about a player collecting the money, which was supposed to be redistributed to other players as part of the deal, and just running out of the Rio without paying everyone off.  It's a bit scary.

So I dunno.  I'll have to see.  Right now the alternative tournament for me that I like is the $150 1PM tourney at the Golden Nugget, same as I played a few times last year.  That has a $20K guarantee (most days) and will likely easily surpass that most of the time.  To be honest, the juice for that is a bit high, but I think I have a better chance of cashing (both a min-cash or bigger cash) in that than in the Deepstack at the Rio.  There's also one-day events at Planet Hollywood for $200 & $250 that I may consider.  Those have $20K and $50K guarantees respectively.

Well, I still have time to figure it out.  I can wait until I hear some feedback from players about the various venues and tournaments.

What kind of tournaments are you looking for when you're in Vegas for the WSOP?

Talk is Cheap—Or is It?

Have you heard the latest controversy in poker?  Poker social media is all abuzz over a hand that was telecast recently as part of ESPN’s WSOP main event coverage.

The fury is over a penalty given to a player for his excessive table talk during a hand, and for taunting a fellow player.  I won’t describe it, but fortunately through the magic of YouTube, you can watch it yourself.  And for this post to make any sense, you just have to watch it for and then return for my comments.  I’m not sure if it is cool for me to imbed the video, so I’ll just provide the link (It’s here).  It’s the very first hand of the episode, and to understand everything I want to cover here, you should watch at least the first 12 minutes of the show (up to the first commercial break).  Go ahead, check it out, I’ll wait.

Back?  Good.  So what do you think, was the one-round penalty given to William Kassouf fair?

Certainly, on the most basic level, it is proper to give him a penalty—he was warned and kept doing what he was warned about after being warned, so of course he should be penalized.  And if you go this link here, which has a good debate about the penalty, you will see a list of the various TDA rules he violated. 

Of course, if you wanted to, you could make the argument that the rules need to be updated so that what Kassouf did is allowed.  Or you could say he should have been given a milder penalty.

You won’t hear that argument from me.

To me, Kassouf comes off as a world-class dick.  While there is no law against being a dick (if only….), I think it is in poker’s best interests to minimize dickish behavior as much as it can.  See my recent post (here), for example.

It comes down to how much and what kind of “table talk” should be allowed. Readers should not be surprised at my reaction, especially if they recall my post here where I got very upset at a player who was acting much like Kassouf was. 

I recognize that a lot of the very best players—Daniel Negreanu, to name one—are experts at table talk and consider it a key part of their game.  And there are great arguments for what an important element of the game it is.

But as far as I’m concerned, non-stop talking, becoming harassment, has no place in poker.  It’s abusive and it takes the fun out of the game.  Maybe there’s a line to be drawn somewhere, but clearly Kassouf crossed it.  Then erased it, stomped on it, and urinated on it.  If Kassouf had done that to me, I would have gotten up and slugged him.  I might have slugged him if I was just a bystander at the table.  What a world-class douche.

One thing to note about allowing such table-talk is that you can only allow it in a heads up situation.  Had there been a third player in the hand, he wouldn't have been able to say a thing.(because you might be giving away information to that third player).  While I get the distinction, does it really make sense to have one set of rules for heads-up play and another set for a multi-way pot?  That’d be like saying in baseball, it’s three-strikes and you’re out if no one is on base, but it only takes two strikes and you’re out if there’s a man on base.  Ok, that analogy sucks, but really, why is it ok to have different rules just because there’s an extra person in the hand?

I ask you, is the “skill” involved in using table talk to your advantage a legitimate poker skill, or is it just a form of angle shooting?  I’m sure it alienates some players (I mean, in addition to me) so is it good for the game to allow it?  Clearly Kassouf’s opponent wasn’t very happy about it (I mean, even before she folded the winning hand).  And she is a professional poker player, not some newbie.

And….I actually think allowing such table talk is worse in a tournament than in a cash game.  I acknowledge I might be in the minority and some people might have no problem with it or even like it.  Maybe the person who is the “victim” of it actually can outfox the person doing the talking and get a great read and turn it around in his favor? Or at the very least, finds the other guy’s chatter amusing and not bothersome. Fine and dandy.

But if a player doesn’t enjoy it and it’s allowed, well, if you’re in a cash game, after the hand is over, at least you can get a table change if you like.  That’s what I did in that post I linked to above when I felt abused.  But in a tournament, you don’t have that luxury. You may be stuck with the abusive talker for hours.  That’s why they need to be more vigilant in keeping the talk to a minimum in a tournament.

Anyway, of course Kassouf deserved the penalty.  Not only for his talking, not only for flaunting the warnings he received, but then, for his totally classless act of rubbing it in when he exposed his hand.  “Nine-high…..like a boss.”  I think the Tournament Director himself should have punched him for that.  And keep in mind, we didn’t see the entire hand play out, we came in at the end. Presumably he had been an asshole for awhile (even a few hands earlier, according to the announcers).

Finally, Kassouf is totally unrepentant even after the penalty.  He is happy as a clam for getting penalized by not just any tournament director, but by the Tournament Director of the World Series of Poker!  And he even appears to be happy when the person he bluffed busted out while he was serving his penalty.  Although, to be fair, that may just be editing and it is not certain that is what he is reacting to.

I hope you also noticed the guy who called the clock on the player (Stacy Matuson) who was being harassed by Kassouf.  Now that was totally out of line.  Under the circumstances, with all the warnings and everything else, totally unfair to call the clock there.  Although again, to be fair, the floor person could have—and should have—said that it was too soon to start running the clock under the circumstances.

Anyway, I’m interested to hear other people’s takes on this.  I might be the only one who feels the way I do.  I just feel that poker is supposed to be fun and friendly. Not everyone is going to enjoy this kind of talking at the table.  I suppose a compromise would be to allow it until the person being spoken to says, “Can you please be quiet?  And then the person would have to sit quietly until the action was complete.

So what are your thoughts?

Late Night With Scott Davies

This past Friday night, and into Saturday morning, I was riveted to the TV, watching poker.  Scott Davies was playing for a bracelet.  Not just any ol’ bracelet.  He was playing for the Main Event bracelet at the WSOP- APAC in Australia. In other words, it was a big effing deal.

I’ve mentioned before, I don’t actually watch that much televised poker.  But I was excited to make an exception for this event, in order to cheer for Scott and see if he could get his very first WSOP bracelet.

Why did I care?  Well, for over four years now, Scott has been blogging about his adventures as a professional poker player on AVP (now PokerAtlas).  He started long before I started blogging, and before I started working for AVP.  In fact, the title of his blog is called, “My Quest for a WSOP Bracelet.” You can find his blog here.

So I’ve been following his adventures and his quest, his highs and lows, for all this time.  He’s practically family!  If my memory is accurate, I only briefly met Scott one time, last year during the WSOP in Vegas (see here).

When I learned that Scott had made the final table at the Main Event down under, and that the final table was going to be televised on ESPN live here in the US at 10PM Friday night, PST, I knew I had to watch and see if Scott could do it.  He came into the final table with the second most chips, so it was certainly doable. 

Across the twitterverse, I saw all kinds of encouragement directed at Scott.  Some of these folks no-doubt knew Scott from his AVP blog.  Not sure how the others knew him, but apparently everyone who knows him or knows of him likes him; that’s the kind of guy he is. 

In Vegas, a few of his friends organized a viewing party to watch the telecast together: AlaskaGal, Stump, Michelle, all names you’ve seen on my blog in the past.  But since I wasn’t in Vegas, I had to do the next best thing.

Friends and followers of Scott from all over organized a Facebook chat group, just so we could all watch the final table together and comment about it in real time.  Isn’t the internet cool?  I hope I don’t leave anyone out, but on the group chat were Vook, Nick, John, Jess, Benton, Dwayne, Dan (sorry, don’t have a link for him).  Oh yes, Scott’s wife, Liezl, was also part of the chat.  She was home in Canada, watching on TV like the rest of us.

And it was the chat that made it extra special.  All of us, chiming in from around the country, sharing our thoughts, our good wishes, it was just a total blast.  And keep in mind, for those of our group who live on the east coast, this started at 1AM and didn’t finish until after 5AM!  They were all troopers.

One logistics problem was that, when you televise poker “live” and you show the audience the hole cards, you have to do it on a delay (so that a player can’t have an opponent’s hole cards signaled to him).  We all took a vow not to look at twitter or any other source that would reveal the results prematurely.  Even Liezl agreed…..insisting that Scott not tell her anything when he called her during the breaks.  Honestly, I have a hard time believing she didn’t get real updates during those conversations (or that she didn’t check Twitter for current updates), but hey, I’ll go along with it. J

It was so exciting watching Scott go for the bracelet, and chatting with all his friends and fans at the same time, that I wasn’t even tired.  I had no trouble staying awake, even tho this went on well past the time I normally retire when I’m home in LA.

At the start of the 6-handed table , the biggest stack belonged to Jack Salter, but after awhile, Frank Kassela took the chip lead (moving Scott down to third, I believe) and started bullying the table around.  He went on quite a run. Meanwhile, Scott was card dead and hardly played any hands.

But to show you how fast things can turn around in tournament poker, Kassela went from chip leader to busto in the span of just two hands!  First, he had the misfortune of seeing Ace-King when Scott finally woke up with a hand….a big hand.  Pocket Aces, to be precise.  They got it all in and Scott’s Aces held (I believe there was some Hollywooding on Scott’s part before he put all his chips in the middle).  Suddenly, Scott was the chip leader. 

The very next hand, Kassela was dealt Ace-Queen, and guess what?  Salter woke up with the Aces this time.  Again they were all in, and again, the Aces held.  Bye, bye Kassela.  From the penthouse to the outhouse in two hands.

The rest of the players were soon eliminated (actually, Kassela went out 5^th; the lone woman at the final table, Ang Italiano, was the first to bust) and it was heads up between Scott and Salter.

Scott had a small chip lead.  I’m not sure, but I think Salter may have jumped slightly ahead once or twice, but it was usually Scott in the lead, but never by more than 60% to 40%. 

When it was heads up, things got real interesting, thanks especially to the commentary by noted pro Antonio Esfandiari.  The few times previously I’ve heard Esfandiari doing poker commentary, I’ve always enjoyed him.  He is not only insightful, but he’s witty and charming and presents a winning personality.  I think he’s the best poker “color-man.”

Or at least I did until he started his commentary on the heads-up match.

Antonio didn’t like Scott’s play at all.  He didn’t like his heads-up style.  He clearly didn’t think Scott was aggressive enough.  He even said that he didn’t think Scott had a lot of experience heads-up. 

He was only the “guest” commentator, but really, he should have done some research.

Those of us in the Facebook chat group all knew (or soon learned) that Scott is actually a heads-up specialist.  He might have checked Scott’s cashes from this year’s WSOP.  Scott finished fourth in the $10K heads-up event. 

Antonio predicted immediately that Salter would win the bracelet; he made it clear that he felt Scott was overmatched, and kept praising Salter (and dissing Scott) even as his stack was shrinking.  It was kind of funny.  Except that it was really annoying to our little chat group of Scott’s fans.  Antonio may have lost some fans this night.   Meanwhile, Liezl was telling us that Scott was doing exactly what he wanted to do, that this was his specialty, and that he was going to win.  She laughed off Antonio’s digs at her husband and expressed total confidence in Scott.

To be fair to Antonio, he has his own view of how heads-up should be played, and that’s what he was there for, to give the viewer his expert opinion.  But you know, there’s more than one style that can be successful in poker and Antonio didn’t seem to be willing to consider that.  If you ask for advice on how to play a specific hand of five different pros, the first thing they will say to you is, “It depends.”  Then the five of them will give you at least seven different answers. 

We didn’t see it until after the event was over (on TV, that is), but we later learned that another top pro, Phil Hellmuth, had tweeted out that he disagreed with Antonio and that he actually loved Scott’s style and strategy. 

Anyway, Antonio’s disagreeable comments probably made us pull even harder for Scott, if that was possible, just so we could all kind of universally say to Antonio, “Take that!”  Or “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.”  Or even, “Where’s your main event bracelet, Antonio?”

Heads-up play went on for a (seemingly) long time without a lot of dramatic hands.  Scott kept chipping up, but there were no monster pots or monster hands.  It was after 2AM on the west coast, and it was beginning to look like I’d see the sunrise before this thing would be over.

There were a couple of hands that had us all going crazy on the chat.  On one, I think Scott had top pair, but there were two 4’s on the board and Salter had one in his hand.  Scott was beat, but it was hard to put Salter on a 4 and Scott could have easily thought he had the best hand.  Facing a river bet, Scott tanked for a long time.  The chat room was going crazy, “Fold!”  “Lay it down!”  Finally, Scott did indeed fold and we all cheered.

The flip side was when Scott had a Jack in his hand and there were two Jacks on the board.  But the board was scary.  Salter had a straight draw, and on the river, he missed.  But the river put a third diamond on the board.  Scott’s trip Jacks looked eminently beatable.  But Salter had absolutely nothing.  He led out with a huge overbet, bigger than the pot.  Scott went into the tank for a long, long time.

Then the weirdest thing happened.  As we were all shouting in the chat room, “Call, call, call!” the TD came over and told Scott that he had one minute to act; the clock had been called.  But no one, and I mean no one, had heard Salter call for the clock.  Even the commentators were surprised, they hadn’t heard it either.  We wondered if it was possible that the TD did it himself?  Pretty sure that isn’t allowed.  Apparently Salter must have whispered it, or perhaps had somehow signaled to the TD non-verbally.

However, Scott couldn’t hear us shouting to call (especially since, by the time we saw it on TV, it had happened half an hour earlier).  And as the clock was counting down, he folded.  Damn it!

The commentators, Antonio and Norman Chad, had a field day with this.  They both proclaimed that, even tho Scott still was the chip leader, this was the “turning point” of the match.  They clearly expected Salter to go on from there and start taking Scott’s chips as if he was taking candy from a baby.  Honestly, they way they were talking, Scott may have well as just thrown in the towel. Even before this, they were saying that Salter was clearly outplaying Scott, which was absurd. Scott was the one who was slowly but steadily building up his stack. It would have been funny if we weren’t all pulling so hard for Scott.

I assume at the break that Scott learned that he had been bluffed there, but that’s the difference between successful pros and amateurs.  They can deal with that without going on tilt.  Scott kept playing his steady game—the one Antonio didn’t like—and built his chip lead back up. 

At some point, Antonio finally realized that Scott was playing well, and started praising his moves a bit.  Then finally, just when it looked like there’d never be a truly game-changing hand, it happened.  Scott had pocket 6’s and Salter had Queen-10 (yes, Coach, the “evil hand”).  I believe Scott three-bet with his 6’s.

The flop came 10-10-6.

Bingo!

Scott had flopped a full house, and Salter “only” flopped trip 10’s.  On the turn there was some back and forth betting, Salter finally announced “all-in” and Scott insta-called.  He had Salter covered. The river was a blank and our pal Scott had his first WSOP bracelet—and a Main Event bracelet at that.

Out little chat group was ecstatic, to say the least.  Liezl told us that Scott had actually called her with the news while she was watching the final hand on TV (I guess Scott was tied up with interviews and such).

It was freaking awesome.

Side note:  I’m pretty sure that in the entire 4+ hours of poker, we never saw anyone get dealt the dreaded pocket Kings, for whatever that’s worth.

Congratulations to Scott Davies, Main Event bracelet winner!  No doubt there are more bracelets in your future!