Time and Place

You may recall that we were having an online chin-wag about how Peter Eastgate, WSOP millionaire, is an example of what author Malcolm Gladwell defines as an ‘Outlier’. We looked at how The champ has benefited from application – he has been able to gain enough experience to achieve mastery – and now will look at how he has helped by his birth year – 1985.

On January 1, 1998, the first real money hand was dealt in an online poker room. Eastgate was just thirteen. As the Dane went through his adolescence, so did online poker. By the time Eastgate turned eighteen, revenues from the game were worth nearly $2.4 billion. People were taking notice. Mainstream newspapers started to provide weekly poker columns and TV started to cover live tournaments. The WSOP had had its first champion who had qualified via an online satellite. It was everywhere. It was particularly grabbing the attention of young, middle-class westerners.

1999 also saw the introduction of ASDL lines in Denmark. The national coverage now tops 97% of the population and broadband penetration is above 29 subscribers per 100 inhabitants. This is important. As Gladwell points out in ‘Outliers’, 14 people on the Forbes Magazine list of the 75 richest people in history are Americans born with a decade of each other. It is particularly impressive as the list includes queens and kings.

The Americans were born between 1831 and 1840. They came of age when industrial manufacturing was transforming the economy. Like Eastgate, they were in their twenties when the boom was happening and perfectly placed to take advantage. Like them, had Eastgate been born ten years sooner, or ten years later, he would not have been as well placed to take advantage of the circumstances. He needed the extraordinary opportunity of online poker.

All of this is a little self evident but it is worthy of consideration because it helps demystify success stories. Too many people believe they have not got the talent to achieve, but if you a scratch a little blow the surface of their story, you will find that almost every high achiever has had a massive a sense of application at a time of great opportunity. Although Eastgate is clearly a talented player, it is counter-productive to believe it is innate ability.

Putting the hours in

Regular readers that did not spend their weekend having their poker game water-boarded may recall that Friday’s post suggested that WSOP winner Peter Eastgate could be an example of what author Malcolm Gladwell calls an ‘Outlier’. (If any people reading this are sufficiently curious, check out the content dated 18th November but be prepared to experience a rapid heartbeat. It may even leave you gasping for breath, confused and with deep psychological scars)

In his book, one of Gladwell’s key points is that there is no such thing as a ‘natural’. To support his position, he cites a study performed at an elite musical school in Berlin: psychologists divided students into three groups: the gifted, the good and those destined to be violin teachers. They were all asked the same question: how many hours have you spent practising?

The psychologists discovered that, although all of the sample had started playing music at roughly the same age (five), by the time the students had reached eight, big differences emerged in the amount of practice between the three groups. The ones that ended up the best in their class practised more – a lot more – than the others. They had reached 10,000 hours of practice by the age of twenty. By comparison, the ‘good’ had reached 8,000 hours, the ones destined to be teachers had only 4,000.

Eastgate, although young, has certainly put in the hours. He has been playing poker professionally since graduating from high school. Sceptics and mathematicians may question if that is enough to have amassed 10,000 hours of poker by twenty-two. No, it is not. However, let’s not forget that he was blooded playing online at multiple tables. Such players can accumulate a lot of Hold ‘em experience in a relatively short time and can therefore cram in more hands an hour than those forced to schlep between venues in order to feel felt.

As the online game is relatively young, the current generation of young players is able to sharpen its game at a rate unprecedented in poker history. It won’t last. In the future the likelihood of the WSOP throwing up a champ who didn’t learn the game online is about the same that Hold ‘em will start incorporating the joker. Absorption in the online game will cease to a method of fast-tracking one’s way to a bracelet: almost everyone will be doing it. However, in 2008, it partly explains why Eastgate is the youngest ever WSOP champion.

In Wednesday’s post, I’ll wrap up the case with a kipper across the kisser of a concluding argument that incorporates more of Gladwell’s thoughts and suggests why there is no such thing as genius.

Eastgate is not here right now

New millionaire and recent WSOP top dog Peter Eastgate is a man who can afford to screen calls right now. Word on the (fibre-optic) grapevine is that there is a three month wait just for the right to text the guy that scours the champ’s laptop for fingernail shrapnel. As there should be: when a guy bites off a $9.1 million sized chunk of change from the poker circuit, he has the right to take some time to digest it. Unfortunately, that might be frustrating for Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point and man most likely to leave the restaurant before the cheese n’ biscuits. His latest book is called Outliers and Eastgate could easily feature in a revised edition.

Gladwell argues that ‘the true origins of high achievement’ lie in areas such as ‘demographic luck’ and ‘the particular opportunities that our particular place in history presents us with’. Another key point of the book (‘The Story of Success’) is that anyone who wants to be successful needs to put the hours in – specifically, about 10,000.

Although it does not explain how to repackage the Protestant work ethic into a 256 page best seller, it is worth considering how his investigations are supported by Eastgate’s life-changing night in Vegas.

In Monday’s post, I will endeavour to illustrate how Icegate’s record-breaking triumph is a classic example of time and circumstance.

Poker Types - Part 2

Previously on Eyebrows.....

(To achieve the required level of anticipation, please imagine the whooshing windows from the intro to TV’s ‘24’ and shout at least one of the following lines of dialogue: ‘I’m federal agent (insert) and this is the longest hand of my life’; If you don’t show your hand, then it will just be a question of how much you want to hurt’; ‘When I’m finished with you, you’re gonna wish you felt this good again’.

OK, done that? If so, you are either in the mood to read the second piece of a two part poker blog or fight international terrorism. If the former: see below; if the latter: see a therapist.)

Yesterday, you had just been dealt KK in mid position and you had re-raised an early position player, making it $22 to play. I asked – why is it possible you acted rashly?

The answer is that you may have forgotten to consider the size of the stacks behind you.

Let’s say there is a player immediately to your left who has only $30 left. If he wants to play his cards, he will go all in – and that could leave you screaming ‘Nooooooo’.

Why?

You have given him a chance to make a partial raise.

The $30 guy can only raise $8, which is lower than the minimum raise – but, as he is spent, it is acceptable. That means that unless the pot is raised again by another player, all you can do is call.

If there are any astute players behind you, they will realise you are trapped, and may call for value. Given that the original raiser obviously has strong cards, it is unlikely he will fold them, particularly as he knows you are stuck. Suddenly, you are looking at a three-way $90 pot that is destined to go to the river.

When there is a mid stack behind you, it is important that your bet is either: less than half his total, or enough to put him in. The middle ground is death.

It is a more common situation than you may realise and few players take it into account. You have to be aware of everything that is going on around the table, not just your hole cards.

It pays to notice the dancing bears.

Poker Types

For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that there are only three types of people: the bores, the students and the wise. If that sounds simplistic, please consider that I’m British and that over here we only have three genres of film: comedy, tragedy and Guy Ritchie.

Now let’s argue that the former three categories have defining philosophies for poker: the bores believe there are lessons for life at the table; the students think they should listen to the bores; and the wise admit their ignorance. (Am I stealing from bumper sticker philosophy? Possibly, but lose marks for not thinking ‘I don’t know’.)

The bores can be to quick categorise their opponents and limited in their thinking. They are represented by the jaded veterans who think they have ‘seen it all before’. They probably have, but they have forgotten how to make esoteric connections.

The students are so desperate to graduate to the higher echelons of the game that they ape the style of the bores and close their minds to innovation. It is poker by rote: always fold AJ in early position because a fool and his money are easily parted, and at the end of the day luck evens itself out. They are the kind of player who would celebrate if their local card house decided to name a pretzel after them.

The true ones to watch are the wise: they know they can learn poker tips from anywhere. Let me give you an example of a recent off-table epiphany. (I make no claims to wisdom, but I’m proud that I am no student and, if you are still reading, I’m probably not a fully-fledged bore.)

Transport for London is running a viral campaign at the moment to make drivers more aware that it can be very easy to miss events on the road. I urge you to check them out here (and here) - it helps the fluidity of the piece, but they are genuinely clever and shocking.

They prove how easy it to miss detail. It is a common flaw at the poker table as well as on the streets of Camden.

Here is an example from Hold ‘em

You have KK in mid-position. It has been a while since you saw two painted characters and you become excited.
Another punter raises four times the big blind, taking it to $8, so you instantly kick it to $22. Why may you have acted rashly?

Think about it. I accept that there will be more than one possibility but there is a particular oversight I want to address.

Answer tomorrow.

WSOP Winner

It took over four hours of feverish heads-up competition but we have a winner at last: Peter Eastgate from Denmark has become the youngest ever World Series of Poker main event champion. He is 22 and he has just earned himself $9.1 million dollars as well as a place in the record books.

The tournament itself also provided a few new entries for fans of sporting lists: the final table was the longest ever; it had never had two guys from outside the states go heads up for the bracelet; and it was the first time the blinds had reached one million.

In the midst of all of these firsts, it must have been deeply reassuring for the traditionalists to see the customary placing of the prize pool on the table. Not that the sight of all of those crisp bundles of a hundred dollars bothered the two players: they both displayed intense concentration throughout the battle.

It was obvious that these two players had been weaned on the internet game. Here were two young men on the verge of a life-changing moment but they managed to maintain their emotional neutrality, even in the post-game interviews. They were consummate professionals, if a little inexperienced at handling the media.

Despite his relative youth Eastgate had the maturity to praise all of the other members of the November 9 and acknowledged that when he put his money into the middle, his hands held up. That is not to suggest he is a lucky winner but he would probably agree the deck was kinder to him in the final session.

If there was one hand that might have produced a Russian champion, it was the one highlighted by Demidov in his interview. It was a cheap one and the flop was 5-7-4. Demidov was first to act and checked. No more free cards, thinks the Dane: 1,150,000 to go. Demidov check-raised to 2,125,000. Eastgate called.

The turn was an 8.

The Russian checked, Eastgate ponied up four and a quarter mil. Again Demidov check-raised to 14 million. After a long time and some intense staring, the Dane called.

The river was a 3.

Both players checked and both revealed a 6 for the straight – but the Russian, with a 8, had flopped it. He had to accept a chopped pot but, all things considered over the four hours, I think the Dane would have held on regardless.

The Russian made few mistakes all night but came up against a hand every time he bluffed, or made second best. The final hand was an example of the latter.

The players had seen a cheap flop and were looking at 2-K-3. Demidov checked and was happy to pay 1,250,000 to see the turn. It was a 4. It was another check-raise for when Eastgate bet 2 mil, the Russian made it 6 and freed nearly half his stack into the pool. Eastgate called.

The river was a 7.

Nothing else could occur apart from Demidov pushing and Eastgate calling. The former had 2-4, two pair and the latter had A-5, for the wheel.

It was over. We have a record breaker from Denmark. He says he is going for eleven bracelets. He has plenty of time to get them.

WSOP 2008 Main Event Heads Up

Peter Eastgate – DEN - $9,152,416

Ivan Demidov – RUS - $5,809,595

WSOP Final Table

Tonight, at 10pm PST, the Penn and Teller Theatre at the Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino will host the heads up showdown for the main event of the 2008 WSOP and the bracelet will be leaving North America.

Yesterday, some four months after they had begun their campaign to be crowned champion, the November 9 sat down at the final table. By the end of the night, the two survivors were Denmark’s Peter Eastgate and Russia’s Ivan Demidov. Tonight’s play sees Peter hold the advantage as he has 79,500,000 to Ivan’s 57,725,000 but most bookies struggle to put a playing card between them and expect a tense affair. Both players will believe they have the game and the temperament to win.

Yesterday’s wild atmosphere generated by the sell-out crowd was neither for the faint-hearted nor for those who like their cotton free of logos. It was estimated that 300 members of the audience were kitted out in the trademark white shirt and red cap of Dennis Phillips, a level of support that must have been slightly intimidating for the other players. (He later denied rumours that he had hired a private plane to jet them all to Vegas, although he did admit he had paid all of their expenses and bought them the desired garb.)

He had begun the day as chip leader and he didn’t have to wait long until his minimum payday increased, although it was not in the fashion everyone had expected. Kelly Kim defied all expectations and outlasted Craig Marquis, who became the only player not to become a dollar millionaire when he crashed out in ninth place. He was desperately unlucky.

Aware that was becoming terminally short of chips, he shoved in his stack when he saw 77 in the hole. When Scott Montgomery called with AQ, Marquis was jubilant when the flop landed 7-A-T. When the turn brought a jack, he was still fairly unconcerned. The knock-out was the deadly card, the king, giving Scott the nut straight, a possibility that had been neglected by the tournament director, who had announced the outs on the flop. In a way, that is not surprising. On the flop, Marquis would win that hand over 96 times in 100. It probably cost him roughly $387k.

Kim must have felt like Cinderella and he continued his fairy-tale a little longer, although he needed a magic wand when his push with 44 attracted the attention of three callers. I’m sure he was happy with eight place pay-out, given he had already survived two mini-bubbles.

The next player to burst was David Rheem. Again we saw hands reaching into the arc of the probability laws but this time, they were just given a shake, not a throttling. Rheem made his final move with AK and was called by Eastgate with AQ. The queen paired, the king didn’t and Rheem was left royally unimpressed.

A final table is never a good time to be conscious of one’s inferior status so when qualifier Darus Suharto found himself as the lowest of the table’s pecking order, he decided he would fight like a noble. Unfortunately, he decided to push and found himself against a stronger holding just at the moment the probability Gods stopped tickling the ear of the underdog. They demanded a sacrifice. A8 versus AQ, time for Suharto to go walkies.

Montgomery was to follow. He had been wearing a hangdog expression ever since he had received a dressing down from Ivan Demidov in a hand worth around 50 million. Before the flop, the action had been: raise, re-raise, all in, call, with Demidov the last to act. In an online game, these hands leave the impression that someone’s bloodstream is a tad tainted with hooch and the players are subconsciously trying to empty their bladders. When Montgomery revealed Ad, 9d, we wondered if he needed a potty; when he saw Ivan’s KK he must have felt like crying ‘finished’.

The flop uncovered two diamonds and both players clenched their fists. The turn was a blank. The crowd whooped. The river was another blank and Ivan was dancing around the table. It was not Montgomery’s day – Eastgate gave him the final shove by hitting a one outer a few hands later.

With only four players left, there was a period of exhalation and the game slowed down. At such times, the mettle is tested and some crack. Schwartz was close to the edge and had decided that he would try to sucker punch his opponents. He was in a hand against Eastgate and the board was 2-K-8-K. Schwartz checked, Eastgate bet 1.75 million, Schwartz called. The river was a five.
Again, Schwartz checked. Eastgate bet 4.6 million. Schwartz check-raised all in: 12.5 million on top. He wasn’t expecting a call. He got one. Eastgate had a full house with fives. Schwartz had ace high. In his post game interview Schwartz maintained it was a good play as it would have been difficult for Eastgate to call had he not hit the five. I’m inclined to agree. It would have been the perfect time to flip his cards had the bluff worked and he could have boosted his table image. Next time.

Another rashly timed move saw the exit of Dennis Phillips. He had been a little too aggressive in the day’s early stages and his chip stack had fluctuated. Now done to three, he found himself as the short stack. He was under pressure, but his final hand was a little odd. Eastgate had raised from the small blind and Phillips called from the big. The dealer presented a flop of J-4-3.
Eastgate bet 1.5 million. Phillips went all in for 15,275,000 and was quickly called. He had bet close to five times the pot and Eastgate had flopped a set of threes. Philips had T-9. It was the kind of bet that can only win a relatively small pot and will lose a huge one. Such is the pressure of the WSOP.

It leaves Eastgate versus Demidov. It promises much but guarantees a European champion.

Peter Eastgate – DEN – 79,500,000
Ivan Demidov – RUS – 57,725,000

Casualties:

3. Dennis Phillips – USA - $4,517,773
4. Ylon Schwartz - USA - $3,774,974
5. Scott Montgomery – CAN - $3,096,768
6. Darus Suharto – CAN - $2,418,562
7. David Rheem – USA - $1,772,650
8. Kelly Kim – USA - $1,288,217
9. Craig Marquis – USA - $900,670

WSOP Preview

Now that the US election is over, there may be some fixated people who have suddenly found that their lives have become an intellectual void and they are craving a hit of bamboozling statistics and barely grounded media opinion.

Fortunately, the final table of the main event of the WSOP begins on Sunday, so that presents me with an opportunity to wildly splutter enough thoughts so by the time I have finished, you might fight feel like your face has been used as the canvas for an early Jackson Pollock.

I’ll start by painting the picture as it currently stands:

1. Dennis Phillips 26,295,000
2. Ivan Demidov 24,400,000
3. Scott Montgomery 19,690,000
4. Peter Eastgate 18,375,000
5. Ylon Schwartz 12,525,000
6. Darus Suharto 12,520,000
7. David Rheem 10,230,000
8. Craig Marquis 10,210,000
9. Kelly Kim 2,620,000

For the first penetrating insight, I’ll say we can disregard Kelly Kim. He can only last 9-10 rounds and has admitted he just wanted to finish 9th and make the final table. Although we will probably be down to eight quite quickly, all of them will feel like they have a chance.

To trim the field a little further, I don’t think Ylon Schwartz will grab the top prize as, for all his tournament experience, he is yet to win one. It is a factor that also blights the record of David Rheem. Although he finished second in a WSOP event last year, I think he needs luck on his side here, as will guitar player Craig Marquis, who has been playing poker for less than two years.

Another player with limited experience is satellite winner Darus Suharto, although admittedly his only cash was in last year’s event, finishing 448th and earning $26,389. An accountant residing in Toronto, this year guarantees he will have a double entry but I don’t think he will log $9.1 million.

So we are left with the top four.

Although Dennis Phillips has a reasonable lead, I don’t think this year will see the oldest champion since Noel Furlong who, at the age of 61, won it nine years ago. Despite having booked the assistance of Roy Winston as a coach, I don’t think the current chip-leader will possess the necessary combination of ruthlessness and concentration.

The remaining three on the shortlist all have the above attributes in abundance and it is very difficult to separate them. Peter Eastgate is capable of making Phil Hellmuth throw his chips from the table as the Dane could become the WSOP main event’s youngest bracelet winner – but for that reason I will make him the next casualty.

I think the bracelet is bound for Russia. Ivan Demidov has the big mo. He picked up a cheque for £334,850 for taking third place at the WSOP Europe in September and has already cashed at the 2008 WSOP, earning $39,854 for a $1,000 buy in. He is a fierce competitor at the computer games Starcraft and Warcraft and so will have the concentration. There is an argument that his shyness might be a downside when the cameras start rolling but I believe he will stay focussed and make the plays. I expect Scott Montgomery to run him close.

By the end of Sunday, we will know the final two, who will then go visor to visor on Monday.

Change

Tuesday night/Wednesday morning was a time when the pace of social justice finally accelerated. For once, all of the available statistics were upheld and there was not a calamitous turn around. A journey that had begun 248 orbits ago ended in triumph. An opponent, who had threatened to sustain ill judged philosophies, was vanquished.

Yes, the guy who, when he was told he couldn’t win by playing 8-4 suited responded with ‘Yes I can’, succumbed to the inevitable and left the table broke. I raised a glass of champagne. It was time to toast the poker table, a place where no-one brings privilege, and everyone, as long as he/she bothers to learn the odds, has a chance.

At the moment, however, there is still a caveat to the above. Ever since the Bush administration stamped an eleventh hour amendment onto a bill designed to prevent terrorism, it has been very difficult for US based players to play poker online. In that respect, it is a handicap to be born in the land of the free.

Will the president-elect, Barack Obama, overturn the situation and allow us Europeans to offer our American friends a cyber-seat at the oval tables?

Possibly, but don’t hold your breath.

When he was on the campaign trail, Obama said he was a pretty good poker player and a few Democrats have said they would like to overturn the bill. (Actually, there is roughly the same number of Republicans who would be happy to trash it but that would have been unlikely under the outgoing administration.) However, given that the 44th President’s in-tray will be bulging with some pretty weighty paper-work, it may be some time until we in Europe are able to play against Joe The Plumber. (Shame, as given his likely state of mind, it would be the perfect time to play him)

My guess is that we won’t see any hands bending the arc of history towards online poker rooms until 2010, at the earliest. Until then, I’ll leave you with this poser:

When those eager American players arrive at our tables, what is the obvious answer to: Can we beat them............?

Building Bridges

A mid level poker pro should always be on the lookout for ways to attract new blood. It becomes a little tedious grinding against the same opponents day in, day out, and eventually, as the individuals become more experienced, the profit margin is squeezed. There are always the Friday night blowhards who return sozzled from the bar and who are partially correct to believe they are the next Devilfish. However, they are usually broke soon after they fall comatose. I prefer it when the weaker players stick around.

To that end, I advise always be on the lookout for venues that attract people with a desirable blend of competiveness and naivety. Be creative. Scour the newspapers and journals for events that could easily be used as a recruitment ground.

Let me start you off with an idea of my own: in Britain, there is an event called the annual World Poohsticks Championship.

Just in case you are unfamiliar with the history of poohsticks, it started when a character from children’s fiction, Winnie the Pooh, tripped on a bridge and accidentally dropped a fir cone into the river. Now, 80 years on, participants at the WPC drop sticks into the Thames from one side of a bridge to see whose emerges first on the other side.

Top level competitors sometimes refer to the wisdom of a donkey: Eeyore, a character from the books and cultural short hand for unremitting pessimism, believed that success at poohsticks was achieved by ‘letting the stick drop in a twitchy kind of way’.

Next year’s WPC is taking place at the end of March and I intend to be housed in a booth, hosting Hold’ em introductory sessions, trying to sway those following the path of the donkey. These are the kind of players we want: fun, friendly and capable of surrendering their fate to the river.