What do you do when your leading sponsors have been busted by the U.S. feds?

Obviously, the World Series of Poker officials have a problem.

The WSOP is on the search for new interested sponsors.

Current WSOP partners are longtime sponsor Jack Link’s Beef Jerky, and new sponsorships Dearfoam Slippers and GoDaddy.com.

The GoDaddy logo will appear on all televised WSOP tables this year.

GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons says their Internet loving fans are happy about the partnership, though there were some issues pertaining to specific Gaming Control Board rules and regulations.

No doubt, the usual host of big online poker site advertisements are not present this year.

Most of the focus now is on the action, though the issue of Internet poker advertising crossing over into the WSOP may come up again prior to the Main Event.

We hope the feds come to their senses and stop prosecuting online gambling sites.

It obviously happened in Europe, but I think it’s pretty funny.

The definition of lower is: a person with a record of failing; someone who loses consistently.

Ok, I’ll buy that.

It would hardly be considered the most flattering name for a poker player to be saddled with, but one man determined not to live up to his name is German player Manig Löser.

But Loser recently did well at the European Masters of Poker tournament in Bulgaria last week.

Manig Löser succeeded in outlasting a field of 260 players at the Crystal Crown Casino, to win the 1,100 euro buy in event and walk away with the 49,080 euros first place prize.

Not bad for a Loser, eh?

As the tournament eventually played down to just nine players, Löser then plahyed a solid game and maintain his stack, while others busted out around him.

Finally, Löser eliminated Romanian George Draghici in third with his Q-8 badly dominating his opponent’s J-8, to force a heads-up encounter against Israeli player Shani Vahnun.

It took less than an hour before the final hand of the competition was played, after Loser was dealt K-6 to his opponent’s 9-8. With the flop falling  Q-J-6, Löser bet out 55,000 euros with bottom pair, only for Vahnun to push all-in over the top for his remaining 700k with a gut-shot straight draw.

The turn and river of A-2 failed to improve the Israeli’s hand and he had to content himself with the runner-up prize of €35,000, instead.

Manig Löser thus became  the 2010 EMOP Bulgaria champion.

Löser has now won $60,311 from four live tournament cashes, all coming this year.

A loser no more.

This past week The World Series of Poker Circuit Event staff released the schedule of events, which offer 17 different tournaments (WOW!) in Atlantic City, New Jersey, from Dec. 4-20.

The tournaments will range in length from one to three days and feature buy-ins from $230 to $5,150.

But the largest buy in is for the Three-Day Deep Stack Main Event, from Dec. 13-15. Those competing  in the Main Event will receive 30,000 chips with the blinds beginning at 25/50.

Each level will last 60 minutes with a 15-minute break after every two levels and play extending to 90 minutes per level once the final table is reached.

There will also be $1,600 and $2,150 tournaments taking place after the start of the Main Event.  They will retain the same hour-long levels and blind structure of the Main Event with 20,000 and 25,000 chip starting stacks, respectively.

The Harrah’s Atlantic City cicruit event is the fourth stop on the WSOPC.

We’ll certainly tell everyone what happens at the event.

This seems to me like it will set quite a precedent. Perhaps it will have import on the constant problems facing online poker play. I’m not sure how I feel about this ruling. I had always thought that it was the monetary aspect that counted something as gambling. Chess – an undeniable game of skill – could be turned into gambling if betting became involved; or at least that’s what I thought. Ina any event, if this decisions ends up having greater ramifications, then I’m sure that poker’s status will be up for far more debate then this single case. But lets not forge the words of the legendary Tom Landry on this subject.

 ”In poker, it is often said that lucky breaks keep suckers at the table.” [A quote from Steven Lubet's book Lawyer’s Poker: 52 Lessons that Lawyers Can Learn from Card Players]

 There’s a story that Niels Bohr, the famous Physicist, had a horse shoe over his desk.  One day a student asked if he really believed that a horse shoe brought luck, and Bohr replied, “I understand that it brings you luck if you believe in it or not.”

I’m interested in the concept of luck, especially as it applies to poker.  I’ve written about this concept in previous posts (here and here), and I’m still not sure what it means.  I’ve recently read Steven Lubet’s book Lawyer’s Poker: 52 Lessons that Lawyers can Learn from Card Players (for a review of the book see here and for interview with the author see here), and he makes some points about luck with respect to Texas Hold’em. 

On the one hand, Lubet says that good poker players are never really lucky because they have calculated the odds correctly.  He gives the example of the poker player who might take a chance on a five-to-one draw, but only because he knows that the expected value of the action would be six to one or better, and that in the long run he will make a profit.  So if he hits a good card, Lubet says, his draw is not lucky.  Likewise, if he hits a worthless card, according to Lubet, his draw is not unlucky. 

On the other hand, Lubet says that luck does play a role in poker, specifically with second-best hands.  He writes, “[I]t is not really lucky to draw pocket aces in Texas Hold’em; it is just your turn, as everyone else will eventually get the same cards the same number of times.  Your result, with aces or any lesser hand, primarily depends on how well you play your cards.  But it is lucky (or luckier) if someone else at the table draws pocket kings at the same time, because that will build up the pot.  Conversely, it is relatively unlucky if everyone else at the table draws unplayable rags, because your aces will not be worth much if all of the other players fold their hands.  The stronger the second-best hand, the luckier you are.” (p. 24 Lawyer’s Poker)

What I find unclear about Lubet’s analysis of luck in poker is that if knowing the expected value of an action eliminates luck when second-best hands are not considered, why wouldn’t knowing the expected value of an action eliminate luck when they are considered?  In other words, if it is not really lucky to draw pocket aces in Hold’em, then why is it lucky to draw pocket aces when someone else draws pocket kings?  After all, eventually everyone else will find themselves in the same sort of situation.