Here is an interesting hand. During a break at the last WSOP PPV Internet broadcast I did, the professional announcer, Scott Lauer, told me of a hand he had played that week.

Scott was playing $2-$5 no limit hold’em. His stack was $570 before the smart of this hand. He held 6-3 suited on the button, and everyone in front of him limped in for $5. He limped in as well, which is correct in my view. The blinds played as well, so the pot contained $45.

The flop was 6-6-4, and a middle player opened for a (tiny) $20. A play Scott thought was a good player raised to $80. What should Scott do now?

You could argue for raising, calling, or folding. In favor or raising, he has three sixes, his opponent s do not have to have better hands to be making these plays, though they might. By making it $200 or so to go, Scott can safely fold if anyone comes over the top and also protects against overpairs and hands like 7-5 from playing (though a 3 would be nice on the turn). In favor of calling, by simply calling he shows he must have a six (to aware opponents) while risking less and getting to see a turn card if the original bettor call or folds. If he reraises, Scott can fold inexpensively. In favor of folding, two players must each realize that someone in a full field has a six, but they are betting and raising. Surely Scott cannot be in the leas, and should get out now.

At the table, I would have raised and awaited the action, but Scott chose to call. The turn was a 4, making the board 6-6-4-4, giving Scott top full house. The action now went: $80 bet, $1,000 all-in to Scott. Now what?

There is only one hand Scott cannot beat right now and that is quad fours. However, the fact that there are three contenders must be worrisome, as there are not enough sixes to go around. Assuming no one has pocket fours, Scott is being asked to all his whole stack ($485) to get what is almost certainly a) a chop, and b) a freeroll for the opponent if he as a six with an overcard. If he has, say, 7-6, a seven on the end will give him a higher full house than Scott’s.

Let’s look at the pot $5 + $240 +$80 is what is available to be split, so Scott can win $160 if all goes well, and as to risk $460 to do it. And if one of the opponents does have 4-4, he is either drawing dead (if the other opponent has a six, as is likely), or to one out.

If he is not drawing nearly dead, he can still get outdrawn, and cannot outdraw anyone. Risking $485 to win $160 if all goes well is not a great investment. Thus, he should fold his full house. At the table, Scott called, and I admit I might have as well without thinking it through.

But we all learn from thinking about hands away from the table so we can make better decisions at the table. In this case, the right play, fold, is clear after much thought. Next time, Scott, I, and perhaps you, will make a better decision.

Again on short notice, I did the color commentary for a WSOP final table pay-per-view (also available free in the hotel for guests, and in hotel bars). This was a limit hold’em $3,000 buy-in event that drew only 294 players. The table was interesting, though, and I thought I did better this time with the practice. I hope they ask me back again. This is fun.

One correction from the last post. The excellent play-by-play announcer,, Scott Lauer, is the voice of the Charlotte Bobcats. Sorry, Scott, there are too many NBA teams for me to keep track of.

Today I did the color commentary on the Pay-Per-View side of the WSOP Live broadcasts. It was the final table of Event 27 ($1,500 buy-in NLHE with 2,315 entrants.) This was my first color analyst gig, and I really enjoyed it (I hope the viewers did too). The play-by-play guy was Scott Lauer, who was easy to work with. In real life, Scott does play-by-play for the NBA Cleveland Cavaliers, but he loves poker and it shows in his broadcasting and the questions he posed to me.

I do not know if there are replays, or even if people can get to watch individual events. There is a subscription package available for I think $49.95,, which covers several WSOP events and most Circuit Final Tables as well. Due to a new way of showing final tables, viewers can see all hole cards in almost real time. (We had a slight glitch this evening and lost hole cards for an hour or so of the 6 hour final table.) With hole cards visible tot he commentators and audience, the broadcasts are far more interesting, and seeing all of the hands played out is quite educational. I think. These subscriptions are available at www.worldseriesofpoker.com.

I hope they invite me back, and if they do, I will try to provide more notice here.

Keeping my long ago promise, today I will comment on “Which’s” question regarding freerolls and poker politics::

Barry–

So, another question might be how good are freerolls where only the top 6 get paid, yet the venues are expensive to stay at and get to if you are an out-of-towner? (are the side games worth traveling for perhaps?, I had heard ever since the one table shoot outs started, the WSOP side action got much less desirable).

Ok, from the top. Pros are trying when they believe they have something to try for. Because some are playing for their image and are competitive people by nature, they try all the time. But most pros are playing for the prize, and when the prize is not there (like in most Charity tournaments and many WPT freerolls, they do not care. When the top prize is a $10,000 seat or a $25,000 WPT Championship seat, pros who normally play for millions simply do not care. This is especially true if a big money game in the offing, as it generally is if the event is happening in Las Vegas or Los Angeles.

The other factor is TV. Most pros try harder if they are on TV, but some still do not care if the prize is small. And some like to BE on TV, but not to STAY on TV, if not big prize is in the offing.

With regard to invitationals, it is about ratings. Jose Rosencrantz won a WPT title in year one, but is middle aged and very boring. So he gets invited nowhere. Ron Rose won the WPT championship (which the WPT would like you think is like the WSOP World Championship but with a bigger buy-in), but he is also middle-aged and boring, so no invites for him either.

TV is looking for demographics, which means they want 18-45 males to watch in droves. And what do they want? Young dynamic players, exciting personalities, some girls. Phil Gordon is wealthy, a decent player, but has been on TV as a host and know all the celebrities. He also has a personality that matches his large in-person persona.

Let’s look at Humberto Brenes. I played with him over the years, and he is a nice man and a very good player. He has totally manufactured a personality with dances, clown hats, and shark toys (does he playas well as Jose? Hard to tell. My vote is yes, but it’s close). It is stupid and annoying, but it something for viewers to watch. And porker is boring as hell without something to watch. So Hellmuth’s antics (not really manufactured), Daniel’s wonderful personality and babbling (totally natural), Shannon’s bubbly personality, make for good TV. (Why does local news rush to fires? Everyone has already seen fire. But it is something to look at in a medium that craves visual images). So despite the announcers, these are not the top 64 players in the world (though they may well have the top ten). They have recognizable people, exciting people, famous people, attractive women, and well-connected people as well as some who are indisputable poker greats.

About the moot PPT, the players were largely chosen by results in WPT events, and to some extent by participation (if you played every WPT event, like Chris Bigler did, you were automatically qualified). Jeff Shulman may have, but he also is CEO of one of the most important media outlets for poker. And his win total is equivalent to David Singer’s, and many others.

So invitationals are a combination of good TV, good poker, and good ratings, with a smattering of good coverage. In TV, youth, excitement, and women dominate every show. And poker, to them, is just another show.