Neil talks to us about this dubious honor as well as the other challenges facing him as an amateur, albeit a serious and accomplished one, among professionals.

You can root for Neil in November when ESPN airs the final table of the WSOP Main Event. If you’re in San Francisco, check out his girlfriend’s store.

Our strategy hand comes to us from the author of A Main Event Rookie Lives the Dream.

Timestamps

:30 – hello and welcome
12:40 – strat
54:30 – interview

Strategy

Blinds 2000/4000/300. UTG2 (80K) limps. Hero has JJ in the HJ and raises to 12,000. BB calls and the limper folds.

Flop (34.5K in pot) Q-6-8r. BB checks, Hero bets 20K, BB calls.

Turn (75K in pot) Q86Jr. BB checks, Hero bets 65K, BB calls.

River (205K)  Q-6-8-J-10. BB shoves 70K.

Timestamps

Strategy

Final three tables of the $162 buy-in $100K Guarantee on Bovada. There’s a $400 pay increase for making the final two tables.

The table is eight handed, Hero has the third-shortest stack though not by a lot.  Blinds are 3K/6K, 600 ante.  Villain 1 (64K) raises to 12,500 , Hero (78K) shoves 88 UTG+1, Villain 2 (77K) and shoves TT in the CO. UTG folds A7s.

Meet-Up

Hope to see you at the Nitcast Meet-Up this Saturday from 10AM – Noon at Rio Convention Center Starbucks. Nate and Andrew are eager to meet you, and a lot of former guests will be stopping by as well!

With regard to all the controversy about the WSOP prioritizing ESPN’s interests over those of the players, I do want to ask, “Why shouldn’t they?” I certainly don’t like it and think it is pretty bastardly, but the truth is that they have a monopoly on the greatest poker tournament there is, and most people are going to play it no matter what. Given the choice between the “live feed”, with all the attendant problems of delays, weird schedules, players getting jostled by camera crews, etc. or no “live feed”, I’d opt for the live feed.

That said, that doesn’t have to the choice. Caesar’s could choose to compensate players with reduced rake or to strike a better balance between the interests of ESPN and those of the players. They simply choose not to because ESPN has a lot more leverage than the players do. The reality is that as much as we complain, most of us doing the complaining will continue to play the tournament. Until we demonstrate that we’re willing to vote with our feet and our wallets, it’s silly to expect accommodation. Caesar’s has the best hand, and they are betting it hard for value.

Nevertheless, I feel like they still cater too much to the lowest common denominator. I realize there are (hopefully) tons of people watching who aren’t going to care one lick about table dynamics or anything like that, but I don’t see how it hurts them to include some information that is slightly beyond their understanding. I feel like that’s generally how sports are covered. Presumably football commentators sometimes talk about plays or factors that are beyond the understanding of some appreciable chunk of their audience, but they get away with it.

Given that they are making some effort to speculate as to why players are playing hands the way they are, I believe that they ought to try to get it right. On the 2+2 Pokercast recently, Lon Mceachern said something to the effect of, “There are 100 different ways to play a hand, so no matter what explanation you’re going to give, you’re not going to please everyone.”

That strikes me as a total cop-out. I remember seeing a hand once where UTG raised with 88 and a good player in early position called with A4s. The flop comes down A72, both players checked, and the commentator said something like, “He’s checking the Ace to set a trap for his opponent.”

I don’t see why it would be so difficult to say instead, “He’s flopped top pair, but he’s got to play it carefully. He’s only got a 4 for a kicker, and if too much money goes into the pot, he could be in big trouble.” There’s nothing particularly complicated about that explanation, and it’s far more accurate.

The hand that really disappointed me from this year’s final table was Cheong’s infamous 6-bet with A7 into Duhamel’s QQ. This was such a critical hand that I feel like it deserved more explanation than it got. Basically they just made it look like Cheong’s head exploded or he made some atrocious play or something, and while I do think it was probably a mistake, I’m sure his reasoning for it was a lot more complex than 99% of the audience could intuit for themselves. At the very least, I feel it deserved some explanation such as the following:

“Cheong’s made excellent use of aggression this whole final table, and now it’s really time for him to turn up the heat. Duhamel has Racener outchipped nearly 3:1. If he can outlast Racener, he stands to earn an extra $1.5 million, which means that he shouldn’t be looking to tangle with chipleader Joseph Cheong. Here we see Cheong trying to leverage his chip lead with an aggressive move, and unfortunately for him, he’s run into one of the few hands that is simply too good for Duhamel to fold.”

Over time, this kind of commentary would probably raise the audience’s sophistication and improve their ability to appreciate the strategy behind the hands that they see. We’ve already seen this effect in the first few years of serious WSOP coverage, as they are now comfortable presuming a level of knowledge that they couldn’t take for granted back in 2005. I believe they owe it to their audience to keep raising the bar, and hopefully we’ll see more of that in future years. If we do, I might even start watching again.

In honor of the event’s conclusion, we’ve now got up a page with links to my 2010 WSOP trip report plus interviews and ESPN appearances.

Maybe next year…

I’m pretty happy with how I came off, though I wish I hadn’t been calling for cards. I don’t ordinarily do that, but when the cameras are on, I always feel like I need to say something. They refer to Baker and me as “two savvy pros”- depending on how closely they read the bio that I sent them, that may or may not be an intentional pun.

Oh and I like how they refer to Baker’s Queens as “the best hand” while he’s got a 36% next to his name, and I’ve got 49% (before Sallas folds, that is).

There is always a modest amount of disappointment when it’s all over, but of course all in all I’m quite pleased with the result. I’m also very happy that for the first time ever I feel like I played through this whole tournament without making any big mistakes and with only a few small ones. That doesn’t mean that everything always went my way, but as they say you play the cards you’re dealt, and I believe that I would play most of them the same way if I had it to do all over again.

I was on the secondary feature table for the first few hours today, meaning both that I managed to secure an endorsement deal that brought me a little extra money and also that I’ll likely make an appearance on the ESPN broadcast of this tournament. One hand in particular is quite likely to be on there:

Gualtar Sallas raised in early position, David Baker called, I called with Ac Jc on the button, and the BB called. The flop brought Js 8c 6c, giving me top pair and the nut flush draw. The pre-flop raiser bet, Baker raised, and I moved all-in. Sallas folded after some thought, and it was about 600K more to Baker. It was also a very large pot, and he made a tough but probably correct call with QQ.

As the cameras swarmed, Sallas announced that he’d folded Kc Qc. Awesome. The turn was no help, but I binked the 5c on the river to win a 2.7 million chip pot.

This hand was actually misreported on the ESPN blog, where they write that, “Baker was able to get his opponent’s chips in the middle holding Q-Q to his opponent’s A-J on a jack-high board” but that “the turn and river would give Andrew Brokos the lucky runner-runner flush”. As I said, I actually had top pair and the nut flush draw on the flop, and absent the information that Sallas had folded the Kc Qc, I was in fact the (very slight) favorite.

I understand that there are a lot of hands to report and that mistakes will be made, but there have been complaints before that such mistakes are almost always made in favor of the more well-known player. In this example, the hand is reported in a way that makes it seem as though David Baker had somehow outplayed me (he “managed” to get my chips in) and that I got much luckier than I did to win the pot. This is a hand that was played at an ESPN feature table, was recorded by their cameras, and was witnessed by 9 players, several floorpeople, and multiple ESPN employees. It was a huge pot that took several minutes to play out on camera, and I have difficulty believing that any of them, if asked, would have misremembered such an important detail as whether I had a flush draw on the flop.

To be clear, I am not suggesting a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. I am suggesting sloppy reporting and an unconscious bias towards reconstructing details in favor of a more well-known player.

But never mind all that; I don’t want to end on a sour note. Today was an extremely difficult day at a table absolutely packed with very very strong players: Adam Levy, Eric Baldwin, David Baker, Peter Brian Jensen, Scott Clements, and a few others who I didn’t know by name but who weren’t making a lot of mistakes. To a man they were all consummate professionals, and no matter which way the pots went there was never any belly-aching, berating, cheering, or jeering. We all recognized how tough the table was, but we were always polite and friendly. I did have the good fortune to get moved away from that table eventually (leaving behind 2 million chips that had once been mine), and I meant what I said as I departed: “I am very glad not to be playing with any of you any more, and I wish you all the best.” I am certain that at least one if not more of the gentlemen I played with today will be among the November 9.

I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: I’m both very flattered and very grateful for the number of people, some of whom have no idea who I am, who have followed along and offered encouragement. Even when the other players at the table are friendly, it’s ultimately very lonely out there on the felt, and it’s great getting e-mails, comments, and text messages and just knowing that so many people are thinking of me. So thanks to all of you, and here’s to more stories to tell next year!

Sincerely,
Andrew

PS Also, here’s to Tony Dunst, who started the day with less than 400K and just finished with roughly 1.6 million. He actually inherited my seat at the Table of Death, and I’m glad to see that he survived it. Best of luck tomorrow, buddy!

I was impressed, by the way, with the producer who called me. He asked for my online screenname, and when I told him Foucault, he said, “Oh, like the philosopher?” It’s not a reference that a lot of people in the poker world get, and arrogant ivory tower denizen that I am, I didn’t expect an ESPN producer to be on the short list.