This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 28, 2008 1:05 PM. The previous post in this blog was Gettin' bugged drivin' up and down the same old strip. The next post in this blog is What next -- product safety warnings from Africa?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Card shark nephew update

My nephew is one of 198 players still alive in a $2,000 no-limit hold 'em tourney at the World Series of Poker. Everybody left in the pack will win some sort of money. Our guy will have 32,100 in chips in front of him when cards fly again today at 2. Go get 'em, Gary!

Meanwhile, I won $35 or so in a small game last night. Which at my level is a big deal. Go, me!

UPDATE, 4:12 p.m.: With 139 players left, he's still in there.

UPDATE, 4:27 p.m.: He won $5,060 -- going out 124th of 2317 entrants -- in the 95th percentile. Congratulations to him.

Comments (6)

Seriously, ask him why he still plays at Absolute Poker, which stole millions of dollars from the poker community, and why he gives them hundreds (probably thousands) of dollars in rake. It's people like him that make a company profitable that has no reason to still be in business.



Still though, congrats to him on the scores, I hope he goes all the way and picks up a bracelet to show you.

I'm not going to ask him that. He would think I was an old grouch.

Congrats to Gary. That is very cool.

Congrats to your nephew.

I use Absolute Poker (only play money); when the so-called cheating scandal surfaced, I looked into the data and comments. I was not at all convinced that there was cheating going on. The gist of the argument is 1)someone (sometimes) played their hand differently than most people would play with those same hole cards 2) there was an observer that followed the 'cheater' and this observer can be traced back to AP, and 3) they therefore must be cheating.

Nice theory but when one begins to examine individual hands, it devolves into something like "he wouldn't have folded those good cards unless he knew the other player had a better hand" or vice versa on bluffing with bad cards. In other words, second guessing flavored with sour grapes.

Oops, should've looked before I leapt:


There's a rumor that online poker is used for org crime money laundering, so rather than cheaters it may have been a person who was playing stupid on purpose to lose money.

Once it's cashed out as winnings the money is clean and unless its over a threshold (50k?) you don't even have to file a tax form.

Clicky Web Analytics