Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Runner’s Mind

“You ran a 10-K? I thought you said that was for crazy people.” –my mother

I should start by correcting the record. I never said that running a 10-K or longer race was for crazy people. I might have said that I chose to run the 5-K at the Spinx Run Fest in Greenville, SC last October – instead of the half-marathon or marathon simultaneously on offer – because, “I’m not crazy enough to run a race longer than 5-K.”

A subtle difference, perhaps, but a difference nonetheless. I was sure that plenty of sane people run 10-Ks, half-marathons and marathons (well, maybe not marathons). They were simply a little less sane than me.

People have been telling me I have a “runner’s body” my whole life, from Mr. Parker in freshman gym class, who unsuccessfully tried to get me to join the cross-country team in 1990, to a friend from Colorado as recently as December. My response has always been, “Maybe so, but I don’t have the runner’s mind.”

And yet.


That’s a photo of me and M from last Saturday morning, taken by someone who apparently never has used a smartphone. I’m the one on the left, with a stump for a right arm and a look that screams “cancer patient”. The time was 9:15am, the temperature 32 degrees Fahrenheit. We’d both gotten up at 6:30am to run 6.21 miles in Central Park with 3,142 other fools. We paid real American dollars for that privilege.

Apparently, I am not quite as sane as I led my mother to believe.

Usually I end my training runs with a modest half-mile, 3% grade hill in Prospect Park. Surprisingly, that hill doesn’t contribute much to end-of-run exhilaration. But the Central Park race taught me that running isn’t awful. Not always.

It’s something I’ve struggled with since the beginning, the source of what I considered the runner’s insanity. Running wasn’t fun. For me it was more about mind over matter.

I started running because a friend who was a long-time smoker quit smoking and took up running. He inspired me and shamed me with his level of fitness, to the point where he was hitting distances and paces that I knew I couldn’t. Running became my three-times-a-week dose of “suck it up, this is doing you good.”

I kept running because, along with the improved fitness, it was rewarding to see some numbers (pace) go down and others (distance) go up. I might be slightly competitive. Maybe.

Yet after the Central Park 10-K last weekend, after I downed three cups of Gatorade and a slightly stale bagel, I realized that I actually enjoyed the race. It was quite the revelation. I felt good. And maybe a touch more insane.

Read more...

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The Closest I Came to Gambling in the Philippines

The MBCA Maeryll could hardly be called a boat. In nautical speak it was an “outrigger canoe” but even that description oversold the little craft that bobbed in the surf in front of me on Boracay’s Puka Beach. At best, the Maeryll was a mastless motorized skiff, fifteen feet long and perhaps two feet wide, painted sea green with bright red lettering. Twin outriggers were supposed to give the craft added stability, but a glance at a major crack in the left outrigger’s front strut -- a crack filled with rubber cement and held together by twine -- left me seriously doubting the Maeryll’s seaworthiness. It was easy to imagine similar cracks in each of the other struts. Without the struts, it was even easier to imagine the boat capsizing from the wake of a passing inner tube.

Yet there I was paying the Maeryll’s captain 1500 pesos (about $36) to take me across the Philippine Sea from Boracay to Carabao (San Jose) Island and back, with a friend who couldn’t swim, for a four-hour jaunt. And I thought that was a deal.

Our five-mile trip out to Carabao, an island so undeveloped that there’s no electricity from 11pm at night until 10am the next morning, took 30 minutes. A salt-crusted mariner might have been able to figure out how many knots we were travelling at. Me, I assumed the phrase “as the crow flies” was involved in the calculation but didn’t get any farther than that.

Despite relatively calm seas, our merry little craft didn’t skim across the crystal blue waters so much as it bounced, spraying all of its occupants – me, my friend, and the four teenage hands – with salt water. I quickly regretted not putting my mobile phone in something more watertight than the pocket of my swim trunks.

At least I wasn’t in the prow of the boat. That duty fell to the youngest of the Maeryll’s four teenage hands, a boy of around 14 years dressed in a bright orange sports jersey. He bore the brunt of the sea during the voyage and was drenched by the time we arrived at Carabao, to the amusement of his older fellows behind him. Rank has its privilege.

Things you see on Carabao Island’s beaches: fishermen. Flower drying racks. Four-year-old children who are curious about smartphones. Farmers hauling bananas and squealing pigs in burlap sacks to their own outrigger canoes, presumably bound for market. No Koreans.

Boracay's Puka Beach is a good approximation for what we saw on Carabao Island
 
In short, it was both blissfully peaceful and culturally enlightening. Of course, it wouldn’t be the Philippines without an opportunity for gambling, a pastime firmly entrenched in Filipino culture.

With thirty minutes to go before we needed to return to the Maeryll, I went for a solo stroll down the beach. One of the Maeryll’s crew had mentioned a tiki bar and I thought a few cold San Mig Lights would be a nice treat for a hot summer day. As we were the only tourists on the beach, it was no surprise that the bar, once located, was empty but for three locals playing cards to pass the time on a slow day. I inquired about the beers, which were 40 pesos each. The girl I spoke with didn’t want to let me leave with the bottles but I offered to pay her the deposit, 5 pesos each, and she agreed. We made a little chit-chat while she retrieved and opened the beers; where was I from, how long was I there, that sort of thing. After I paid her and she handed me my beers, she returned to the card game.

I was at the top of the three steps that led back down to the beach when curiosity got the best of me (not for the first time on the trip). I turned around and walked over to the table.

“What are you playing?” I asked.

A middle-aged man looked up at me. “I don’t know what it’s called in English.”

“What’s it called in Tagalog?”

Pusoy.”

“Excellent. Deal me in.”

No loaded guns when you're gambling, thanks.

Pusoy, by the way, is the Tagalog name for Big Deuce. Yes, I may have done some web research, once upon a time, into the origins of Big Deuce. Call me a nerd if you must. It won’t be the first time I’ve heard it.

Like many of these things, the exact origins of Big Deuce are lost to the mists of time but the Philippines can lay as much a claim to being the birthplace of the game as the next southeast Asian country can. Except in the Philippines they call the game pusoy and somehow that word stuck in my head from whenever it was I did the research.

With time running short on my charter and the beer for my friend getting warm, I only sat in for one hand. I did not win, but I also did not finish dead last. I’d like to say that I was sharp enough to propose a modest wager, something on the order of “I win, you give me half my money back; I lose, I pay you double; I finish 2nd or 3rd, we’re all square”. The truth is that I’m not that sharp and anyway I was happy to sit down and play for nothing. Besides, my guilt-ridden Catholic upbringing would have upbraided me for gambling with people from a socio-economic bracket so low I can’t even fathom it.

Instead I like to imagine that I left them with the story about the skinny American guy from New York City who strolled into the tiki bar one day and sat down to play pusoy like he’d lived in the Philippines all his life. And I got to come back to New York City with the memory of the day that I strolled into a tiki bar on a remote island in the Philippines and was dealt into a hand of Big Deuce.

Besides – the real gamble was getting back to Boracay aboard the Maeryll without becoming shark food.

Read more...

Friday, February 10, 2012

Why the F Train Makes Me an Elitist Jerk

Riding the F train yesterday I couldn't avoid a print advertisement for Manhattan Mini-Storage, a storage company that's been operating in NYC for what seems like forever. Their print ads tend towards elitist humor in their attempts to elicit a chuckle and make the brand memorable. The ad I saw declared, "New Yorkers aren't better than anyone else. We just dress like it." An ad last year poked fun at the woeful New York Mets (left); another warned New Yorkers, "Remember, if you leave the city, you'll have to live in America."

I wish someone had warned me about that before I left New York three and a half years ago.

I never wanted to be a big fish in a small pond. I've spent my whole adult life swimming in the deepest oceans and, not surprisingly, that's what makes me feel most satisfied. Of 27 global cities ranked "Alpha", "Alpha+" or "Alpha++" by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network, I've lived in four and have spent significant time in another eight. Against that backdrop, most of the world seems like a small pond -- and some places are going to seem smaller than others. Like Las Vegas. Smaller, scummier, and with that layer of unidentifiable gray-green sludge floating on the surface of the water.

I gave Vegas an honest effort. I took some time for myself after things went to shit in early 2010, but then I gave Vegas the old college try. After a year and a half I came to the conclusion that Vegas just doesn't have what I require it to have: an ocean of amazing, intelligent, ambitious people (the main stumbling block I see to Zappos founder Tony Hsieh's ambitious plan to re-imagine and revitalize downtown Las Vegas). In that regard Vegas is at best a brackish puddle.

Is it elitist to feel that a place like Vegas doesn't offer the same depth of lifestyle, the same access to intellectual capital, that New York offers? Probably. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

And so last week I rode the F train several times. Then I rode it again Tuesday. And Wednesday. And yesterday. Today I will ride the F train. Tomorrow and Sunday I will ride the F train. And I will continue to ride the F train until someone gives me a damn good reason not to.

Having seen what's out there in the rest of America, I'm perfectly happy living on my small island off the coast of Europe. That may make me an elitist jerk, but at least it makes me a happy elitist jerk.

Read more...

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Full Tilt Poker: Back of the Envelope Calculations

aka "Why GBT May Be Smarter Than We Think"

The finances of Full Tilt Poker, a closely held corporation that didn't have to answer to any meaningful regulatory authority, were always opaque. Every once in a while the curtains briefly parted, giving us a glimpse of what was going on behind them. But it was only a glimpse, to the point that many in poker were surprised by allegations the DOJ made in September about FTP's finances.

One number I've seen tossed around in a few places: after Black Friday, but before June 29, 2011 (the day the AGCC suspended Tilt's gaming license), ROW players on Full Tilt were generating $1 million in revenue for the company. Daily.

Think about that. Without the US, estimated to be 60% of Tilt's revenue, and after the chilling effect on the "Big Three" caused by Black Friday, Tilt was still doing $1 million of business a day from ROWers. How much money was the company grossing *before* Black Friday? It boggles the mind.

$1 million a day. $365 million a year. $1.825 billion in 5 years. If you assume that Groupe Bernard Tapie are able to cut costs (they've already started by making certain employees redundant, and they won't have to worry about Ray Bitar ordering $500 bottles of wine with every meal) GBT could easily achieve profit margins of 20-25%, generating $400 million in EBITDA over the next five years. And at that point the value of the company could be close to $500 million dollars.

That's with no growth. If the company is able to grow, revise both of those projections upwards. At modest 5% annual growth, add $60 million to EBITDA and $100 million to the company's valuation. The five-year return on GBT's $600-$650 million investment ($300 million to cover player deposits; potentially $300 million to the DOJ paid over three or four years; $50 million in operating capital) could be as much as $1.060 billion, or roughly a 12% annual compounded ROI. That'd be great in any market, never mind one marked by as much volatility and uncertainty as exists today.

These projections assume, of course, that ROWers will return to Full Tilt if/when it begins operating again. Not having a license for the last four months, and thus not being able to operate, has undoubtedly hurt Full Tilt's market share. For that matter, the entire scandal that has precipitated the potential acquisition of FTP has also hurt its market share. There are no guarantees if/when FTP resumes operations that it will be able to generate anything close to $1 million a day in revenue.

Still, when you look at the raw numbers, you can see why GBT is interested in acquiring the company, even in light of its damaged brand and reputation. A little bit of luck and a lot of hard work could make GBT a big winner a few years down the road.

Read more...

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Was Epic Poker League's First Event a Success?


Time to don the asbestos jumpsuit and prepare for a torrent of hate mail.

I don't understand the hype behind the Epic Poker League's first event that was held last week at the Palms Casino in Las Vegas.

I'm glad the players had mostly positive things to say about the event. In fact that part of the "hype" doesn't surprise me at all. In my time around the poker circuit I can't say that I ever saw players treated all that badly or wrongly, but who wouldn't want to be comped in ways that are bigger and better than they've ever been comped before?

And I partially understand where Jeffrey Pollack and Annie Duke are coming from. Caesars built a brand and product -- the WSOP -- on the backs of the players. All the while the players paid Caesars for that privilege without receiving much in return other than the opportunity to play in poker tournaments.

Jeffrey and Annie are seeking to build a brand and a product -- the Epic Poker League -- on the backs of the players. And so they feel the players should get something in return: limousine transfers, free hotel rooms, $100 food comps and paying only 2% juice (staff tokes) instead of 5% (house rake plus staff tokes). Kudos to Jeffrey, Annie and EPL for trying to make the game of poker better for the players of poker. [Edited to add: of course don't forget the $400k overlay at each event and the $1 million freeroll at the end of the season.]

Yet outside of the natural player reaction to such generous comps, there seems to be an unusual level of hype around the league. That's what I don't understand. To be blunt, what has EPL accomplished to this point in the game? I can sum it up in one sentence.

They ran a poker tournament.

Admittedly they did a great job running that poker tournament and deserve commendations for doing so. But running a solid poker tournament isn't that difficult if you're good at logistics and understand the first thing about tournament structures. That's what makes or breaks most poker tournaments. Nail the logistics and design a good structure and your event will run smoothly. Having hired some talented people, it's not surprising that EPL ran a great poker tournament.

All the same, some people are treating the first EPL Main Event as if it's a game-changer for poker. But I believe that the success of this organization isn't going to be measured by how good a poker tournament it runs. It will be measured in dollars and cents. Right now the organization is spending lots of money without (yet) taking much back in.

I understand that you have to spend money to make money. And I acknowledge that the EPL money inflow/outflow situation could change in the future. Sponsors? Advertisers? Social media gaming? Licensing? Merchandising? All of those things could re-balance the equation. But unless I'm overlooking something major, right now they're *not* re-balancing the equation.

It's true that it's early. I am by no means judging the EPL a failure after one event. But neither am I judging it a success.

This money inflow/outflow issue is not a new problem for poker. Consider three poker businesses from the last three years: The Real Deal, Dream Team Poker and the Asian Poker Tour.

I was perplexed by The Real Deal when it was first announced several years ago. Poker is a niche game/entertainment/sport. Did it really have the broad popular appeal needed for a successful Vegas stage show?

The answer turned out to be a resounding no. The Real Deal flopped so badly that you couldn't give away tickets to it by the time the producers pulled the plug. The Real Deal was a case of people being too far "inside the bubble" to realize just how insignificant the game and culture of poker are to the rest of the world.

Almost every poker business I've seen in the last four years has over-estimated the game's mainstream reach and appeal. EPL certainly wouldn't be the first poker business to commit that sin.

Businesses have been trying to attract mainstream advertisers and sponsors to poker for years, without a ton of success. It's commendable that EPL is trying again, but they *may* be suffering from some of the same "inside the bubble" mindset that plagued The Real Deal. The hard truth is that the world at large just doesn't care very much about our unique little sub-culture.

With Dream Team and Asian Poker Tour, it was a simple question: How will this make money?

Everyone loved Dream Team. They thought it was great fun, innovative, good for the players, all those things that you want a poker product to be. But I remember being at the Dream Team party in the Caesars Poker Room, chatting with Matt Showell and Liz Lieu and wondering how the business would make money. I guess the people behind Dream Team never figured that out either.

In 2008-2009, the Asian Poker Tour decided to make itself a force on the Asian poker scene with a series of $5,000 NLHE tournaments around Asia. The organization, drunk with cash after its parent company held a successful public float, went all out: top talent like Matt Savage and his crew; crack live reporting from PokerNews and others; huge guarantees; numerous satellites with big overlays; tons of swag; lavish parties (actually, the sickest poker party I've ever been to in my life). You name it, the APT spent money on it. The whole time, that nagging little question. "What's the endgame here for these guys?"

I see a lot of parallels between the APT and the EPL. That's not good for the EPL. Two years later, the APT scaled back its ambitious plans. It now runs a series of three or four very tame, very modest $1,000 NLHE tournaments each year, almost exclusively in the Philippines where APT is based. The organization appears to be surviving only because the costs of doing business in the Philippines are stupidly low and because the nation already had a huge built-in poker and gambling culture.

Does any of this mean that Jeffrey and Annie haven't figured out how to make money with EPL? Of course not. They've been asked about this point repeatedly, each time mentioning sponsorship, advertising, licensing, merchandising and social media gaming. Hell, let's throw real-money gaming in there for good measure. Jeffrey and Annie haven't mentioned that but it almost certainly has to at least be "on the table".

Despite those responses from EPL, I have my questions and my doubts. I've read the pressers. I've spoken to both Jeffrey and Annie. I've looked at the facts as they've occurred and added my own estimation that EPL will have spent $10 million by the end of Year 1. I've filtered all of those things through my own experiences in the industry and it's left me unsure of the organization's prospects for success.

Look, I want EPL to succeed. I've said as much to Jeffrey and to Annie. I think it would be good for poker if EPL succeeded. I'm just not convinced yet that it will. Call me a cynic or a "hater" if you want, but I've seen lots of poker businesses fail spectacularly in the last four years. Considering the facts available at present, I'm going to continue to observe the EPL proceedings with some "healthy skepticism".

All of which brings us back to the $20,000,000 question: was EPL's first event a success?

In my opinion -- and really, this is just my opinion, take it or leave it -- we're not going to be able to determine that for a while. If the event helps to attract the advertisers and sponsors that seem to be a critical component of the money-making strategy EPL has outlined to the press, then it will have been a success.

If not... I'd be happy to run the Boracay office of the league.

Read more...

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Some Thoughts on the Girah Scandal

Spent a fair bit of time yesterday following the Jose Machedo / Haseeb Qureshi / Dan Cates online poker scandal. For the purpose of this post I'll assume you're familiar with the salient details. If you're not, skim over these links:

NEW Cliffs/news of the ongoing Jose "girah" Macedo scandal
The Portuguese Poker Prodigy Jose "girah" Macedo scammed HSNL players

To be clear about this, not much has been proven. Macedo has admitted trying to "superuse" HSNL regulars by teamviewing their screens while playing against him or an account to which he was feeding information. Cates is allowing rampant speculation to fill the void left by his silence (the Full Tilt problem). Qureshi seems to be caught in a pile of conflicting lies, with most signs pointing to some shady dealings in the high-stakes poker world, but at this point has said he won't answer any further questions and is "done" with poker world.

Cates, at 23, is the oldest of the three. Qureshi is 21 and Macedo is 18.

I hate to draw a comparison to professional athletes but we often see young professional athletes make grave lapses of judgment. To an extent it is part of the maturation process, part of the "growing up" process. People make mistakes.

The difference between those athletes and young poker players is that in addition to the reputational hit an athlete takes, there are real repercussions for their transgressions: team and league discipline (which can take the form of fines and suspensions); the inability to avoid the unrelenting eye of the public and the press; perhaps even jail time and the loss of their careers, depending on the nature of the offense.

Professional athletes have handlers and team and league personnel to help guide them away from such lapses of judgment -- and to force them to deal with the fallout when those lapses do occur.

Young poker players, on the other hand, have no such guidance. They also don't have to deal with most of the repercussions, because the industry is so poorly regulated. One immutable truth that has come out of the online poker industry over its roughly ten years of existence is that most scandals drift away on the winds of time with, at most, a reputational hit to the perpetrators. Russ Hamilton and the lingering stench of whatever really happened at UB is the lone exception, but even UB got a pass from many players who continued to play on the site.

When you've worked hard for a significant number of years to develop a sterling reputation, losing that reputation can be devastating. The perpetrators of most online poker scams, however, haven't worked hard to develop much of anything. They all tend to (a) be incredibly young (early 20s); (b) lack "real world" experience; and (c) have spent the last 2-3 years making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars playing what, to them, is often viewed as a video game. Their reputations, such as they are, don't mean much to them, so losing those reputations in the face of a discovered scam isn't a deterrent.

I'm not saying that better regulation will solve the problem. As long as there are substantial sums of money involved, people will look for shortcuts. But in the absence of any tangible, significant repercussions -- some of which regulation would surely provide -- fewer people will be deterred from those shortcuts than would otherwise be the case.

Poster "otis_nixon" summed it up perfectly:

The great thing for [Qureshi], Jungleman and Girah is that poker players have very short memories and in 6 months most people will barely remember this. There is no better group of people to try to steal money from because people forget so fast and there are very rarely any real-world repercussions.

Read more...

Friday, July 15, 2011

WSOP Live on ESPN2 Doesn't Deliver

Last night the wireless internet crapped out at the Rio. We were told that some of ESPN's equipment for the livestream was the culprit, as it was interfering with the wireless frequencies. Today the problem will be solved, but yesterday there was no choice but to grin and bear it. That meant either work off an aircard or head home.

I chose to head home, partially so I could watch the "live" (ok, 30-minute delayed) broadcast on ESPN2 myself. The companion livestream on ESPN3 wasn't available from the press box -- a total boggle.

Anyway, I watched the "live" broadcast of the 2011 PCA final table back in January. I knew the WSOP broacast wasn't exactly breaking new ground but I was still curious how the sucker would turn out.

The good: the production itself is very slick. ESPN and Poker PROductions have learned a thing or two in the 8 years since the hole-card cam changed televised poker. It's incredibly easy to follow the action.

The bad: live poker is boring.

Here's the thing. I've been watching live poker all over the world for the last three years. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that live poker is boring, especially when there's no big money (yet) on the line. It only appeals to the most hardcore of the hardcore poker fans.

If live broadcasts are the future of televised poker, then televised poker is in deep trouble.

Some viewers complained that the on-air talent stumbled at times last night. And while they did, I believe it's simply a case of growing pains. Making the transition from a canned product to a live product is incredibly difficult -- and filling up all those hours of air-time is no easy matter either. The on-air talent will get demonstrably better day by day as we get deeper into the Main Event. The PCA didn't have that problem because the on-air talent had already been doing EPT Live for years.

What won't get any better, however -- at least until we get to the last 2 or 3 tables -- is that live poker is incredibly boring. I say that as a poker fan and as someone who covered 75 to 100 separate poker tournaments between 2008 and 2011.

I know that part of understanding why the "big hands" happen the way they do is all the "little hands" in between. At times in previous WSOP broadcasts, viewers were robbed of much of the story between all-in hands. But I'd be surprised if those little hands retain much broad viewer interest. It's not that fun to watch "raise it and take it" or a single c-bet take down the pot on the flop for 30 minutes at a time, even if it does shift the table dynamic.

Making things even worse is ESPN's / Poker PROductions' curious decision not to reveal players' hole cards until the end of a hand, even though the stream is on a 30-minute delay. This may be required by Nevada regulators -- I'm not sure -- but it robs hands that were already not very interesting of any gravitas they might possibly have. It effectively removes the hole-card cams from the production until the end of the hand (and sometimes even then Poker PROductions doesn't reveal what the players were holding), thereby returning the production to the late 80s or 90s, before the hole-card cam was invented.

I've been told by ESPN personnel that the goal of the livestreams and the broadcasts is to "get younger", that the only way the WSOP on ESPN can survive and work is to attract a younger audience. They are making the bet that this is the way to do it. But poker is an incredibly niche market to begin with. In my mind, ESPN should be looking at ways to make the game appealing to the wide demographic it attracts at the tables themselves, to grow the market beyond that young grinder niche.

Showing every single hand from now until Tuesday seems like a curious way to do it.

[For a great companion piece, re-read Wicked Chops Poker's take on the 2011 PCA livestream.]

Read more...

Back to TOP