Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 07 May 2010 / Leave a comment

With the 2010 World Series of Poker just three short weeks away, not only are the players all busy making preparations for the event, but so are the many who will be there at the Rio all summer reporting on the action. I thought it would be interesting to ask questions of poker bloggers who have covered the Series over the past few years -- a kind of "WSOP Roundtable" to which I'd invite some of my favorite poker scribes.

I ended up inviting a dozen bloggers to contribute, sending them each six questions about the 2010 WSOP. Realizing that made for a crowded table, I decided it best to divide them up into two six-handed tables. Here are the six who are sitting at today's table (we'll look in on the others next week):

• F-Train, author of Riding the F-Train and live blogger for PokerNews.

• Brad "Otis" Willis, founder of the PokerStars blog and its head writer, whose work can also be enjoyed at Rapid Eye Reality and BradWillis.net.

• Benjo, tourney reporter for Winamax and Wam-Poker, French commentator for the EPT live broadcasts on PokerStars.tv, and author of Las Vegas, off the record.

• Michele Lewis, author of MicheleLewis.com, as well as the only one sitting at this table (or next week's) who has actually made a WSOP final table, finishing fourth in the $1,500 limit hold'em event in 2006.

• Dr. Pauly, author of Tao of Poker (and numerous other blogs) who has reported on WSOPs for a variety of publications, as well as the forthcoming book collecting his adventures, Lost Vegas.

• Jason Kirk, a.k.a. "Spaceman," who currently writes for BLUFF Magazine as well as JasonKirk.net.

Short-Stacked Shamus: The World Series of Poker is nearly upon us. Which stories are you most interested in following this summer? Which players are going to be among the "ones to watch" for you at this year's WSOP (and why)?

F-Train: The stories I'll most closely be watching at the WSOP this year are (1) how the June 1 deadline for enforcement of the UIGEA regulations affects WSOP turnout; and (2) the grand jury investigation of Full Tilt Poker in federal court in New York on charges of money laundering.
If banks and financial institutions start enforcing the UIGEA regulations on June 1 -- and that's by no means assured -- turnout at the WSOP could suffer. Recreational players intending to withdraw online poker funds to play WSOP events may find themselves waiting weeks for paper checks to arrive in the mail, or worse may find their funds stuck in limbo online.

As for the grand jury investigation, I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that federal prosecutors in New York are working feverishly to obtain an indictment against Full Tilt and its principals before the end of the WSOP. It would allow the government to send a chilling message by arresting well-known pros like Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson during the WSOP while the entire poker world is watching.

Brad "Otis" Willis: If there is one story that rises in importance above all the rest that go with the World Series of Poker, it is the story of how it moves forward without Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack at the helm. While the WSOP survived for many years without a commissioner, Pollack's role became one that was both respected by the players and the media as essential. What we will presumably see now is "commissioner by committee" and the lack of a clear leader will present some challenges that were easily survived with Pollack in charge.

In my mind, the three most interesting and talented players in poker today are Jason Mercier, Sorel Mizzi, and Scott Seiver. All of them have shown an uncanny ability in the last two years to go deep and win tournaments. I wouldn't need too good of odds to bet one of these three will win a bracelet this year.

Benjo: Every year the media tends to keep a close eye on young, accomplished players who are entering their first World Series of Poker events, having recently reach legal age. One of those players grabbing attention this summer will undoubtedly be Annette Obrestad. Granted, the Norwegian phenom has already competed in the three previous editions of the WSOP-Europe in London (with great success, as we know), but this will be the first time she will face the massive fields and the day-to-day never-ending grind inside the Amazon Room.

When you look closely, it's hard not to notice bracelets nowadays are pretty much won by professional players only. It's only a matter of whether a well-known TV pro is winning, or it is some other pro we haven't heard of yet. This ongoing battle between known and unknown faces will be interesting to witness.

As usual, lots of excitement will be generated by Phil Ivey and all the players with whom he's prop-betting. Also, I never fail to follow Doyle Brunson because Texas Dolly has been playing fewer events every year, and each edition of the WSOP could -- sadly -- be his last.

Michele Lewis: For six weeks, the Rio becomes home to players and media, so, poker hands can become rather mundane. Midway through the WSOP, an adrenaline hangover begins and sometimes the WSOP Hallway Action™ becomes the WSOP life source or at least a second wind. Call me crazy, but the WSOP Hallway Action™ brought us the Doyle Brunson vs. Amarillo Slim's Rascal Race, things overheard in the men's room, and a little bit of exercise every day. As for "ones to watch" this year, well that's easy... hot guys.

Dr. Pauly: Everyone loves an old-fashioned police raid. I'm wondering if/when the DOJ and FBI raid the WSOP and what will happen? Will random players be bolting out of the room for fear of being prosecuted for other crimes? Will potheads freak out and hide underneath the poker tables? Or will the DOJ simply drag out some of the high-profile owners of Full Tilt in handcuffs? Perp walks are nothing more than PR stunts for law enforcement agencies, and the big wigs at the DOJ would love to see the menagerie of poker media rushing down the hall snapping photos of Jesus or Howard Lederer in handcuffs.

As far as players to watch at the 2010 WSOP, I'm excited to see Annette Obrestad's first appearance at the WSOP. She won a bracelet at the inaugural WSOP-Europe main event a few days shy of her 19th birthday, but she has yet been able to play in an event at the Rio. I'm also interested in checking out Faraz "The-Toilet" Jaka who is having a sick sick sick year and Eric "basebaldy" Baldwin.

Jason Kirk: The whole "Year of the Woman" theme seems like a strong one so far, so seeing if that trend continues at the WSOP -- especially if Vanessa Selbst could win another bracelet or Liv Boeree were to win her first -- will be interesting. Seeing if anyone who had a big breakthrough after the last WSOP -- like, say, Faraz Jaka this year -- does well at the Series is always entertaining. And with the way he's been playing lately, there's the outside chance that Phil Hellmuth could win another bracelet with the help of his mindset guru, Sam Chauhan. We'd never hear the end of that one.

Short-Stacked Shamus: Once again we've seen a few changes to the WSOP schedule this time around, including the introduction of numerous $1,000 buy-in NLHE events, a change to the $50K "The Player's Championship" (now an 8-game mix with a NLHE final table), the addition of a new $25K NLHE 6-max. event, and the return of the WSOP Tournament of Champions. Which new event(s) are you most looking forward to (and why)?

Brad "Otis" Willis: Anyone who isn't looking forward to the $50,000 Player's Championship doesn't love poker. This event has evolved to the point that players actually seem to be happy with its existence (although, there will be complaints, because poker players are involved). Many people believe this is the event that should decide the world champion. While I don't agree with that necessarily, I think this event does help define who among the world's highest rollers is the best overall poker player. It should be fun to watch.

The public voting on the Tournament of Champions has added a new element to this event. While it's inspired a great deal of controversy, it still should make for some interesting poker. Sure, it's a made-for-television event, but anyone who believes that a majority of the poker you see isn't made for TV is fooling himself.

Benjo: I can't wait to see the two big events that have been added to the schedule. The $25K NLHE 6-max will arguably be the toughest event, and it's a guarantee there won't be any fluke at the final table. All the online grinders will be there, bringing their A-games, ready to take on the established pros. I am not too much of a purist when it comes to judging whether having the final table of the $50K Player's Championship in NLHE format was a good move or not. I think it's a good thing because it will bring the TV back, ensuring players' interest. Also, having NLHE and PLO added to the mixed games rotation will entice younger players to jump in.

As an observer, I'm not a big fan of the $1,000 NLHE lotteries, but I understand why they are on the schedule, and appreciate the opportunities amateurs are given to play WSOP events for a moderate price.

Michele Lewis: The 50K Player's Championship -- a.k.a. the event formerly known as the H.O.R.S.E. event -- is the mother-of-all-poker-skills tournament. With top poker pros making up 99% of the field, it feels like it could be 1988. This tournament feels like a family reunion only without the hyperactive children jumping up and screaming "ship it." It's not uncommon to see Chris Ferguson, Barry Greenstein, Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harman and Howard Lederer all playing at the same table.

Dr. Pauly: The $25K shorthanded event should be super exciting as a generational conflict with the passing of the torch from the old school Vegas pros to the current generation of online gods. 2009 was the first time you saw inklings of the young pros rallying together to buy pieces of action of their buddies waging war against the old guard in the 40K NL event. The buy-in is 25K this year which means more online pros will be matching wits against inferior sponsored pros and a couple of dinosaurs who have yet to tweak their game to adjust to the hyper-aggressive smash-mouth style of play in MTTs.

Jason Kirk: As long as I've been going to the WSOP, they've been trying to come up with some sort of high-roller event that grabs everyone's attention, then tinkering with it and trying it again the next year. I hope the Player's Championship is successful because the buy-in is big and glitzy and will get mainstream attention, the mixed-game format seems to be the truest test of who's the most skilled that the WSOP has come up with yet, and I expect that the inclusion of big-bet games in the mix will give us a much larger (and thus more star-studded) field than the $50K HORSE ever did.

F-Train: The $50K Player's Championship, no question. It's always fascinating to see how the best players in the world handle the interplay between the fixed-limit games and the big-bet games. The field should also provide amusing table banter.

Short-Stacked Shamus: One element of the schedule that will remain the same is the delayed final table for the Main Event, back for a third year. Now that we've seen it a couple of times, what is your current opinion of the "November Nine"?

Benjo: The idea of waiting three months to see the Main Event reach a conclusion didn't appeal to me when it was first introduced in 2008. By the next year, I was sitting inside the Penn & Teller Theater to witness the 2009 Main Event final table, and I loved every second of it. For the first time in five years covering poker tournaments, I was watching a spectator sport. Real entertainment, with a packed theatre, thousands of enthusiastic fans, and vociferious cheering sections.

One could argue the four-month delay is too long, and could be reduced, but the build-up leading to the final table definitely helped making it highly interesting to watch. Taking my own experience, the delay allowed me to really dig deep into the players profiles and biographies, and write more interesting stories about them, something I'm usually unable to do during other tournaments, when the final table happens one day after being reached. Also, from a player's perspective, the November Nine is a tremendous asset to capitalize on the exploit of reaching the final table. For instance, last year Antoine Saout would have never been able to sign a seven-figure sponsorship contract -- virtually setting him for life -- if he had to play the final table in July instead of November and make a decision in a hurry.

Michele Lewis: I feel it creates a partial crutch for inexperienced players. Since poker requires a sharp mind, exhaustion affects the ability to think well. If poor thinking offers an opponent an edge, then the delay is essentially robbing the edge from the game. Going to bed early, eating light dinners, controlling adrenaline, and late night brain stamina are assets that should be rewarded rather than controlled. Not to mention desert acclimation, jet lag, six weeks in a hotel room, etc. affects any home field advantage. Streaks, confidence, and endurance are underestimated components of poker. Therefore, I humbly believe postponing any player's momentum is a disservice to the sport and I call interference.

Dr. Pauly Read this in the voice from Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons"... "WORST IDEA EVER." The November Nine is only "good for poker" in the eyes of the suits at ESPN because their numbers are better. That's their bottom line so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. I'm a purist when it comes to the WSOP and feel as though the Main Event should be played straight through with only two days off (after Day 2 which appears on the current schedule) and the day before the final table.

I hope the November Nine gets eliminated in 2011. With the launch of ESPN3 and the popularity of live streaming of EPT and NAPT final tables, why can't ESPN stream the Main Event LIVE on ESPN3? They can air edited episodes (more of a highlight reel and advertisement for the online sites, peppered with ESPN's human interest stories) after the fact.

Jason Kirk: I haven't seen the November Nine in person, but several people I know and respect who have seen it tell me that the atmosphere is electric. If nothing else, I think that's a positive. Still, there's a part of me that wishes they'd just play the thing out like they used to instead of introducing the artificial break.

In terms of the marketing value of the November Nine for the players themselves, the full potential of the concept hasn't been realized yet. In any given year the right combination of marketable players, mainstream media interest & access to the players, and a more coordinated push from the WSOP marketing people could turn the November Nine into one of those moments that helps poker move beyond the place where it's been for several years now. But it's really the luck of the draw when it comes to the players, and I think they're really the key component in the equation.

F-Train: While the move was always about the money -- both for ESPN and for Harrahs -- at the end of the day the delayed final table has been good for poker. Ratings of the final table telecast have been up the last two years, and there's been a smattering of mainstream media interest in the November Niners. The delay has also been good for the players. I can't think of any November Niners who have used the opportunity to financial gain (as was originally envisioned), but the delay has allowed them to become better players, and more well-rested players, before playing the biggest final table of their lives.

Brad "Otis" Willis: Let's all admit it to ourselves: the November Nine was mostly a good idea and has been mostly a success.

Anyone who set foot in the Penn & Teller Theater during the 2008 and 2009 final tables knows the atmosphere alone was worth the wait. The November Nine concept turned poker into a live spectator sport like no other tournament has. As a guy who covered the last final table in Benny's Bullpen and every final table since, it's easy to see how far the production has come in just five or six years. Even as a traditionalist, I can't help but admit I prefer the modern version of the WSOP final table over the ones of the past.

With that understood, I think everyone should also admit that the goal of using the four-month wait to better promote the final table players and make them household names has not realized itself. The four-month wait is fine for the TV production crews, but it's not done much for the players but give them more time to prepare or secure a sponsor. In an ideal world, the WSOP could still create a giant event for spectators, but not wait so long to do it. It should never, however, give up on the idea of making the final table a giant spectacle.

Short-Stacked Shamus: It has been another eventful "off-season" with much happening in poker on the professional circuit, on TV, and in the courts/on Capitol Hill. How would you describe the overall relevance of the WSOP to the game of poker, circa 2010? That is to say, in your opinion, what are the "stakes" (so to speak) with regard to the Series and its success?

Michele Lewis: The WSOP is a household name in poker, the bracelet is the ultimate poker trophy, ESPN broadcasts the footage, and it takes place in a tourist attraction city where a lot of money is thrown around. Air conditioning and electricity are pretty much the only things the WSOP needs to be successful. If the Series isn't a success with all the above then we're all doomed to fail.

Dr. Pauly: The Main Event is still the most prestigious tournament in all of poker. That will never change -- the WSOP will always be one of the premier tournament series despite constant competition. In 2004, pundits wondered if the WPT would put the WSOP out of business. In 2010, the same pundits are wondering if PokerStars' sponsored circuits will overtake the WSOP. I don't see that happening in the immediate future. However, the popularity of the WSOP is diminishing because of the wide variety of other tours and regional events. Dreamers will always take their shot at the Main Event, but the WSOP has competition due to the expansion of international tours and a flourishing online tournament circuit (where Sundays are the biggest day of the week for online pros).

If (big if) the WSOP can ever accept direct buy-ins from online poker rooms, then we will see a spike in overall numbers and then the record for total Main Event entrants will finally fall. That might be the one thing that can keep the WSOP at the forefront.

Jason Kirk: I think the WSOP is still the center of the poker universe. The better the WSOP does, the better off poker will be in general. And I think the reverse -- that a bad year for the WSOP is bad for poker in general -- is true as well. It's the one time each year when everyone, even people who normally don't care much about the game, pays close attention to what goes on in poker.

Then there's the televised side of the game, which is one of the things that I think has been holding back any possible slump in poker the last two years or so. The WSOP was the springboard for the poker boom of the last decade, and it's still what the average American thinks of when they think of poker on TV. George Stephanopoulos, for instance, referred to his ABC Good Morning America sweeps-week poker game with Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth as "basically a mini World Series of Poker." You don't get any more mainstream than network morning shows, so how the WSOP fares definitely impacts how the game is seen by the general public.

F-Train: The stakes are not nearly as high as they were four years ago, even though televised poker is still the most direct way to bring new players into the game. Live big buy-in poker tournaments are incredibly common these days. As recently as 2002, the WSOP was a player's one big shot every year. Now you can play big buy-in poker at almost any time of the year, often by qualifying online for a fraction of the total buy-in. Although the WSOP remains the centerpiece of poker (due to its history and a sense of prestige associated with it), it's no longer the only bellwether by which the health of poker should be measured.

Brad "Otis" Willis: It may sound like a cop out, but how relevant the WSOP is in poker's big picture is entirely up to the WSOP. The people who are now running things have a bully pulpit if they choose to use it.

While it is always a tacit admission, the WSOP groks the idea that it cannot survive in its current form without the online qualifiers. The World Series would do itself a great service if it embraced that idea and actively worked to help make sure those qualifiers always have a place to play online.

For better or worse, the WSOP is the most established and respected tournament series in the game's history. With attacks on the game coming from all angles, the good people at the WSOP should take this opportunity to join hands with the companies that give it life. Otherwise, there may not be too many more years in which we see the massive field sizes the Series has enjoyed for the past five years.

Benjo: Harrah's has been very smart by creating various "off-season" events and happenings that help keep the WSOP on the radar for the entire calendar year. With the WSOP in London in September, the Main Event final table in November, the ESPN broadcasts, and the TOC voting process, the WSOP virtually never leaves the headlines, which wasn't the case back when it was strictly a summer affair.

From a player's perspective, the WSOP is still as relevant, if not more, as it ever been. Ask any player who takes tournaments seriously: winning a WSOP bracelet will come higher on his list than any other accomplishment. The bracelet is still a measuring stick.

Also, one thing that is perhaps overlooked but seems very important to me -- nowadays, the WSOP is virtually the only poker event that leaves room for other forms of poker than No-Limit Hold'em. Where else can we watch players competing in big buy-in Stud High-Low, Deuce-to-Seven, or Omaha High-Low events, to name only a few? For me poker should remain a game of many flavors, and the WSOP is the only tournament that gives a chance to variants that have been more or less forgotten, where other circuits simply ditch them for lack of potential revenue.

Short-Stacked Shamus: Each of you has covered the WSOP before. What was your most memorable experience -- from a reporter's standpoint -- while covering the WSOP?

Dr. Pauly: Nothing beats your first time, so the 2005 WSOP definitely stands out. So many things happened that year including Johnny Chan becoming the first player to win 10 bracelets, then Doyle Brunson equaling the feat a few days later. That year was also special because I got to see the final table played out inside Benny's Bullpen... the last time that ever happened.

The most fun I had was the 2006 WSOP when I worked for PokerStars Blog during the Main Event. I got to sit in between Brad "Otis" Willis and Wil Wheaton, two writers I deeply admire. Oh, and how could I forget about the midget ninjas at the infamous Bodog party at Tao during the 2006 WSOP?

Jason Kirk: Without a doubt, my most memorable moment was the first $50,000 HORSE event in 2006. The all-star final table began right as my shift was ending at 8pm, and rather than go back to my hotel I thought I'd stick around and watch history being made -- after all, it couldn't go too long, right?

By the time Chip Reese finally put Andy Bloch away it was 10:30am. The two of them had fought back and forth countless times and after hours of play the crowd had dwindled to the hard core of the poker media, friends and family of the players, and a few people who had fallen asleep on the bleachers. The Bluff radio team had been off the air for six or seven hours, and I still hadn't been to sleep because I hung around to make sure I got an interview for the hosts to use during the next day's broadcast. Right after ESPN's Norman Chad finished with him for the cameras, I got to talk with an exhausted but clearly elated Reese. He was genial and accommodating even after a wearying battle, and graceful in victory over a tough opponent -- in other words, he was the consummate professional.

F-Train: I'll never forget the conclusion of the first final table I ever covered, Event #2 ($1,500 NLHE) of the 2008 WSOP. Upon the elimination of James Akenhead in 2nd place, all eyes were on victor Grant Hinkle. A solid ten minutes after the last hand, Akenhead came up to my media desk, eyes vacant and lost, head bowed.

"Do you know how I get paid?" he asked. In all the excitement, nobody had given Akenhead his payout slip to take to the cage. He'd been forced to stay and watch Hinkle receive the gold bracelet.

Brad "Otis" Willis: In 2005, Aaron Kanter was responsible for ruining one of the greatest poker stories of our time.

Greg Raymer, the 2004 champion, was on his way to the final table again and, but for a thoughtless, careless, and ridiculous play by Kanter, Raymer likely would have gotten there. Raymer had kings, raised, and got his call. FossilMan led into a baby rainbow board for half the pot. Kanter floated with queen-jack of hearts. On the turn, Raymer led again for half the pot. Kanter had picked up a heart draw, raised, and then called when Raymer went all-in.

Raymer was 80% to win the hand, but Kanter spiked a heart to cripple the reigning champion.

Behind me, a longtime player -- and my boss -- simply muttered, "Why do we play this game?"

A few minutes after it happened and Raymer had gone to the rail, I wrote:

The heart that fell on the river to crack Raymer's kings sucked the energy right out of the room. Barely a half hour removed from the hand that essentially ended Raymer's chance at a second WSOP bracelet, the world champion said he wouldn't have played the hand any differently. There was no reason to. He said, "Even after the raise, I was almost 100% certain I had the best hand." And he did. He was more than an 80% favorite. It was not to be. And frankly, it seems Raymer is handling this better than the rest of us. In his exit interview with ESPN, Raymer said, "I try not to think of poker in terms of results. I think in terms of decisions and I made good decisions today."

These days, Kanter's play would seem almost normal. The floating, the three-betting with air, the very essence of the game: it's the way the game is played now. Back then, it seemed sick and stupid. What's more, it put to rest one of the last great poker stories before poker blew up and the kids took over.

The poker paradigm shifted at that moment. If anyone ever wants to know when poker players stopped playing small ball and started believing in power poker -- no matter how reckless it may be -- it was when that heart hit on the river. Kanter may not be the first person to play that way, but in mind, he is the forefather of 2010 tournament poker.

Poker has not been the same for me since.

Benjo: The WSOP as a whole has been a memorable experience to me, from making my first step into the Amazon Room in the summer of 2006 to watching a long heads-up battle between Darvin Moon and Joe Cada last November. I was fortunate to witness many, many moments that I will never forget: endless final tables; late night deadlines that extended to the wee hours of the morning; tales of exhaustion where I near collapsed at my desk, drained but happy to have written a better than average story.

If I had to pick one particular moment, I guess it would be a 48-hour stretch in June 2008. First, my fellow countryman David Benyamine, one of the few poker players I have the utmost respect for, became the first French player to win a bracelet in ten years (something I had correctly predicted a few weeks before). That was immediately followed by my friend Davidi Kitai winning the $2,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em event the next day after a four-hour heads-up battle, becoming the first Belgium player to win a bracelet, surrounded by his friends from the Winamax Team. I must have slept a total of three hours during those two days, and had to write several long articles, but it is for those moments that I live and breathe poker.

Michele Lewis: Aside from Erick Lindgren and J.C. Tran winning their first bracelets, I'd have to say, interviewing former WSOP Commissioner, Jeffrey Pollack. People actually gave me shit for interviewing him as if I were selling out to the nemesis of poker. I was told he was just a suit, would spin his answers, and couldn't possibly run the WSOP because he didn't even play poker. That elevated my oppositional tendencies, so, I set out to prove everyone wrong while at the same time getting Pollack -- the so-called "suit" -- to loosen up.

Pollack went on to continuously improve the series and listen to the needs of players, but I'm pretty sure my interview was the real reason for all his success. After all, the following year, he was caught wearing jeans.

Short-Stacked Shamus: What do you like the most about covering the WSOP? What do you like the least?

Jason Kirk: The thing that drew me to poker early on was the literature about the WSOP's history, most notably The Biggest Game In Town and Positively Fifth Street. That sense of history is still a big draw for me. I also like getting to see all the poker media people in one place since I normally don't interact with them any other time of year.

As for the drawbacks, the hours can be brutal, and oftentimes you don't get out as much as you should. Leaving family back home for the duration is tough. Plus it's seven-and-a-half of the hottest weeks of the year in one of the hottest places in the United States -- makes you long for the old days when the WSOP took place in the springtime.

F-Train: Most: oddly enough, the long days. They're a great way to form close bonds with the people working beside me.

Least: the food. The Poker Kitchen quickly gets old, and the remaining food options at the Rio range from mediocre to terrible.

Brad "Otis" Willis: I love the money bubble of the Main Event. There is no greater time in any poker tournament. It's where the greatest moment of potential joy exists. That is, more people will be simultaneously happy when the bubble bursts than at any other poker moment all year long. There is something really fantastic about being around that many happy people at one time.

Beyond that, most of my joy comes from my time away from the tournament. The traveling poker media circus is made up of some great people, many of whom have become my dear friends.

If I could eliminate one thing from the World Series, it would be the people who hide on the periphery. The angle-shooters, the hustlers, and the parasites that make the WSOP their home are probably the least-desirable people you'll ever find. If you don't have a keen eye and strong will, it's easy to become one of them. These people can make you believe that a degenerate life is the only life. It's hard to wash that off at the end of the day, no matter who you are.

Benjo: Things I don't like? Apart from things I could control and often opt not to (e.g., junk food habit, effed up sleep schedule), I guess I'm never too happy with the media restrictions that go into effect towards the end of the Main Event, when we're down to fifteen tables or so and the journalists outnumber the remaining players. Non-official, credentialed media can't go anywhere inside the ropes, making us kinda useless. That said, I totally understand why those measures are there, and I have no other solution to offer that could satisfy everyone.

As for the things I like, I enjoy taking a hardcore approach while covering the WSOP. I show up at the Amazon Room every day, and never leave before I feel that my work is done for the day. I usually take an average of three days off every summer. For this approach to work, you need good people to work with, and I'm fortunate to have that. Media types like Nolan Dalla, Dan Michalski, Paul McGuire, the Wicked Chops crew, Change100, Otis, and Gene Bromberg make it a real joy to show up at the Rio on a day-to-day basis. More than anything else, it is the camaraderie between the media that I cherish the most at the WSOP. Kinda like a "Band of Brothers" thing.

Michele Lewis: Now that the media box is located in the actual tournament room, I like being able to take photos from my seat. I don't like bothering players while they're at work so sitting up top on media row allows me to take some great shots. I also love the great friends I've received from poker. Entering the Amazon Ballroom at the beginning of the summer is great because rarely does anyone in poker miss the WSOP.

What do I like the least? The people I don't get to see. This year, I will miss seeing Amir Vahedi. I bet if you held a contest called "Who Were Your First Three Pro Poker Friends?" he would win. His cigar smiling face and loud voice will be missed dearly and by many; he was a sweet, sincere, and kind soul.

Dr. Pauly: The free beef jerky is always a bonus. Heck, whenever you get free stuff, it's pretty cool. Look, none of us are getting rich by working in poker media. Reporters are not paid well, so we have to take advantage of the little perks which make life worth living when you are bogged down in a seven-week prison sentence at the Rio. With that said, the free booze is always a bonus. If you're slithery enough, you can drink for free during the entire WSOP due to all of the random parties, functions, and sponsored events. It's even easier if you're female.

What I like the least are the inane questions that you have to field from the spectators... and those are from the sober ones. Late nights and especially the weekend are the worst when all the drunks come out to the Amazon Ballroom in droves. As the saying goes, if you can't beat them... join them.

Much thanks to F-Train, Brad, Benjo, Michele, Pauly, and Jason for taking the time. Come back next week to see what our other table of bloggers had to say.

Tags: Benjo, blogs, Brad Willis, Dr. Pauly, F-Train, Jason Kirk, Michele Lewis, WSOP