Gray-haired poker TRs: Living the WSOP dream

Yeah, your snap call of my bluff is spot on. I may be out of 2025 WSOP thoughts, but I have already started writing my early thoughts of how to take what happened in WSOP 2025 and apply it to my studies in preparation for WSOP 2026.

And yes, I thoroughly enjoyed meeting you in person. Our dinner at Mon Ami Gabi was one of the highlights of my trip.

The Monster Stack does sound interesting for next year. Thanks for the insight. It prompted me to create a WSOP 2026 file on my laptop in which I have copy and pasted your above post. You have a great talent for reading other people's trip reports, assessing poker through their eyes/style and making outstanding suggestions.

Hopefully our schedules overlap again in WSOP 2026.

Thanks again for the great TR, rppoker!

2026 WSOP resolutions

Yes, I ran out of things to write about my 2025 WSOP.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t already have some thoughts about WSOP 2026. A lot of people make New Year’s resolutions after the past year is complete. I am making my poker resolutions after my 2025 WSOP is complete.

I am going to take a little time off from studying to recharge my batteries, but when I return to the study grind, I vow to study the following with an eye on WSOP 2026 …

Vow I: Study six-max NLHE.

No, I do not plan on entering six-max tournaments (although it might be fun), but I still need to work on this. At this year’s WSOP my tournaments were supposed to be either full table or 8-max. The reality is that large portions of my tournaments were five- and six-handed. Especially at the start of tourneys for many, many levels. And also around the end of late reg when new players arrived and were blasting off their late-reg stacks and leaving the tables consistently less than full until the all-in madness ended maybe a level or so later.

Good news is Inside the Mind of a Pro has a lot of six-max videos of live WSOP action, including some recently posted videos like this from last year’s WSOP.

Vow II: How to play just before and just after late reg stops

Speaking of the blasting done by late-reg players toward the end of the late-reg period, I will check my training site for how to play this portion of a tournament. Not sure if videos exist on this subject, but I am going to check if they do. It’s a very volatile time in tournaments and I’m not sure if I should be tightening or loosening my playable ranges in these spots when I choose to open the betting and if I have to decide whether to call a huge 3-bet all-in by a late-reg blaster. For example, I have K-J suited and it folds to me I the cutoff with two late-reg players in the small and big blind. Do I open the betting or fold? And if I open the betting, do I call it off if a late-reg blaster goes all-in for starting stack? Do I have bet/fold hands, or should I only open with holdings I am prepared to play for the late-reg player’s stack? I would be very interested to hear your opinions on this.

Vow III: Focus on defending the big blind videos on my poker training site.

I intend to really pound these videos in the coming months. This is the biggest weakness in my game. I’m not talking about going crazy from the big blind calling with 2-7 off suit. But I do need to defend more from the big blind than I currently do.

Vow IV: which lasted about 30 minutes and then reality set in

I thought to myself, why not give a mixed game a try in next year’s WSOP. I thought about asking TonySoprano9 which mixed game has the least strong players. In other words, which game is softest. I even got excited and read Super System’s short chapter on Razz. Then I smacked myself on the side of the head, and I chastised myself. I’m still trying to improve at No Limit Hold’em. I have my hands full trying to master that game. I have absolutely no business thinking about trying to also learn a mixed game. Common sense has prevailed.

Vow V: I think I need to go back and study shove ranges when I start to get down to 10 or so big blinds

I’ve studied this before, so I don’t think I need more than a refresher course. But as BigWhale pointed out in the thread, I have a tendency to occasionally press too hard and too loose when I start to get down to 10 or so big blinds.

Vow VI: How to play less than nutted preflop hands when flop top end of range

One of my leaks is when I am in a hand far from premium preflop, and I then flop close to the top end of what I can reasonably hope for but I’m still pretty vulnerable. My leak is that I tend to overplay it and lead out (and sometimes get blown off my equity by a three-bet) when a check call would be better. The problem with check calling is this is where my inexperience is most exposed. What do I do the rest of the hand? I would like to get better at this, but I’m not sure how to work on it other than put in the volume at the tables that is not a viable path for me given my business and family responsibilities. I will look on the poker training site I subscribe to in the hope that they have videos on this. I think this will be very difficult for me to study and improve upon.

Vow VII: Study when to call it off when facing a bet that puts me all-in

I am way too tight. I need to put in a lot of work here. Charts, videos, etc.

Vow VII: Run the math on the river

One thing I absolutely did not do in this year’s WSOP is run the math when facing a river bet. My thought process was to consider villain’s raise and decide whether I thought I was good or not. This is two-dimensional thinking that simply asks the question, do I think I am good at least 50% of the time. This thinking is letting equity slip away. If facing a river bet of 30,000 chips in a pot that now has 120,000 chips in it, I have to be good way less than 50% of the time to make the call. I have to consider the math. Otherwise I will continue to let my equity go down the drain.

I’m not sure how I study this. I understand the math. I just haven’t been running the math when making river decisions. Volume is the answer to this, but as I have previously written, much greater volume is not a path for me given work/life demands.

Maybe I need to tie a string around my finger to remind me to run the river math. Just kidding. But being serious I think it’s a matter of constantly reminding myself each day at the WSOP that this is something I need to remember to consider when I find myself facing uncomfortable river decisions.

Note to self: Print this post out and bring it to WSOP 2026 as required reading just before the start of every new tournament.

Very good post with a lot of important topics! Here is my two cents on the three above:

1) I think big blind defense is pretty 'easy', although I will admit to overfolding from this position. But all hold'em hands benefit from being heads-up (to realize equity). Thus you should be much more apt to defend against a single raiser than when it's multiway.

If there is a raise in front of you and three callers, you should absolutely fold a hand like A7o from BB in most cases. It's a hand that will just get you into trouble when you flop top pair. The exception comes in when you have a short stack, where it's much easier for you to just go with your hand when you flop top pair.

2) I have had this thought myself, although I am too much of a bankroll-nit at times to follow through. But I am pretty sure that a tournament like $1500 Razz would have a very soft field, and that is also a fairly simple game to learn. So if I were to enter one non-NLH tournament, this one would be my choice.

3) Having the right thought process is not easy for someone who plays as sporadic as you do. I can't tell you how many years I showed up at poker tournaments, woving to think through things before I make decisions, only to forget all about it and make the same stupid mistakes as I had in the past. It was like my brain went to permanent freeze mode as soon as I had cards in front of me.

What has helped me is just to learn more theory in general, so that I have more concepts to fall back on during a hand. And I have also trained myself to count the pot size for every hand that I play. It's not always as easy in tournaments when you are dealing with big numbers, but I try to at least have some idea ('ok, the pot is around 25,000 now' or similar).

If you are a guy that is good with numbers, I think this concept alone could be a good starting point. Because as soon as you know the pot size, you will also start to notice patterns with opponents bet sizes. In addition to what you said obviously, that it will be easier for you to see the pot-odds you are getting.

Your answers are appreciated and make a lot of sense to me. Good luck on the last sale.

The timing seems right to ask, is there a Main Event in my future?

I’m hardly a WSOP grizzled veteran, but with three WSOPs under my belt I start to consider my poker future. I think 12 days is a really good time frame for me to handle at the WSOP.

The big question is do I continue to play 3-4 WSOP events and the occasional off site tournament when I attend the WSOP, or do I instead play in the Main Event?

I lean pretty heavily toward not playing in the Main Event. I’d rather play in the multitude of events I have been playing. It guarantees a lot of poker. If I played in the Main Event, I see a bunch of undesirable outcomes.

For starters, even though I understand the Main Event to be a deep, slow structure that allows for a lot of play, which I like, the fact remains that people do get knocked out on Day 1. That’s a lot of money to potentially play just one day of poker. And then what do you do for the rest of your trip? If you keep firing additional tournaments, then the needed buy-in budget needs to be bigger than I care to play. Another problem as I see it is, how long do you reserve your hotel of Airbnb? If you just reserve lodging for a few days, what do you do for lodging if you make a deep run (I know, I know, that would be a good problem to have. But it’s still kind of a problem.). If you book lodging for the full Main Event and then get knocked out quickly that’s a lot of days of lodging that you don’t need.

Also, $10,000 for just one tournament seems excessive for where I am as a player. Is the Main really that much more enjoyable than playing a half-dozen different and lower priced tourneys instead?

So for me, this all points to me not playing in the Main Event for the foreseeable future. Maybe it’s a bucket list event that I someday need to play once. Maybe. Not definitely. We’ll just have to wait and see, but at the moment it doesn’t move the needle for me as something that I absolutely have to fast track.

But when push comes to shove … yeah … it’s probably something I may have to do. Just not any time soon. My biggest concern is I know myself, and if I play it once I’ll probably want to play it every year. Which would be a problem. It’s just potentially too time consuming on top of a regular WSOP trip. I sense a big internal debate brewing whenever it is that I seriously consider playing in the Main.

I suppose if you take the $6,280 that I brought home unexpectedly this year (see rppoker’s new poker math explained in section 11 of 17 in my WSOP afterthoughts portion of this TR) and add it to next year’s budget, maybe that makes the math work. But that’s more rationalization than reason. And it doesn’t address the all-important, self-imposed rule I follow diligently, which is don’t take advantage of Mrs. rppoker’s goodwill and support in letting me follow my poker interests and also my Michigan football fandom, both of which are somewhat time-consuming pursuits and need to be kept in check in fairness to her.

I have no idea what I’ll ultimately do. For now, I’m just going to stick the question in a drawer and forget about it until some later date. The Main Event has not sunk its claws into me. Yet.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of variety! [emoji3] Although you’re probably right just to stick to NLH for the time being, but if you do decide you want to learn another game, whatever you do don’t choose Razz!
My recommendation would be Omaha 8 or better as it’s the most widely spread and played mixed game.

The last 3 years I’ve come to the conclusion that cash is way better than tournaments AINEC.

I used to want to be able to play the main one day. Not only have I given up on that idea, I questioned why I wanted to do it in the first place.

Maybe it’s because I’ve come to grips with my skill level and don’t play nearly as much as I’d like or enough to justify some real coaching. Maybe it’s playing 10+ hours for potentially 9-10 out of 12 days if I ever sun ran that hard on old decrepit ballroom chairs. With my back? Nah.

And having seen pros just dominate this year, the old “anyone can win here” is becoming less and less true every year. The gap between pros and recs is widening in the solver era.

I’ve chased a Hendon Mob entry in my past TRs. Not chasing it anymore.

I actually keep track of current pot size every hand I'm in as well as every hand I'm not in. I think following the size of the pot in hands I'm not in is important since it tells me bet sizing patterns of everyone at the table for future reference when I am in hands against them. I also try to observe breathing patterns and other behaviors of players in hands that I am not a part of.

I guess that's a strength of mine since I do not lose focus at all when I'm out of hands. I enjoy observing everything in hands I'm not in. In many ways that's even more fun than hands I'm in.

I just read a passage written by Lee Jones on poker.org about being at the WSOP that so perfectly captures how I feel and what I tried to convey above that I have to share it.

Jones wrote:

"Tournament poker is hard. Okay, cash poker is hard, too. But it is a game, and every one of us in a seat at a poker table is lucky to be there. If we're playing poker, then our life elsewhere is sufficiently smooth that we're able to take time to be dealt in.

"When you look at it that way, the 17th straight ace-king that whiffs the flop, the two-outer that sends you to the rail... they're not quite as important.

"If you're being dealt cards in this town, you're living well. Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and feel gratitude for being here."

https://www.poker.org/latest-news/lee-jones-living-gratitude-just-for-being-at-the-wsop-a2xhX3v2KXGx/

poker

Lee Jones: Living gratitude, just for being at the WSOP

It looks like I will be just over 73,000 words this year. That’s almost the length of a fiction novel.

I started a Notes file of all books read this year so as to see if I hit my goal of just one per month.

I have read your entire thread this year, including pre and post.

Two questions:

1. Would it be ethical to include you on my Read list, in your opinion as a writer.

2. Did you cash in the wsop this year? If so, that would be two years running. Not sure why you didn't comment on that.

Thanks.

It's your Read list and your goal, so I say make the decision on what feels right. While my thread doesn't qualify as a traditional book, as we see in so many aspects of a modern, constantly evolving world, traditional definitions don't stay the same forever. Shopping used to mean going to a brick and mortar store. Now shopping can include going online, hitting a few buttons and presto, you just shopped. Going online used to mean you had to go to a computer, whereas now the same thing can be accomplished on a cell phone. The world changes quickly.

So if you want to count my thread as a book in your goal to read a book a month, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I certainly think you can make a reasonable decision to count it.

As for did I cash in the WSOP, yes I did. As for me not commenting on it, maybe you want to re-read a portion of this year's report because I certainly was not shy about letting it be known that I cashed two years in aa row.

Mapping out my next 11 months leading up to WSOP 2026

Back in my sports writing days I had the opportunity to talk to NFL head coaches about how they would map out an entire calendar year. The detail was incredible. Every day of every week of every month of the entire year was planned out. Obviously things would get tweaked over time, but there was a plan in place.

I have decided to incorporate a somewhat similar road map for the next 11 months that will lead up to my WSOP 2026. To do so I have analyzed my 2025 WSOP, decided what I need to work on and then sought to find training opportunities.

Step 1 is to identify what I need/want to work on ...

... I need volume. Lots and lots and lots of volume. Given that my work/life responsibilities do not lend themselves to me spending a lot of time at the poker table, I need to be creative I find alternative ways to see a high volume of hands.

... I need to work on defending my big blind better. I need a lot of work here.

... Navigating the bubble. This is important for obvious reasons.

... Although my 2025 WSOP tournaments were supposed to be 8- and 9-handed, the reality was that in the first few levels, as well as the levels just before and after late reg ended, my tables were very frequently 5- and 6-handed. I'd like to work on my play when the table is far from full.

... I need to work on my aggression/bluffing. Not saying I need to be the table maniac, but I'd like to work on finding additional spots to be more aggressive.

Step 2 is to identify how I will work on the items in Step 1 (identifying what I need to work on) ...

... The need for more volume. I'm not going to be able to become a regular in tournaments. First of all, none of the geographically desirable casinos for me offer tournament play. Second, as stated, too many life/work responsibilities to put in the volume I need in casinos. My solution is to find videos of tournament play in which every single hand of a given table is shown over an extended period of time. This will be my way to have a ton of volume (hands observed rather than hands played). While watching these videos I will think to myself how I would have played a hand versus how it was actually played. I will study what works and what doesn't. I will additionally utilize charts, GTO Wizard, etc. to analyze these decisions. I have identified the following videos online that I will study: 2025 WSOP Main Event coverage of Day 1s, 2s and 3 provides 42.25 hours of play; WSOP Paradise 2023 (I've already watched 2024) has 52.7 hours of play; WSOPE 2024 provides 44.4 hours of play.

-- The need to defend my big blind better. I am a paying member of Jonathan Little's poker training site pokercoaching.com. There are 14 videos on the training site on this exact subject matter. The videos are done by Jonathan Little, Matt Affleck, Tristan Wade, Lexy Gavin, Faraz Jaka, Michael Acebedo and Jonathan Jaffe.

... Navigating the bubble. There are videos by Jonathan Little and Tristan Wade on this subject on pokercoaching.com.

... Work on playing 6-handed since the very earliest levels as well as the levels just before and after late reg ends. I will work on 6-handed playing by watching some recent Inside the Mind of a Pro videos recently posted of 6-max play that I have not had a chance to watch. There are approximately 9 hours of new videos, and I suspect more may be posted in upcoming months.

... The need to look for additional sports to be aggressive/bluff. On pokercoaching.com there are five videos on bluffing (Jonathan Jaffe, Tristan Wade, Jonathan Little) and eight videos on check raising (by Jonathan Little, Tristan Wade, Jonathan Jaffe, Lexy Gavin and Michael Acevedo0.

I am going to work on all of the above after my wife falls asleep at night (usually around 10:00 p.m.) until the time I go to sleep (2:00 a.m.). I'm not saying I will study during this entire four-hour window, but that is the window of opportunity I can potentially study.

Unlike the NFL coaches I alluded to at the start of this post, I am not going to map out every single day of the next 11 months. My blueprint is more of a general guide to what I want to work on and the resources I can utilize. I have no idea if the studying I have outlined is way too much or way too little to complete in the next 11 months leading into WSOP 2026. But I have a general plan. And every night I study, I will already have the videos I need to dig into.

I'd focus my studies on finding more hero calls and bluffs. I didn't read through your HHs with a fine comb, but my sense was that you often defaulted to giving people credit for having the hand they're representing in a lot of situations. There's a healthy middle ground between being a station and folding too much. If we don't have some light calldowns and floats then we're giving the observant players a license to run us over. Stickiness is most important against the best opponents. We want to be able to receive the gifts that aggressive players give us when they try to buy the pot, and that means occasionally finding the call in uncomfortable spots when their story doesn't add up.

As you watch the tournaments on your slate, I would keep an eye out for hands where players are finding calls with medium value. A really cool final table to watch is the 2023 Wynn WPT Championship. Lots of great players in that one, and there were lots of above the rim plays. Those moves may not necessarily apply to level one of a $1k tournament, but the ideas on display are still valuable.

In terms of bluffing, I'm not a wild and crazy bluffer myself, but sometimes we get so stuck on call or fold that we forget the third option. Leveraging range advantage and/or scary boards to apply pressure to the best hand is something we need to do sometimes, even on deep streets like the turn and river. It's always much easier to play against someone when you know they aren't going to take those spots against you. Even if it's just once per day or once per tournament, think about a spot where a big raise will put your opponent on a tough decision regardless of what two cards you have. Winning chips you're not supposed to win can buy a lot of insurance against the inevitable beats and extended periods of cold cards.

As usual, your read on me is spot on. I better hope I never find myself at the same table as you. I think you would probably make a fine poker coach since you seem really adept at analyzing a player and then suggesting what they need work on in their game.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Here is why I love tournament poker. You can be going about your business in ordinary fashion and out of nowhere there is a bolt of lightning coupled with ear-splitting thunder and in the course of a hand or two you are either decimated or go shooting up the leaderboard. Maybe this makes me a masochist, but the need to be vigilant every single hand makes tournaments edge-of-my-seat exciting to me. I don't like when I am on the wrong end of these violent swings, but I find the whiplash-like changes of fortune to be absolutely fascinating to watch. It's why I love watching every hand at my table, including all the hands I am not in. You just never know when something astonishing will occur.

Here, via Pokernews, is an example of this on steroids from the current Main Event with only a few hundred players remaining. In the course of two hands Michael Hawker went from a monster stack to out, while Sebastian Schulze skyrocketed to tournament chip leader. While heartbreaking for Hawker, I can't think of many (any?) competitions that provide such jarring, devastating, I-can't-believe-what-I-just-saw reversals of fortune in such a short period of time. I turn it over to Pokernews:

Two hands after dinner break sent Sebastian Schulze shooting up the chip counts, as he dueled against Michael Hawker in back-to-back hands that neither player is likely to forget any time soon.

The first hand was picked up on the river on a board that read 4♥ 4♠ A♠ 9♠ 5♠ with over one million in chips already in the pot.

Schulze fired a bet before Hawker announced all-in over the top. Schulze quickly called to be at risk for 1,785,000.

"You don't have aces, do you?" Hawker asked as he rolled over a full house with 9♥ 9♣.

"Yes," Schulze replied and showed A♣ A♦ to take down a massive pot.

Hawker stood up in disbelief as he paced away from the table in shock, but was still left with a stack of over 3,500,000 in chips to play with.

The second hand took place immediately after the events of the first.

Schulze opened the action with a raise to 85,000 from the cutoff and was called by Hawker in the small blind.

Hawker checked the 7♣ 8♣ 5♣ flop before Schulze fired 90,000. Hawker called to see a turn.

The 9♦ turn led to a bet of 210,000 from Hawker before Schulze raised it to 700,000. The chips had hardly been pushed toward the middle when Hawker announced all-in. Schulze quickly called to put Hawker at risk.

"You didn't flop a flush, did you?" Hawker asked.

Hawker showed a straight with K♥ 6♠ before Schulze showed him the bad news when he revealed J♣ 9♣.

The meaningless J♠ hit the river as Hawker grappled with the sequence of two hands that derailed his main event.

"Oh my god, I can't believe it," he said as he got up from the table.

Yeah I don't think he could have gotten away from the first one and he was probably still thinking about that when he made the horrible shove on the 2nd hand. I don't like his chances of sleeping tonight, maybe tomorrow night too. Tournament poker should come with a health warning.

Very good post from 'DogFace' here, although I am only quoting a small part of it.

What he said above is a very good point for you 'rppoker'. Especially considering your age and look (I assume), people will make massive stereotypes against you. Young guys (+ those pretending to be young, like me) will think that you are only playing the nuts and overfold against massive aggression from you.

-----
The classic example which I like to employ myself, is when you raise pre and get a board of A-K-5 or similar. No matter if you have 87s, 44, JT, KQ or whatever here, your focus should be to go bet-bet-bet unless opponent tells you otherwise with a raise along the way.

But unless you are running into exactly A5 or 55, you will get a ton of folds here by the river. Simply because you know they don't have AA, KK or AK; all these hands would have 3-bet pre. So the risk of running this bluff with any two cards are very low, but it has a very high reward. Even if opponent have AJ or something, how willing are they to hold on for three streets when a seemingly OMC like yourself go bet-bet-bet after having raised pre?

-----
And like 'DogFace' also said, be a bit more sticky post-flop. Nothing extreme of course, but look for good backdoor draws and having overcards. If you call a raise pre with KcJc, and the flop comes T-8-2 with one of your suit you have an easy continue IMO (especially in position). You have so many good cards to continue on the turn (any club, 9, J, Q, K, 7). And even if none of these cards come, opponent might check and give up. Then you have the green light to take it down with a bet, even though you often have the worst hand.

Some people go a bit overboard with floating IMO, but I still think it's an important topic to be aware of. Especially against small sizing, you will find that people are floating very wide.

I feel like the hardest point made for me to follow is being more sticky after a flop in which I have flopped decent (i.e. middle pair) but not great (i.e. top pair, nut kicker). Especially if I was not the preflop aggressor. I know I have to get stickier. I'm not worried that this will lead to me becoming a calling station. But it is a fair point that I get pushed around too much when I have to decide whether to call a bit light. This is going to be a tough nut to crack, and I'm not entirely sure how I go about getting comfortable doing so. The occasional hero call is not currently a tool in my poker toolbox. I know that I have to do something about that.

I tend to view my decisions as raise or fold. I definitely need to give more consideration to the middle ground that is just call. That is a nuance I suspect will only grow with time spent at the tables. But it seems like every time I call post flop, my opponent almost always continued betting on the turn and river. They tended not to slow down.

When I am the preflop aggressor and I miss the flop (i.e. A-K on a 2-7-9 board, or Q-Q on an A-K-3 board) I feel like I was extremely aggressive and my recollection is that people folded entirely too much (as in almost every time) when I continued with aggression in those spots.

How I'd respond to the Will Kassouf menace

Will Kassouf is once again terrorizing the WSOP Main Event with his tiresome antics while making another deep run. I have no idea why this is a problem to deal with.

The problem: Kassouf will not shut up.

In an interview with poker.org, Kassouf says, "I'm going to play my game my way, and if people don’t like it, great. In fact, the more they don't like it, the more I keep doing it. Why? Not to be a nuisance, but if you’ve got an edge or an advantage, you want to exploit that to the max. Why? It increases my chances of going deeper in the tournament.

"I’m an extrovert; I’ll express myself on the table. I’m going to have fun and get in my opponents' heads, confuse them, and get them to make bad decisions. If somebody gets tilted and pissed off, and they start swearing, that’s their issue. I’ve done nothing wrong.

"If they lose their mind because they don’t have thick enough skin or they're not mentally strong enough, sorry, but that’s not my problem. I'm playing my game my way. You play your game your way. I've got no issue with you being introverted, putting your headphones on, and saying nothing to me for 12 hours. But don't have an issue with me because I'm talking to you at the table.

"The whole idea of poker is to take your opponent out of their comfort zone. You don't want them to play their A game against you. You don't want them to be comfortable. It’s dog eat dog. You're either the hunter or the hunted. You take their chips, or they take yours. Go hard or go home."

How I would deal with it: At one of my WSOP tables last month fairly deep into the night, a new player joined the table to my immediate left. He would not shut up. He wasn't trying to get under people's skin like Kassouf, but his need to fill every single second with chatter annoyed me. The solution was simple. I tuned him out. Yes, I still heard him talking but l stopped paying attention to what he was talking about. No idea what he was saying. He became white noise. Like a windshield wiper in a downpour where pretty quickly you don't even notice the blades going back and forth. It wasn't at all difficult for me to tune him out.

The problem: I haven't been watching on Pokergo, but from what I am reading online it sounds like Kassouf is once again employing his tiresome serial tanking gambit. I would have a huge problem with this if he were at my table and he was single-handedly making it so that the table hardly sees any hands compared to the rest of the field because of his nonstop stall tactics on obvious preflop folds.

How I would deal with it: The solution seems simple. Call the clock on him. Every ... single ... hand. I'd get my cell phone out, set it on stopwatch and every time it hits 60 seconds (or whatever the minimum amount of time dictated by the rules) I'd call clock. I have never once called clock on someone in a tournament, but if faced with Kassouf's game-wrecking serial tanking tactics I would have zero problem responding with a serial clock calling retaliatory strategy. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. If someone who normally plays at a reasonable speed needs time to make a big decision, I am happy to give them as much time as they need. But when someone is trying to destroy the spirit of the game for the sole purpose of getting under the skin of everyone else at the table on every single hand, then I think it is reasonable for the rest of the players to police the game calmly but decisively. Clock. He stalls again. Clock. He mega stalls yet another time. Clock. I wouldn't even engage in discussion with Kassouf. Clock. I wouldn't get angry with Kassouf. Clock. I wouldn't raise my voice against Kassouf. Clock. He tanks preflop. Clock. He again tanks after the flop. Clock. Turn tank. Clock. River tank. Clock.

Seems your prayers were answered last night:

"Kassouf had the clock called on him 23 times throughout the session, eventually leading to a rare penalty that gave him just ten seconds to act per decision. That restriction was lifted during the final level. However, Kassouf ended the day with only 2,850,000 chips, and is now near the bottom of the counts."

Was also thinking about this. Here's TDA rule 2, Player Responsibiities.

[QUOTE=TDA]
Players should verify registration data and seat assignments, verify they’re dealt the correct number of cards before SA occurs, protect their hands, make their intentions clear, follow the action, act in turn with proper terminology and gestures, defend their right to act, keep cards visible and chips correctly stacked, remain at the table with a live hand, table all cards properly when competing at showdown, speak up if they see a mistake, play in a timely manner, call for a clock when warranted, transfer tables promptly, follow one player to a hand, know and comply with the rules, practice proper etiquette, inform the house if they see or experience discriminatory or offensive behavior, and generally contribute to an orderly event where all players feel welcome.
[/QUOTE]

My bold, obviously.

Seems to me that clause should be able to used against him for the non-stop talking. It's over the top, and is making other players unwelcome.

Rule 29 covers the clock. No set time, just "reasonable". For serial tanking bullshit, it is as posted above for me. 10-15 seconds, "clock". If serial tanker has a real decision this time, tough ****. Shouldn't have been such a dick all those other hands.

Of course, serial tanking is undefined. The floor hopefully can take neutral position between the alleged tanker and the players calling the clock.

[QUOTE=TDA]
Players should act in a timely manner to maintain a reasonable pace of the game. If in TD’s judgement reasonable time has passed, they may call the clock or approve a clock request by any player in the event. Players must be at their seats to call for a clock (Rule 30). A player on the clock has up to 25 seconds plus a 5 second countdown to act. If the player faces a bet and time expires, the hand is dead; if not facing a bet, the hand is checked. A tie goes to the player. TDs may adjust the time allowed and take other steps to fit the game and stop persistent delays. See also Rules 2 and 70.[/QUOTE]

Serial tankers masquerading as serial talkers are worse than nits. I’ve been starting to think that Kassouf might be both a serial tanker AND a nit.

Then again I’ve also thought he’s more like a case of herpes that flares up every once in a while.

Poker Hall of Fame

Earlier this week the Poker Hall of Fame announced that Nick Schulman is the latest player that will be inducted.

This decision was the stone cold nuts. While there were a bunch of other qualified candidates, I don't see how anyone but Schulman could have been the choice. He has seven WSOP bracelets and one WPT title. He seems to play all of the games, and he plays them all well. I think an argument can be made that he is the best player in the world at the moment, and even if you don't agree, he belongs in the team picture for Team Best in the World. His poker player chops alone make him a slam dunk Hall of Fame choice. Add to his resume that I think he is the best poker commentator in the business, and his Hall of Fame qualifications are undeniable. He is also Poker Cool. He is straight out of central casting if you were to make a poker movie. Kind of like Sammy Farha dressed slick, an unlit cigarette hanging from his mouth head's up at the Main Event final table. Farha was what poker should look like. Schulman is what poker should sound like. "Say my name, Martin."

The line is pretty long for people who belong in the Hall of Fame. Scott Seiver strikes me as a lock a year from now. Phil Galfond and Jeremy Ausmus seem like guys who will definitely get in. Michael Mizrachi and Benny Glaser (not old enough) weren't even finalists this year, and I think their play at this year's WSOP has solidifed them as future Hall of Famers. Ted Forrest seem like a worthy candidate who may have to wait a while to get in. And Shaun Deeb hits 40 soon.

I think something that is becoming apparent is the number of WSOP bracelets necessary for Hall of Fame induction is going up. Seven and more bracelets used to be rare, but with the number of WSOP events on the rise this threshold is being reached with some regularity and will continue to do so. I think a big reason elite players are winning more bracelets than ever is the growing interest in mixed games. The fields in no limit hold'em tournaments have gotten so huge that it is exceptionally difficult for even the most elite players to win the top spot on the podium. Plus, NLHE has become increasingly "solved." The mixed game events don't have fields as big and I suspect that the recreational players who play in these events are playing way less GTO than is the case in NLHE events. This year's WSOP has been, in my opinion, the Year of the Elite Poker Pros. Well decorated professionals have been winning bracelets at what seems to be an extremely high rate. Thus, the bar of what is elite in WSOP bracelets won is on the rise. And that means pros have to accomplish more than ever to get in the Hall of Fame. Yes, I know Hall of Fame resumes require more than just WSOP results, but let's be honest, WSOP bracelets go a loooooooong way toward defining a player's Hall of Fame candidacy.

The prior two paragraphs in this post also bring something interesting to light. Mike Matusow is going to have a very difficult time getting in to the Poker Hall of Fame. He is stuck in two ways. He is stuck behind a whole bunch of qualified candidates at this time (see two paragraphs prior). He is stuck on four WSOP bracelets, which the previous paragraph argues is no longer close to what is becoming the norm for Hall of Fame candidates. Back when I was covering the NFL as a sportswriter, a peer of mine termed the phrase the Hall of the Very Good to describe really good players who nonetheless weren't worthy of Hall of Fame consideration. I think that unless Matusow adds at least a couple more WSOP bracelets to his resume, he will be a guy likely to be a member of the Hall of the Very Good. Yes, he was a guy people talked about a lot at the peak of poker's popularity, but I think that is more of a case of right place at the right time and is not a case of cause and effect.

As for the Poker Hall of Fame's insistence on limiting new inductees to once a year, I think it is being foolish and kind of arrogant. Poker.org recently wrote: In a Reddit AMA in May, ahead of the 2025 WSOP, Ty Stewart, Executive Director of the WSOP, said, “We are deciding to keep it one inductee per year. When we reach a point where the members of the hall think it's a travesty that worthy candidates are not getting in because of only one per year, then it’s probably time to change."

OK fine. I think members of the hall probably think "it's a travesty that worthy candidates are not getting in because of only one per year, then it’s probably time to change."

It's time to change.

If NLHE was the only form of poker played then maybe an argument can be made one inductee per year is enough. But the vast array of poker being played continues to grow. PLO is on the rise. Mixed games are on the rise. And this doesn't even take into consideration contributors to the game. If the Pro Football Hall of Fame only inducted one player per year, its membership would be 90% quarterbacks. Which would make no sense. There iis no nuance to one player per year.

I get not wanting to dilute the Hall of Fame with unworthy inductees. I'm not saying seven inductees a year is the way to go. But there has to be some happy medium between one a year and let's give everyone a participation trophy. Go to two a year and see how that works. Or if that is a bridge too far then say up to two inductees per year are possible, but the second player has to get a certain percentage of the votes to get in.

Limiting the Hall of Fame to just one inductee per year strikes me as a self-inflicted wound for no good reason. The whole point of a Hall of Fame is to recognize greatness and celebrate the game. I can assure you that we will not run out of worthy candidates if we go to two inductees a year..