NPL Vegas Open Episode 3 (INHD): I am at the TV final table

[olivert]

I got into the $1060 buy-in National Poker League (NPL) Vegas Open tourney at Caesars in Las Vegas on Sunday via a $240 single-table satellite, and I got lucky enough to survive a field of 72 to reach the televised final able of 6, scheduled on Monday at 2pm.

www.nplvegasopen.com

My appearance will be in the 3rd episode of a 13 episode series that will air on the high-definition digital cable TV network INHD on Comcast, Time Warner, and COX cable systems starting in July. INHD reaches only about 7 million US TV households.

I will start the TV taping 2nd in chips with 61400, behind the chip leader who has 96700. The short stack is down to 13400. The blinds will be 1000-2000 with a 200 ante for 20 minutes before jumping to 1500-3000 with a 300 ante for the next 50 minutes, then 2000-4000 w/400 ante, 3000-6000 w/500 ante, etc.

(This will be my second time at a minor TV final table, having previously appeared on the now-defunct SoCal Tour in January 2005 [$220 buy-in]. Eric Rosenberg's pokertvnetwork.com is currently streaming that particular SoCal Tour episode.)

In my NPL episode, NONE of the 6 final table players are "professionals". We all have other jobs or businesses away from poker. With that said, none of us are "amateurs" either. We are either "recreational" or "semi-professionals" because we play for money.

As far as I know, I am the only one of the 6 who has negotiated a contingency sponsorship deal (which pays a stipend ONLY if one reached a TV final table). I did a contingency deal with Full Tilt on Sunday specifically for the NPL Vegas Open ONLY.

--

As for other "pros" and "names": Max "Italian Pirate" Pescatori made the TV final table for Episode 1, while Dan Heimiller and Richard "Quiet Lion" Brodie made the TV final table for Episode 2.

--

The winner of each of the first 10 episodes will be drawn into 5 separate single-elimination semifinal heads-up freeroll matches, with $5000 going to the 5 semifinal winners who will advance to the final $100000 winner-take-all freeroll.

[Kevmath]

Congrats to you Oliver, I was wondering how many people were entering the Vegas Open events, although with tournaments during the week, it should be smaller. As to your sponsorship, wouldn't you say you were one of a few savvy enough to negotiate sponsorship?

[MCS]

Are there any other ancillary income opportunities?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In my NPL episode, NONE of the 6 final table players are "professionals". We all have other jobs or businesses away from poker. With that said, none of us are "amateurs" either. We are either "recreational" or "semi-professionals" because we play for money.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all congratulations on your final table achievement. It is never easy and can be even more difficult with the added pressure of the TV cameras.

Now, what do you mean you aren't an amateur? By every definition of the word you are admittedly not a professional, the only category left is amateur.

Why do (some) people think amateur is a derogatory term? Do you think college BB players think they are semi pros? Or recreational players? Can't a recreational poker player be a winning poker player? Can't an amateur be a winner? On the other side of the coin aren't most semi pro poker players more likely to be losing poker players (since they need a job to feed their habit)? I just don't understand why anyone would want to be thought of as a loser (even if they were one).

Lastly, be proud of your amateur status, wear it as a badge of honor. It shows that your are able to compete at the highest levels even against professionals in your chosen hobby. Best of luck in the future.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
With that said, none of us are "amateurs" either. We are either "recreational" or "semi-professionals" because we play for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are only an amateur if you play in play money games, and anyone who plays for real money is a semi-professional? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With that said, none of us are "amateurs" either. We are either "recreational" or "semi-professionals" because we play for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are only an amateur if you play in play money games, and anyone who plays for real money is a semi-professional? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, anyone who competes as an AMATEUR in a competition does NOT compete for money.

That means anyone who plays poker for money is NOT an amateur.

I am not a professional poker player because I own a business that has nothing to do with poker.

I am somewhere between "recreational" and "semi-professional".

Players such as Eli Elezra and Shawn Sheikhan are technically NOT professional poker players because they own businesses away from poker. They certainly are NOT amateurs either given the substantial amounts of money they have won and/or lost.

The use of the word "amateur" by TV announcers to describe those poker players who don't play professionally should be BANNED, in my opinion.

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any other ancillary income opportunities?

[/ QUOTE ]

The contingency logo sponsorship deal with Full Tilt was THE ancillary income opportunity for me out of the event.

I ended up finishing 2nd.

I was down 6-to-1 at the start of heads-up play, but I doubled up twice to take a slight chip lead.

I gave up the chip lead after a couple of small pots, and then lost all my chips when I re-raised all-in pre-flop with KTo and was called by my opponent holding KQs, which held up.

[Wake up CALL]

You might as well call yourself a breadbox since you are simply making up definitions. I will henceforth consider you a semi-breadbox poker player.

Amateur:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.

Unless you consider poker a sport then you are certainly an amateur.

Amateur

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With that said, none of us are "amateurs" either. We are either "recreational" or "semi-professionals" because we play for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are only an amateur if you play in play money games, and anyone who plays for real money is a semi-professional? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, anyone who competes as an AMATEUR in a competition does NOT compete for money.

That means anyone who plays poker for money is NOT an amateur.

I am not a professional poker player because I own a business that has nothing to do with poker.

I am somewhere between "recreational" and "semi-professional".

Players such as Eli Elezra and Shawn Sheikhan are technically NOT professional poker players because they own businesses away from poker. They certainly are NOT amateurs either given the substantial amounts of money they have won and/or lost.

The use of the word "amateur" by TV announcers to describe those poker players who don't play professionally should be BANNED, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Using your rationale, anyone who plays slot machines or blackjack or any other casino game isn't an amateur. If your self-esteem is enhanced by insisting that you aren't an amateur, then have at it, but you are deluding yourself.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
You might as well call yourself a breadbox since you are simply making up definitions. I will henceforth consider you a semi-breadbox poker player.

Amateur:

1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.

Unless you consider poker a sport then you are certainly an amateur.

Amateur

[/ QUOTE ]

There was an interesting, brief discussion of this in the movie <u>Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius</u> where Bobby Jones talks about how the word "amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love." He talks about how he plays for the love of the game, and not for the money, which is why he never went pro - he didn't want the game to consume his life.

That's not to say that he didn't make money from playing. After all, he was one of the greatest golfers of all time, and he won many majors. He just didn't make his living off of poker.

In short, I too think olivert's definition is silly. Just thought the Bobby Jones thing was interesting.

I guess I'm a pro, since I play for money. It's hard to feed my family from $5 S&amp;G's, though. Guess I need to play more of them.