Should Razz Poker Win A Razzie Award For Worst Poker Game?

Should Razz Poker Win A Razzie Award For Worst Poker Game?

Every year there is an award for the worst achievements in motion pictures. It is called the Razzie, and they are now on year number 31.

The big winner this year was M. Night Shymalan's The Last Airbender. M. Night is the guy who did the movie Sixth Sense back in 1999. I know everyone loved that movie, but I did not. The reason was that I knew that Bruce Willis was dead from the beginning. We just witnessed Willis getting shot point-blank in the first scene, so when he is on that bench in the next scene, I mean, what is everyone thinking? That they missed the super, "Four days earlier" or what?

When you know the surprise ending in the first minutes, the rest of the movie is rather silly. I sort of enjoyed how the audience reacted at the end of the movie.

(By the way, I was proud of myself for resisting the temptation of telling my date that Willis was dead. And, after the movie ended, I told her I knew he was dead from the start. Of course, she didn't believe me, and that led to Sixth Sense being a bad date movie for me as well.)

Anyway, back to the Razzie awards.

Not only do the Razzies happen pre-Oscar award night, but they tend to add in a new category now and then. This year they added in an award for Worst Eye-Gouging Use of 3D. And, the winner for Worst Eye-Gouging Use of 3D is....

Oh, I forgot, the nominations, for Worst Eye-Gouging Use of 3D are:
CATS & DOGS 2
REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE
CLASH OF THE TITANS
NUTCRACKER 3D
SAW 3D
THE LAST AIRBENDER

And, the winner is: THE LAST AIRBENDER. (Thankfully, I missed all of these great movies.)

Back to my point...If they added in an award for Worst Poker Game, would Razz Poker win?
(I don't know if it is true, but the rumor is that the guy who started the Razzie awards, lost his shirt playing Razz poker, and that is how the award got it's name :-))

I am biased, since I wrote a book on Razz poker, so let me start with nominations for worst poker game.

The nominees are:
MEXICAN STUD
2 -7 DRAW
ANACONDA
HIGH CHICAGO
FOLLOW THE QUEEN
ONLINE POKER
RAZZ POKER

I hate Mexican Stud since I've never won at that game. I don't know how to play 2-7 Draw. Anaconda and Follow the Queen are entertaining home games. And, online poker is a criminal act that is punishable by watching The Last Airbender or death, whichever is worse.

And, the winner is....

You tell me, which poker game deserves a Razzie award for the worst poker game, in 2 or 3D?

Greg Raymer is No Longer a PokerStar

Greg Raymer is No Longer a PokerStar

I ran across an article that Greg Raymer and PokerStars split company. The speculation is that PokerStars is cutting back its support of World Series of Poker winners as they focus more on non-US pros and online winners.

First, I've never played against Greg Raymer. Second, from watching him play on TV, Greg appears to be an excellent player who enjoys putting pressure on his opponents whether he has the goods or not. Of course, the best evidence of his skill is his winning the 2004 World Series of Poker. Third, he seems like a really nice guy and I am sure he will end up getting his support from another online poker site.

And, that's my problem. Online poker sites should not be paying star players to play at their sites. If they want poker stars to appear in their ads or promotions, that is fine. But, to give them money to play at their site is just cheating the game, and the players at the site.

I don't blame the players for taking the money. Heck, no matter how good a poker player you are, you are going to have long stretches of losing your money. But, giving players an edge like this, especially the "pros," is just wrong IMHO.

Personal Experience Being Sponsored, sort of.

I would like to come up with an analogy that helps illustrate my point, but I don't have one. Poker is gambling. It is skill and luck. And, the combination of these two ingredients weighs heavier on the "luck" factor than any other sporting competition I can think of.

Players who don't care about the money are going to play different than if the money was coming out of their own pocket. At least that is what I have found in my own play.

For example, I was visiting a friend and he said that he wanted to see me play a poker tournament at a local casino. I guess he gave me grief because I had a book on tournament poker, and he wanted to get a good laugh when some young kid knocked me out. I told him I wasn't interested in playing.

To convince me to play, though, he made me an offer I couldn't refuse. He would give me the buy-in for the event and I could keep whatever I won. I didn't realize it at the time, but that is the kind of deal these poker stars get from the online poker sites.

Of course, I took him up on his offer, and entered the event. I guess it was a psychological thing or something, because I took more chances than I normally would do in a poker tournament. I'd like to say I won the event, but I didn't win. I finished second.

This was not some major poker tournament. It was a local game with maybe 100 players. And, my friend thought some of my all-in moves were too risky. Maybe, probably, actually, yes for sure! Why? I wasn't gambling at all. I had no risk. I wasn't using my money.

Oh yeah, let me share with you how I got knocked out at the end...I am ashamed to say that I tried to bluff out my opponent pre-flop when he was holding pocket Kings. Now you know why I'm not sponsored by a poker site :-)

My point to all of this is that online poker sites should not be influencing the results of any poker event. But, by paying poker pros to play at their sites, they are doing precisely that. Pay these stars to promote your site in all the other traditional marketing ways--from PR to advertising to promotion. Just not in a way that effects the outcome of the actual events where everyone else is risking their hard earned money.

If you agree, please let me know. If you disagree, I am sure I will read your comments.