Charlie Elias is the Great White Shark of Poker

 

Roar Rookie

By Matthew Horan, 16 Jul 2009 Matthew Horan is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:

 Charlie Elias, Greg Norman, poker

8 Have your say

Email

Sydney’s Charlie Elias’ remarkable run in the World Series of Poker Main Event is not so much a Cinderella story, as Bill Murray would say, but a Greg Norman one.

Charlie’s success – and let’s not forget that the guy did come 53rd out of more than 6000 players, and will be coming home with $175,000 in his skyrocket – going to spark the same inevitable flurry of media interest in the game we had after Joe Hachem won the thing a few years back.

Elias is a Western Sydney bogan, a tiler who took up the game at the Revesby Workers Club three years ago. He’s a better story than Hachem story, who was, after all, a professional player at Crown, even though he told the tax office he was a chiropractor.

So every story will (probably rightfully) be about his amazing run, how a complete amateur almost beat the pros, Aussie Aussie Aussie etc etc etc.

And what they’ll miss is that at the dinner break on day six, Charlie was the chip leader – ahead of such poker gods as Phil Ivey and Antonio “The Magician” Esfandiari. He had six million chips – just ahead of second place but with a massive 1.2 million chip lead over third.

Charlie had a rails run to the final table, but within a few hours play he’d blown it all.

It’s not just a case of blowing a hand. Charlie comes home with $175,000, but if he’d held on for another hour or so, he would have cashed with $225,000. Hold on until the end of Day Seven and he’s getting close to $500,000. Go all the way and you’re bringing home $10 million, which is a lot of schooners for your mates at Revesby.

So how did Charlie do it? What sort of massive brain fart is required to go from all but smelling the $10 million to walking out and being forced to watch Human Nature sing Motown down the road at the Imperial Casino?

Charlie got to where he did because of his decisions.

Poker isn’t, as the unknowledgeable hacks who will turn up at the airport to fete Charlie would believe, like punting on the dogs (although I’ve played against some of the donkeys who play at the Revesby Workers and they might as well be betting on the dishlickers for all the thinking they’re doing).

Luck’s a factor, as it is in all sport, or else Dishhead Dowling would never have scored off the crossbar in the 84 Origin mudbath. But poker’s mainly a game of skill, patience and sudden bursts of brutal mental aggression. It’s a sport – and I’m a firm believer that poker is a sport, despite the fact that Shane Warne plays – that demands you make tough decisions that can, quite literally, break your bank.

Charlie’s had his run of luck, but his final, Normanesque hand was all about him, not about luck.

Let’s do analysis of his key hands, most of which you can follow on WSOP.com. If you’re still reading this you probably know how they play Texas Hold Em poker at the WSOP. You’re dealt two cards, five “community” cards are dealt face up and you bet that you have the best five card hand – or try to convince the other players you do.

Charlie played some smart, aggressive poker early on, hitting a nut flush (holding an Ace and having another four cards of the same suit), which got him through day one.

He had a good run, not just getting lucky, but using that luck to extract the maximum number of chips from his opponent.

The one hand which he’ll be able to dine out on for life was all but knocking out two-time main event champ Dan Harrington. Harrington is Poker Royalty. He has – literally – written the book on tournament poker. You shouldn’t be going anywhere near a pub tournament, let alone the WSOP unless you’ve read all three volumes of Harrington on Hold Em.

But it’s also a sign of things to come – two bad decisions masked by an absolute hero call.

Elias is holding pocket Queens – one of the strongest starting hands in poker. But when the flop comes Ace, King, Ten, your nutsack should be shrivelling and the queens getting tossed. Bad decision number one – Charlie calls Harrington’s flop bet. The hand description doesn’t show how much was in the pot, but what cards can Charlie beat?

If Harrington holds an Ace or a King, he’s gone. If a Queen hits on the turn fourth card out), then Charlie’s hit a set (three of a kind) but he’s drawing dead to a straight if Harrington holds a jack (AKQJ10).

Bad decision number two – a king comes on the turn and both players check, but when a three pops up on the river (last card out), Charlie fires a mini bet of $40,000 into a pot that’s holding at least $150,000. Charlie’s screaming “I have a small pair please don’t raise me”, which Harrington does – by $390,000.

Now, Harrington’s move is being panned as a bad one. But the story Harrington has told with his betting is, “I’ve got either an Ace or a King, king on the turn, check to be sneaky, bet your trips for value on the river”. Or he’s got JQ and hit a straight on the flop and was trying to pump the pot up with his initial bet.

Either way you’re beat – and if you call you’re up to losing half your chip stack.

Charlie eventually called the bet, saying to Harrington ““You don’t have the Ace. You don’t have the King. I know you don’t have it. You can’t have it. I call.” Which is a great statement if true, but you look like a fool if not.

And this is Dan Harrington, who is one of the tightest players in world poker. This is a guy who doesn’t bluff. Except he WAS bluffing, for once – with 97 offsuit! – and Charlie picked him off.

It’s the equivalent of stepping into the ring with Ali, for god sakes, and not just sitting the great man on his arse, but telling him to his face “I never believed that rope-a-dope thing”.

But it showed some bad decision making skills.

Charlie hit lightning in a bottle a few more times, hitting a few sneaky sets against big pairs, but took a bad beat at the end of Day Six, flopping a set of sevens, but being “rivered” by an opponent holding a miserable jack-4 who somehow made a winning full house on the last card.

And I’m wondering if this is what led to Charlie’s downfall, on a final hand of truly Greg Norman proportions.

Here’s the hand. A player in middle position raises to $175,000. The minimum bet at this stage of the tournament is $60,000, and this is a pretty standard three-times-the-minimum raise, which announces “I’ve got something”.

Charlie’s in the cut-off – one off the dealer button, so he’s second last to act throughout the hand. Charlie looks down and sees Ace-King, different suits. Stellar starting hand.

And it’s brain fart time. Charlie pushes all-in, with something between $2 and $4 million chips (depending on which live blog you’re reading).

This is not just a mistake of Greg Normanesque proportions, but a potential challenger for the Matt Dunning field goal award of stupid sporting moves.

While Charlie’s second-last to act throughout, that’s only after the initial betting. He’s got three players to come after him right now. And the guy in the big blind wakes up with pocket Queens and calls him.

It’s not a terrible move, pushing all-in with AK pre-flop. If an Ace or a King comes, you’re ahead. But against any pair you’re a 49-51 percent underdog.

Situationally it’s a shocker. At this stage of the tournament, with the prize pool ratcheing up every couple of hours as players get knocked out, it’s not clever poker. Charlie’s just bet an actual, very real $50,000 – what he could have got for hanging around a few hours – on a coin flip.

He was on tilt, I suspect, after those bad beats. He’s dropped two thirds of his stack from being chip leader and like the mug punter just before race seven at Randwick, needs that one last bet to double up before heading home.

Poker’s a game of information. By simply reraising to, say $500,000, Charlie’s sent the opening raiser a message that he’s got a BIG hand. And then, when the big blind re-raises him again with the queens (as he would have), Charlie can still get away from the hand, and he’s still got at least $1.5 million to play with. Not good, but not terminal. Instead of playing the hand, he’s gambled the hand.

Compare this with Emma Grace, a 41-year-old Brisbane mum who, like Charlie, won her way into the WSOP at a pub tournament. Just before the “bubble” – those who cash and those who miss out on making the money – Emma folded pocket Kings, the second best starting hand in poker, to a re-raise.

She was probably ahead, but smart tournament poker is as much about having situational awareness of the prize structure as it is about the cards in front of you.

Emma didn’t make it too much further in the tournament, but she cashed with about $28,000 in 404th place, which is a nice Vegas holiday. To me, she’s a smarter player than Charlie. Perhaps not as lucky, but certainly the better player.

Charlie’s done better on the day, of course, and deserves to be congratulated.

He’ll be all smiles at the airport in front of the muppets from Channel Nine, but inside he’s got to be seething.

They call Phil Ivey the “Tiger Woods of poker”, because he’s black, calm and brilliant. Charlie should be known as poker’s Great White Shark.