Poker Feuds

Nothing contributes more to the popularity of poker than the characters involved. We come to love or hate the biggest personalities in the room. When those big personalities collide, it provides the ultimate in entertainment for all fans of the game. When Mike Matusow and Phil Hellmuth jab back and forth at one another, we watch it over and over again on TiVo and replay it for friends. Each year at the World Series of Poker, TV cameras scour the floor for the biggest arguments or confrontations. Bluff decided to highlight some of the most memorable feuds, rivalries, and battles in the game we love.

Before the 2006 World Series of Poker, Jamie Gold made an agreement with Bodog in exchange for a paid entry into the $10,000 Main Event. Gold claimed he would find celebrities to play the Main Event under the Bodog.com banner. Gold teamed up with TV executive Crispin Leyser to help bring in the celebrities. According to Leyser, in exchange Gold would provide half of his winnings. The dispute was brought into court in August of 2006 after Gold won the Main Event for $12,000,000. According to Gold in an October 07 interview with BLUFF columnist Adam Slutsky, Gold said “I always planned on sharing my winnings. Always. My one big fault was that I was ignorant of the tax laws; that the two of us could have just gone to the cage and split up the money and we each would have been responsible for our own taxes. Had I known that, it would have happened that fi rst day.” The dispute was resolved out of court in February 2007. “As it turned out, as soon as Crispin [Leyser] and I got in the same room together, we settled the matter instantly.”

This is easily one of the greatest disputes in poker history due to the amount of money involved. It also gained importance due to the surrounding issues people already had with Gold’s possible foul play at the WSOP Main Event and his “embellished” resume as a talent agent, causing people to have already tagged him as a liar and a thief.

‘WILD’ BILL HICKOK VS. JACK MCCALL

On August 5, 1876, the headlines of a Deadwood newspaper read:

ASSASSINATION OF WILD BILL

HE WAS SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD BY JOHN MC CALL WHILE UNAWARE OF DANGER

ARREST, TRIAL, & DISCHARGE OF THE ASSASSIN WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE AVENGED A BROTHER’S DEATH IN KILLING WILD BILL

The newspaper account of the murder said that while Wild Bill and others were at a table playing cards, Jack McCall walked into the saloon, up to the back of his victim, and when within three feet of him raised his revolver, exclaiming, “Damn you, take that,” and fired; the ball entered at the back of the head, and came out at the center of the right cheek, causing instant death.

On August 2nd 1876, Wild Bill Hickok was playing poker at Nuttal and Mann’s Saloon No. 10 in Deadwood of the Dakota Territory. He always tried to sit in the corner facing the door to prevent any sneak attacks, but someone else was in his preferred seat. Instead he sat with his back to the door — a fatal mistake. He was shot in the back of the head with a .45 caliber revolver by Jack McCall. Legend has it that Hickok, playing Stud poker when he was shot, was holding a pair of aces and a pair of eights. The fi fth card was either unknown, or some say that it had not yet been dealt. This famous hand of cards is known as the “Dead Man’s Hand.”

Though the newspaper claimed that Hickok was shot for killing McCall’s brother, another explanation is it may have been the result of a recent dispute between the two. Most likely McCall became enraged over what he perceived as a condescending offer from Hickok to let him have enough money for breakfast after he had lost all his money playing poker the previous day.

THE PLAYERS VS. WORLD POKER TOUR

When you decide to play in a WPT tournament, there is more to signing up than showing your ID and dropping $5,000 to $10,000 at the cage. World Poker Tour Enterprises requires all their players to sign a release. To most people this would not be an issue, but to professionals and celebrities, this poses a huge dilemma. According to the complaint fi led, some of the big name players claim that the release not only required the transfer of the players’ intellectual property rights for zero compensation, but it also confl icted with many of the players’ pre-existing, exclusive merchandising and sponsorship deals. The World Poker Tour is well aware that a lot of players do not wish to grant WPT a right to exploit their names, likeness, and images without any compensation. Nor do such players want to grant their intellectual property rights to promote WPT products, services and internet sites.

The major players who have taken this issue to the courts are Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Joe Hachem (who initially was staunchly against signing the release then decided to play WPT events and eventually won a WPT title), Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, Greg Raymer, and Howard Lederer. It’s not the money that the players are seeking; most of them were doing it for control of their own image. Most players already have other business deals preventing them from signing these releases. Also the players argue that they are buying into the tournament; so why should the WPT profit from their  participation?

PHIL HELLMUTH VS. MIKE MATUSOW

The two personalities known for blowing UP and melting DOWN are always riotous when they sit at the same table. The eleven-hour 2005 Tournament of Champions final table is considered by some to be the most entertaining final table in history, not only because of world class poker, but because of the show put on by Mr. Hellmuth and Mr. Matusow.

The table’s slow start was remedied by Mike Matusow comparing Phil’s new designer sunglasses to his own. The Matusow line was similar in style to that of Greg Raymer, only with a holographic middle fi nger on the lenses. Matusow picked on Hellmuth without giving up. Later in the tournament, when Hoyt Corkins pulled a reverse suckout on the river, Matusow jokingly asked him how much he paid to attend the “Phil Hellmuth Fantasy Camp.” Any time action slowed, Matusow was sure to throw out lines like, “When I go home at night, I think to myself ‘God, I wish I was Phil Hellmuth.’” Hellmuth tried for revenge when Matusow moved all in for 285,000 after Hellmuth raised to 40,000 from the button. Hellmuth tanked, studying Matusow and asked, “Is this the point where you have your infamous Matusow blowup?”

One other hilarious installment of the Matusow/Hellmuth show was during an episode of High Stakes Poker. Antonio asked who the greatest player at the table is. Mike immediately responded with, “Hellmuth…..oh I thought you asked who the biggest idiot is.”

Unfortunately for Mike, one of the hands they played together might prove otherwise. They were playing No Limit Hold’em, but in this variation if a player won a hand holding the good old 7-2 off-suit, everyone at the table would have to pay him $500. This gives people incentive to mix up their play while holding the worst hand in poker. Mike Matusow had pocket kings and Phil Hellmuth held the 2-7. Matusow raised to $1,800, Hellmuth reraised to $7,000, and Matusow called. The fl op came Q-6-J, Hellmuth checked, and Matusow checked behind. The turn was an 8. Hellmuth bet $17,000 and Mike called. The river brought a 6 and Hellmuth bet $40,000 causing Matusow to fold and blow up, refusing to pay Hellmuth the $500 for playing a 2-7. (Of course he eventually did.)

Feud may be the wrong word for the relationship these two have. They have a ton of respect for one another. Mike has voiced his opinion of Hellmuth being the greatest No Limit Hold’em tournament player of all time.

POKER PLAYERS VS. U.S. GOVERNMENT

Since 1998, the United States Government has unsuccessfully attempted to pass some form of legislation against internet gambling. Although such legislation had passed in both the House and the Senate in previous years, it never occurred in the same congressional session. In October 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act (UIGA) was tucked into the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act (SAFE). The UIGA makes it illegal for banks, credit card companies and other financial intermediaries to transfer funds to online gambling sites. It does not outlaw the sites, just makes it illegal to settle online wagers.

Another argument that the government is using to limit online gambling is the claim that it is a luck-based game. Others argue that it is a matter of following the rules the government has established. Online gambling is considered by some to be the most addictive form of gambling within America’s youth.

So how do we fight back? Get educated. Bills have been set up to regulate online gambling and enforce the set requirements (H.R. 2046). There are plenty of groups to join — like the Poker Players Alliance — that can tell you the best ways of getting in touch with those who can make these changes. You can write your representatives about the bills being passed. As a poker player, do everything possible to win this battle.

DANIEL NEGREANU VS. GREG RAYMER

Daniel Negreanu was not happy about the six players suing the WPT back in August of 2006. He made that clear by saying, “I think it’s a bit ridiculous, frankly. I think they’re making a really big mistake, not only for them, but for all poker players. The people at the WPT are going to destroy them – they’re going to smear their names, discredit them, show that they’re affiliated with online poker sites, and that’s exactly what the WPT is going to do.” He also felt that it was bad timing being so close to the online gambling issue in Congress, adding unnecessary negative attention toward poker. When Greg Raymer got word of his now fellow PokerStars teammate’s feelings, things became personal. Greg mentioned that he was glad that Negreanu was no longer in the 2006 WSOP Main Event and that Negreanu was either “stupid” or a “sock puppet for the WPT.” When this hit the forums, Negreanu was fairly confused. “I’ve always been friends with the guy, never had a problem,” he said in his videoblog. “Now I see where we stand, bro,” Negreanu concluded.

After many blows back and forth over every aspect from the now personal issues, legal issues, legitimacy of the complaints, and what this is doing to poker, this issue between them has died down, especially since they are now both representatives of the online poker site PokerStars.com.