Erik Seidel
Interview (by phone): November 2018
In a nutshell, describe the changes of the past few years
The landscape has changed a lot because these kids spend a lot of time running stuff out on computers. They know specifically what to bet in many situations, what to do when they’re 30 blinds or 20 blinds or 40 blinds, how often to raise. It’s become much more of a science and less of an art. The last year or two you can see a significant difference.
Does this make them better?
Yeah. They’re extremely good players. They were good players before the computers came along, they were great players, and now they know much more specifically what to do in a lot of different spots, and they’ve been dominating the last year or year and a half.
You’re talking about the super high roller regs?
Yeah, that’s where you’re seeing the most impact, is in the high rollers, because that’s where the best players are. You can still play 10Ks, 5Ks, 1Ks and you’re not going to see that much of an impact in those events. But in the high rollers, there’s a significant difference.
What does it mean if you’re not using the software?
I think it makes it very very difficult. There are some players that have such good skills and such good instincts that maybe they can survive in this environment, but that number is growing smaller and smaller.
When Daniel Negreanu said he wasn’t in the top 20 any more, what was your reaction?
I thought that was a very realistic assessment. It’s very clear that these guys have dramatically improved the game and have I guess you could say upped the ante in terms of what it takes to survive in the high roller world. And the entire landscape has changed and you can see it any time you sit down. There are a few players that maybe aren’t running the software, but I don’t know…it seems likes fewer and fewer. At the same time, the high rollers have become such an important part of the tour for the best players, and the stakes are incredibly high. [REDACTED] gave the greatest example in September. He said he’s having his third best year ever, he’d cashed for $4.8 million, and he was down $1.8 million for the year. And that was in September. There have been a bunch of entry fees since then. When you think about it, that’s close to $7m in entry fees in a year, and the year hadn’t even finished yet. That’s pretty incredible.
Where is this money coming from?
Every player in the high rollers is staked to a certain degree. I don’t think there’s anyone playing on their own. There are swaps as well. The high rollers swap with each other.
What percentage do people have of themselves?
Well, it is changing. It used to be that people were put in and they would get maybe three to eight percent freeroll to play the event. But now the tournaments are becoming tougher, so I think there are less of those deals going around. Now, I think some players are surviving…they still have backing deals and then there are other players that are parts of groups of players that all swap action, which helps them to diversify their bankrolls that way. If they have a bad run, or have a few bad tournaments, as long as they’re in a group where somebody is doing well, they can stay afloat.
Has poker become a team game?
In terms of sharing information, I think that’s true. But I don’t think it’s a danger…I think there are some people, particularly people on the outside, that feel like maybe they’re co-operating together or something like that. I don’t think that exists.
How do they operate?
When there’s a live stream, I think they’re all chatting and discussing plays and what do you think of this. The other advantage they have is they can all consult about how certain players play, what they might be capable of, and that can be a really big advantage to have some of the best players in the world giving their opinions about how to play a particular player. Something like that would put somebody like myself, or Bryn Kenney, or Adrian [Mateos] at a disadvantage, because we don’t have access to that type of thing.
What can you do about it?
I don’t think there’s that much you can do. And I do think it provides an advantage to the players that are all consulting together, the groups are consulting together.
Do you like this?
I think we have to accept that progress is going to keep improving. I’m slowing down. I can feel the difference in a lot of these high rollers. I think a lot of the value has been taken out.
Because players have got too good or inferior players have vanished?
The combination. The players have gotten significantly better and you do see some of the players who were non-pros dropping out because they feel the difference as well.
Is this landscape under threat?
Yeah. There are so many of them now, and the players have gotten so good, I do worry about the eco-system, whether it can survive.
How did it feel at the beginning, back when it was new at the Aussie Millions?
It was pretty exciting back then. If you look at the $250K, that was a pretty tough tournament, certainly by the standards of those days. That was a tough event. I think at the 100Ks, you did have a few more amateurs coming in, but the high rollers have always been tough. But it has been interesting to see that they have got significantly tougher as time goes on. It was an interesting time back then, there were only a few of them, you had fewer opportunities, and the prizes were a little smaller back then because there was less interest. Now I think we have probably peaked. Some of the prize pools have gotten pretty big.
Were people putting up the whole money back then?
I think there were more players then that were putting up their own money. And there was more money around in those days as well. That year, I had all of myself in the high rollers that year and I wouldn’t do that now.
Were those tournaments the ones that separated the men from the boys?
Well, those tournaments always have been more exciting than a normal tournament because you can get a result in just a couple of days and the prizes were so significant. You could win a prize in a 100K that was bigger than a 10K that had hundreds and hundreds of players in it. So you were more likely to do well because you were that much closer to the finish. And then if you did do well, the prizes were so much higher. I find them very exciting, and it’s a very different feeling playing a high roller than playing a 10K main event.
Why?
The level of competition puts you on your toes. You really have to be hyper aware of everything that’s going on. Mistakes are much more costly, so you have to be much more careful with your thinking. And then at the same time, you’re playing with a 30-second shot clock most often, so you have to think very quickly as well.
Does the shot clock work against the best players?
I’m not sure that’s true because I think in a lot of cases they know pretty quickly what the theoretical correct play is, so I’m not sure they need more time. But there are times when you see…you can watch somebody like Ike Haxton. He’s fun to play with because there’s so much going on in his brain that he probably could use a couple of extra minutes. There’s all the calculations going on.
Have you got involved in this study?
I haven’t really. I’m at a bit of a crossroads right now because one of the great things that I’ve always had is balance. I’ve been able to play, but I’ve also been able to take time off, and both are very valuable to me. At this point I really am at a crossroads of how much time do I want to put into this. I know I’m not going to outwork a kid who’s in his 20s, who’s spending 40–50 hours a week in front of a computer. It’s an interesting spot for my career right now.
Do you envisage pulling back?
Yeah, I started pulling back after this summer. I’m being a little bit more careful about which events I play and I definitely feel that I’m slowing down. I think if I had access to a lot of these programs, it would be helpful. But at this point I can’t necessarily access some of the information other people have, and if I had I don’t have the motivation they have to spend all that time in front of a computer.
Are we entering a new era?
Yeah, I think that’s true. You can see there is a transition. Some of us are dying out, like the dinosaurs.
That’s an interesting admission.
It’s an interesting spot to be in. I do love playing, but I also have to be realistic, and I also have to make sure I don’t end up playing out of ego that, as my edge is diminishing, that I take proper stock. You have to be realistic about it. You don’t want to be that boxer who’s still in the ring at the age of 50.
What about if you decided you wanted to give it a go.
I don’t know how many hours it would take. I’m not really sure. But it would be significant. I don’t have the same motivations that the younger kids have and nor do I have as much time as they have. If you’re 25 years old, you can burn up two years in front of a computer if it’s going to increase your edge. But I’m 59, and two years of my life is a much bigger percentage of what I have left. It’s also not clear if I did put in significant time if I could still compete at the level that these kids are. They’re *very* sharp. They’re very good players and they’ve certainly taken the game to a new level.
That’s quite a shame. Is this good for poker?
I don’t necessarily think it’s good for poker. I went through this in backgammon as well. I was a backgammon player and computers came in. This was a long time ago, I guess it’s been 35 years since the computers really changed the game of backgammon. At that time, I was already transitioning into another career, but I was certainly one of the best players in the world once the computers came in, it would have taken me a lot more to keep up. But at that time I also didn’t have the motivation to do it.
Who is going to continue to pay?
That’s a problem. There are people dropping out and it’s going to be harder and harder to find people to put up $100,000 or $250,000. And these events will get smaller. It’s going to be hard. The thing that could possibly save the high rollers is if there’s legislative change in the US that would bring more people in and more money in but at this point it does seem to be that the events are going to be getting smaller.
Will the money filter upward far enough?
The legislation change would allow them to run more satellites to get into the high rollers. It would help, but it would mostly help the other events.
Has legislative issues put us here, where top players need this alternative reliable stream?
I like that you say “reliable”. I don’t know how many people can really count on it as reliable.
Will there still be egos big enough to play the top guys?
I think it is true. They have taken the game to a level where it is difficult to beat them. But they’re also human beings, so they’re still capable of making mistakes. But they’re less capable…one of the things that the computer driven game, it in some ways saves them from some of the potential mistakes that they could make due to emotion or misjudgments because it’s in the numbers. They could just rely on playing that way, as long as they stay within what they know, it could protect them against some of the human elements that some of the more freewheeling players might have. Definitely even the best players still make some mistakes. Of course, they’re making less mistakes than people who don’t have the background that they have.
Has the level of professionalism moved poker far away from the reckless old days?
The Stu Ungar type? Yeah, they’re much more disciplined, for sure. It is different. You don’t see them heading to the casinos with their winnings. They’re much smarter and they’re not going out and buying $400,000 cars.
Will the computer itself eventually sit down and play?
I definitely think we’ll see something like that. They already had that heads up match, right. I think we’ll see that. It’ll be an interesting time to watch and to see what becomes of these high rollers. But it does feel like, where are the new players going to come from? It’s very hard to imagine the that the high roller environment is not going to get smaller and smaller.
The Asians?
The Triton tournaments have been some of the better ones on the tour, for sure. That’s a really big market. That has the most promise in terms of continuing to feed the high rollers.
That’s placing the future in the hands of a small group.
Yeah, if Triton is out of the game, it will really impact the high roller world in a big way.
What about the One Drop?
This last One Drop had a different feel to it. It did feel that there were less people willing to put up $1m. It was still an OK field, but the first one sold out pretty easily, there were people begging to get in. There’s definitely not that feeling any more.
There are a couple of big events coming up in the Bahamas? [Party Poker was hosting an event at Baha Ma, and PokerStars was putting on the PSPC/PCA festival at Atlantis.]
Hopefully there will be a few more of those types of things where you’ve got huge 25Ks with significant prizes. That does seem to be where things are going a little bit more, instead of the 100Ks and 250Ks.
Do you keep thorough records for poker, etc.?
I keep it separately because I have a separate deal for high rollers. Anything $25K and higher is a separate spreadsheet for me, and below $25K those are the tournaments where I’m completely on my own.
Are you a pioneer in this?
It’s only the last few years. In the first few years of the high rollers and there weren’t that many of them. In the first few years of the high rollers, there weren’t that many of them and I was happy putting up the money on my own. Of course, not for the One Drop, but for $100Ks and $25Ks and things like that. But now there are so many of them. I remember thinking at the beginning of they year, this year could cost $5m in buy-ins. But the truth is, if you play the tour and you’re willing to re-buy, you probably could approach $10m this year. It’s pretty insane. There can’t be too many people that can survive it.
How do you describe this world?
It is pretty crazy. In some ways, it’s some of the only value in the 100Ks. Some of the better players are willing to buy a bunch of times. I’ve never been comfortable doing that, so in a certain sense I feel that I’m at a disadvantage against somebody who’s willing to buy in four or five times. To turn a 100K into a 500K or a 600K or 700K is pretty crazy. There have been a bunch of times when a 250K has turned into a seven figure buy-in for players.
Do you get a sting/thrill?
I still get a thrill from playing. I love it. But I also have to balance that with being realistic about it. I can’t continue to play every high roller the way I was once able to do. I can’t put my bankroll at risk in that way.
Do you have horses?
In the high rollers, no. Sometimes I’ll buy small pieces of people, but not in general. I haven’t backed a lot of players over the course of my career overall. I’ve not done well, so I’m pretty cautious about it.
Was it a different era when you played Dzmitry Urbanovich in Monte Carlo [in 2015]?
I think it was, yeah. I think you see less players like Dzmitry or Chino or Grinder, players who are getting by just on sheer talent. It’s kind of a shame, you don’t see as many of the Stu Ungar type players, and we are left with the players who are more computer driven. There’s something beautiful about the history of poker, where you could just get by on talent alone. But that definitely isn’t the case anymore in high rollers.
These are the players who just had a good card sense?
There are a diminishing number of those players, at least in the high rollers. Obviously they still exist in the smaller events.
You’ve been known as “Seiborg” but you’re not really a fan of the computers
I like that. I like that video, it’s pretty funny. It’s an interesting position to be in, I think I wouldn’t mind putting the work in if I had access to the material or the programs that some of these people have. But I don’t see myself as somebody who could spend all day in front of a computer.
SELECTED OTHER INTERVIEWS: Adrian Mateos, Charlie Carrel, Daniel Negreanu, Dominik Nitsche, Fedor Holz, Jason Koon, Justin Bonomo, Stephen Chidwick and Winfred Yu.
