You might have noticed that all your wealthy, overweight, gambling-addicted friends have disappeared. That's right, it's World Series of Poker time, and it will be for the next month or so, so take your time getting to Vegas. Somehow it's even still hosted by Binion's Horseshoe Casino, which had closed down recently, presumably because it insisted on staying old school. That may have been more than enough links just then, but let's throw in Ted Binion's grisly murder in case you're bored.
If you've been swept up in the sudden popularity surge of poker over the last year, you're probably aware that the title of World Poker Champion goes to he (or she? no, pretty much always he) who wins the $10000 No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em tournament. They may as well be playing the World Series of Yahtzee. No-limit hold 'em is so unpredictable, and has so many insane swings, that you end up with amateur schlubs getting the title of World's Best Poker Player, and that's just dumb. I'd much rather play against last year's winner Chris Moneymaker than a more consistent player, like Sam Farha (last year's #2) or Phil Ivey (hilariously always referred to as the Tiger Woods of poker -- not because he's the best, but because he's black).
So, what game should we use to judge the top poker player? I'm inclined to agree with David Sklansky, that a variety of games should determine the winner. There are so many different types of poker -- why focus solely on Hold 'Em? What of the stud games, Binions? Or, dare I say it, the draws? Shouldn't a poker champion be a master of all these forms?