Poker Articles

A Conversation with Jimmy Sommerfield
By Tim Lavalli

I had a chance to sit down and talk ‘all things poker’ with Jimmy Sommerfield during the first days of the Canterbury Park Fall Poker Classic in Minnesota last week. Jimmy is in my opinion one of a very few truly gifted tournament directors. He not only runs a great event. He also balances the needs of the players and staff and does so with an uncanny sense of humor and a unique style. Jimmy also plays poker and is always thinking about ways to improve the game. So when I tapped him on the shoulder during a late night $15/$30 HoldEm game, he was more than willing to set up a poker conversation for the next morning.

Since we were in Canterbury Park, my first question was about Jimmy’s big win there last year. Yes, after running the satellites (single table and super) last year, Jimmy had nothing to do that last day so he took off the coat and tie, put on a Canterbury Park ball cap, and won the final event to the tune of a cool $108,914. Unfortunately, he told me there would be no defense of the title because he was running the tournament side this year.

I watched that win last year and I must say Jimmy was in control of his table for most the afternoon and evening. By the final table the result seemed inevitable to many of those in the gallery. Since then Jimmy was involved as a principal in a poker ship operation out of Florida and rumors were that it was his 100K Canterbury win he used to float that venture. Happily, he was more than willing to dispel such a myth (an urban poker legend?). The Canterbury prize, Jimmy told me: “Bought my family a very nice house in Florida.” He went on to say that he had invested only “my career” in the poker ship venture but none of his own cash. The poker ship enterprise did eventually… well…. sink.

Now that he is back on the road as perhaps the country’s best traveling tournament director, I asked about life on the road and whether he had considered taking an offer from one of the big casinos. We both noted that Dave Eglseder, the former tournament directory at Canterbury Park, could now be found in the luxurious new poker room at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas where he is a shift manager. Deborah Giardina, also formerly of Canterbury Park, is the director of poker operations at the Wynn. I assumed that Jimmy also had offers to make the move to a prestigious room in Las Vegas or elsewhere. He was empathetic here: “The family is happy in Florida and I enjoy the road. There is no move to Las Vegas pending.” His schedule includes a variety of events in Reno, including the Hilton’s Pot of Gold where he was just prior to Canterbury. After the event here in Minnesota expect him at the Paris/Bally’s WSOP Circuit event in Las Vegas. He will also continue to work the World Series and many of the WSOP Circuit events.

On that note I had to ask about his annual trips to Shakopee, Minnesota for the Canterbury Park Fall Classic, not exactly a WSOP or WPT size event. Jimmy again was quite clear: “I would say this even if we weren’t here. Canterbury Park is the best-run card room in the country. I really enjoy this event and this venue.”

Next, I wanted to ask Jimmy about rules and rule changes that he has been responsible for. First on the list: Was it another rumor or is he the inventor of the ‘third man walking’ rule. Indeed he was but the circumstances of the invention are not what you might think. The ‘third man walking’ rule simply says that if two players are up from a ring game that any additional players up will be informed that they do not have the normal ‘away time’. This usually means that while you can walk away from a table for dinner or for two or three rounds of blinds (whatever the house rule), the third man up gets only 5 minutes (or less in some rooms) before their chips are picked up and their seat given away.

Jimmy explained that one night he was running a room and had two $30/$60 tables, one a ‘must move.’ Three players were up walking from the main game and then another player left. When a player was ‘must moved’ from the second game, he complained that he was being moved from a full table to a short-handed one and that the ‘must move’ rule was supposed to keep the main game full. Good point! How do you keep the main game or any table full, if players all have the right to walk for an extended period? Thus, the birth of the third man-walking rule.

Moving right on to another Jimmy Sommerfield creation: the “seat reassignment/chip balancing” system. This was first implemented by Jimmy in Reno several months ago and was the subject of a Mike Sexton article a few months back. An amazingly simply idea (you know one of those ideas we all hear for the first time and slap our foreheads and say: Duh!) but one that needs an innovator like Mr. Sommerfield to implement. Here is how it works.

A tournament is down to the money and there is about to be a seat redraw. The problem is that the random draw can put all of the big stacks at one table or manage any combination of stack reseatings that give an advantage to some players and put others at the great disadvantage. One example of this I saw just this week at Canterbury. Final three tables, redraw for seats; the big stack gets put at a table with the six smallest stacks and two medium smalls. The big stack had more chips then the other eight players combined. Any doubts about how that table is going to go? There are clearly lots of random reseatings that give certain players an advantage at this late stage of a tournament. You can’t do much about who is on your left or right but Jimmy has found a system to avoid the chip stack advantage.

Let’s say we are down to the money, 27 being paid, and a redraw for the final three tables. First, all of the stacks are counted. Then a seat (not a table) is drawn. Let’s say seat two. The big stack gets table 1, seat 2. The next stack-table 2 seat 2 and the third stack table 3-seat 2. The next seat is drawn and the order is reversed. The fourth highest stack goes to table 3, the fifth table 2 and the sixth table 1. Go through this order for each of the seats and you will get tables as closely balanced in chips as possible and still random. It works for three tables; it can work for three hundred. All it takes is a break at the redraw and a tournament director interested in improving the game.

Jimmy noted that the players seemed to like this change. Hoyt Corkins got a terrible redraw a week or so after the Mike Sexton article came out, he came to Jimmy and told him that he “got it” why the new system works. There has been very little player resistance but implementation by other tournament directors has been slow. If you like the idea, remember you are the paying customer, ask the tournament director if the Sommerfield Redraw System is being used in your next event. By the way that’s my recommendation and my title for the innovation and not Jimmy’s, he will probably not like that I am attaching his name to idea but someone has to say: “Nice job and thanks for thinking of ways to make the game better.” In my opinion, Jimmy has done just that.

So, what’s next I had to ask, any more innovations. Indeed, Jimmy had just tried out another one at the Hilton’s Pot of Gold. Usually when there is a Best All-Around player award, points given for first, second, third etc. for each event in a tournament. This means the winner of the Stud Hi-lo event with 70 entrants gets the same All-Around points as the winner of the 470 entries NL HoldEm event. Jimmy’s solution? If you are in the money (which means they take down your name) you get as many points as the number of players you outlasted in the event. First in the 470 player NL event gets 469 All-Around Player points and second gets 468. The only disadvantage to this system: “The Best All Around Player award is probably going to go to a Texas HoldEm player and more than likely a No Limit HoldEm player, since that is the game of choice right now.” But that may change; I heard Razz is making a real comeback.

Are all innovations good? Apparently not. I asked Jimmy about the “Blinds Reset” that has been used at several tournaments. He is against it. Basically, a blind reset attempts to prevent the ‘crap shoot’ that many tournaments become at the final table. You know the situation--blinds are 2,000/4,000 with a 500 ante and the average stack is 10,000. Average stack has one round of blinds and the big stack may only have two. Short stacks have no choice but to push at once and it becomes showdown not poker. Some events have tried to avoid this by announcing in advance that based on the average stack at the final table (they know this as soon as the number of entries is announced); based on that average the final table will start so that the average stack has at least three rounds of blinds. This means that the blind structure will go back down as needed.

Jimmy opposes this for two reasons. First, the player on the final table bubble gets a royal screwing. The short stack who had to push in tenth place because the blinds were 2k/4k, certainly would not like to go out and then see the blinds dropped back to 500/1000. In fact, players out 10 to 18 and perhaps more get hammered by such a rule. Secondly, Jimmy points out that structure is what can and should be used to prevent the ‘crap shoot’ kind of final table. As he says: “At some point to have to knock players out of a tournament. More starting chips and longer rounds lead to ridiculously high blinds at the final table. It’s a trade-off; you can’t have lots of play at the beginning of a tournament and also expect reasonable blinds at the final table. Tournament directors have to make a choice and that choice should be made with the structure on the event and not with some alteration of the blinds just because nine players remain.” Fairness to all the entrants in a tournament versus a good final table for television? It is an interesting question and I think final table blind resets will be debated for some time yet. I had one final question: “Is there anything in the current Tournament Directors Association (TDA) rules that you think needs fixing or are there additions you would make.” Again, I hit on something Jimmy and apparently several other tournament directors feel strongly about. He said immediately: “Take out all of the ‘mays’ in the rules. Either it’s a rule or it isn’t.”

Just for reference, six TDA rules use the word MAY:

7- A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties will be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.

21- Verbal declarations as to the content of a player's hand are not binding; however at management's discretion, any player deliberately miscalling his hand MAY be penalized.

30- Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn MAY be binding.

33- Penalties available for use by the TD are verbal warnings, 10, 20, 30, and 40 minutes away from the table and MAY be used with discretion. These may be utilized up to and including disqualification.

35- A player who exposes his cards during the play MAY incur a penalty, but will not have his hand killed.

37- Verbally disclosing the contents of your hand or advising a player how to play a hand MAY result in a penalty.

I see Jimmy’s point here. At first I thought that giving tournament directors discretion was a good idea but note in rule seven where it says: ‘Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.’ One wonders what is the difference between “WILL” in part of the rule and “MAY” in the others? Have we not all seen abuse and disruptive behavior go unpenalized? So, is it a rule or isn’t it?

This brought us to the “F” word. Jimmy mentioned the Mike Matusow incident at this year’s WSOP. He felt that taking a player away from a heads up final table showdown for 10 or 20 minutes or more simply ruins the game. In fact, Jimmy and Johnny Grooms have decided that in tournaments they run and while “MAY” is still in the rules, they will apply their own standard, which is: When down to five players or less, the maximum penalty short of disqualification will be missing two rounds of blinds.

The problem with discretion is perhaps best illustrated with an example (with apologies to the players I use here). Let’s say you are running a tournament and at the final table the lovely, sweet, kind and gentle Jennifer Tilly takes a horrible bad beat (runner, runner to a double belly-buster straight). In her wonderful (sweet, kind and gentle) voice the marvelous Ms. Tilly (defending WSOP Women’s Champion) utters: “Oh f***! Oops I mean oh darn!” Do you penalize her? No? OK, then change Ms. Tilly to a nasty tempered pro (fill in your own Mike or Phil or whomever image) who has been badmouthing the table for several hours and generally being an obnoxious toad. He tosses out the F-bomb. Is this a different situation? Is the penalty cumulative? Does beauty count? How about testosterone? How about revenge?

Discretion is a slippery slope but so is three strikes… And what about what one dealer at Canterbury mentioned. He said: “What if your table is four guys from Jersey and five from Brooklyn. F*** is every other word from dez guys, you toss them for that and you are dealing to an empty table.”

Well Jimmy doesn’t like the ambiguity of the “MAY” in the TDA rules. I see the problem but I asked him if he wanted to have some strict “Emily Post” rules for playing poker? No cussin’, no drinkin’, no off color jokes, wasn’t throwing the smokers out enough? He smiled and said he really liked living in Florida.