— I want to start by asking you about a personal favorite game of mine, which is I think where you got your start: Backgammon.
I started playing chess and then I found Backgammon, and I think that is kind of what led to poker because Backgammon translates so well to gambling. Is that how you got your start in games and gambling in general?
Well, as one of my friends says, I am a—you could say degenerate gambler, but degenerate games player. I just love playing games. I love competing, whether it is sports or games; whether it is chess, Go, bridge, Backgammon, poker, etc. In my high school years, around 16, 17, or 18, I discovered Backgammon. Denmark has been, for the past 30 years, one of the foremost countries in Backgammon. We have tournaments all year round. We have divisions one, two, three, and four. People battle for the Danish championship. There is just a good culture around it and I got excited about it.
I played my first tournament in Stockholm, then in Amsterdam, and the ball was rolling. Then, I got some friends from the US. Poker was a game that they played in the US, but not so much in Europe back then. It seemed like after a couple of years on the Backgammon circuit, there were more opportunities in poker. Backgammon is, in some way, shape, or form, a personal game. It is usually a heads-up battle between you and me. If we play 10, 12, 20, 40, or 50 times and I pretty much beat you every time, then you might look for a different game.
— What sort of stakes could you get in Backgammon games?
Well, I played with some of the poker players. I have played a lot with Chip Reese—rest in peace—an old friend. We have played many battles starting in the '90s. The usual stake for me and some other Backgammon players was a thousand dollars a point. That was the going rate. Sometimes 500, mostly a thousand, but that was the normal rate once in a blue moon. There was a big game playing 2,000 a point, but usually, 1,000 was the going rate for the games that I was playing.
— Was the cube put into play?
Obviously. I still think that the doubling cube, which we in some weird sense only know from Backgammon, is probably the greatest gambling device of all time.
— I agree. I remember PartyPoker tried to implement PokerGammon about 25 years ago.
There was a very small window where Backgammon engines were solving the game just as online Backgammon for money was coming alive. There was a very small window where the two didn't overlap and you would actually be able to get games where you were playing for $5 or $10 per point. But it quickly became evident that you were playing against—I think it was GNU or whatever the engine was at the time.
After that, you couldn't get a game for more than 10 cents because it was obvious you were playing against a bot.
The thing is, I am not even sure I have ever played a game of online Backgammon, which is kind of weird. The community is getting there, but probably not for money games. People play for pleasure. Getting rating points is a big deal, but you also have people getting rating points playing with the computer. I don't understand that train of thought.
Nonetheless, Backgammon, in one shape or form, has a big difference from poker: in Backgammon everything is out in the open. There is no hidden information. There is no hidden information in chess; there is no hidden information in Go. Speaking purely on mathematical knowledge, we are like tiny ants compared to the computer. The computer just has computing power that is beyond anything you could ever imagine.
Obviously, when you have a game that is out in the open with no hidden information, the computer is just going to destroy you. I really like chess. I am a fan of Magnus Carlsen, but I loved one interview when he said, "On my phone, I have this chess app and I have no chance." He is Magnus Carlsen, the greatest of all time. That just shows you how strong the computing power is.
I have been in the Backgammon world. The first iteration of Backgammon computers was like '95 or '96, and I could beat that. The second generation, probably like 2002, I could beat that because it had a flaw that I could exploit. I could exploit that flaw if we just stay strictly to Backgammon, and the second iteration was better than me. Then came the third iteration and I am just dead. I am dead. It is over.
Now we ask the computer for advice, just like we see in poker now with the solvers. It has become a different game and people are much more knowledgeable.
I think there are some flaws out there, but we can get into that for a different question.
— What do you think the future of poker looks like, given that we have these solver tools? I have some ideas, but I am curious what you think. Does the future look bleak, or is there still hope?
No, I think in the annals of history, the oldest jobs are prostitution and gambling. Those are the two. They have been around for years and years and they are going to keep being around. I feel like back in 2002 when the World Poker Tour was introduced 12 times a year into the homes of people in the US, then the UK, then the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of Europe followed, then Brazil, and then Asia—for the first time we had a gambling game that became a household game.
Everybody could play. You could be at your job and every first Friday of the month they have a poker tournament. It is here to stay. People are always going to enjoy it. Whether it is going to swing back a little bit towards the live experience that also has the social component, I can't say for sure.
We do not see poker as much on TV as we used to 20 years ago, but I believe there are more poker players today in 2026 than there have ever been. That is a good sign if I am right about that. However, the game has lost its "news value." Back in the day, there were 12 tournaments a year, so it was easier to follow. Now there are 570,000 tournaments a year, and it is impossible to dissect who is truly the best. Is it Daniel Negreanu? Is it Adrian Mateos? Is it still Phil Ivey or Phil Galfond? People have their opinions, but it is impossible to see through all the junk.
— How have solvers changed poker?
Somebody had a post similar to what you are talking about where they were asking how well people thought a solver would do in a tournament with quality players. The options were "not that great," "really good," or "destroy everyone." A lot of people clicked "pretty good." I think it might have been Phil Galfond who noted that he routinely makes two or three mistakes in an individual hand, while this solver is playing hundreds and hundreds of hands without making a single mistake. The notion that the solver is not going to absolutely crush everyone in an event is kind of naive or hopeful.
You can argue with the degree of the wording like "crush" because it is poker and there is a certain amount of luck. To put it another way, if there are 10,000 players in the Main Event, the best player in the field might be 300 to one to win it. That still means he is 33 times better than he should be; his chances are 33 times higher than average. I don't think that's impossible. I have some guys where I would gladly pick 10 of them and take 300 to one on all of them. But if the computer played, I could see it being 75 to one. A more fair comparison might be the best guy getting 500 to one and the computer getting 50 to one.
It would be like Stockfish entering a chess tournament. It is over. Thanks for playing. End of story.
— I have a theory that I want to run by you about Scandinavian poker players. For the purposes of this theory, Denmark is considered greater Scandinavia.
Basically, it boils down to Scandinavians being over-represented in the poker community and gambling as a whole. I think it is in part because the floor is much higher than it would be in the US. In the US, if you pursue gambling, the risk of ruin is astronomical and you can quickly become destitute. In Scandinavia, not so much.
I like to think of myself as thinking outside the box, but I have never thought of it that way. I agree those are the conditions, but I am not sure I agree that because the conditions are there, it makes them more likely to succeed. I wonder what it is. It could be a little snobby to say, but I believe we are slightly more well-educated in Scandinavia than much of the rest of the world. We also have a different sense of the sabbatical when you finish high school, college, or a university paper.
I am definitely not discarding your theory, but I am not sure I fully agree with it yet.
— I want to ask you about Every Hand Revealed. That was mind-blowing to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, this was the first shot you took at doing this.
That is not correct. We can maybe change it for the lore after this, but no. I cannot say for sure, but I believe it was my eighth try.
I would like to play eight tournaments this summer and win one. As we know, the level has risen through the ranks. The better players are better, the mediocre players are better, and the weaker players are better. It is all around.
Not taking anything away from my victory at the Aussie Millions or other tournaments I did well in, but it was a different time. You could use simpler methods and a rudimentary understanding of the game to gain an edge—slowly but steadily building without taking crazy risks. That has obviously changed because now people are pushing you, shoving, and making 5x over-bets.
In that sense, it is still great to win an 800-person tournament and obviously I was very happy. I think I have mentioned this before, but when we were down to three-handed, I was a little nervous because I felt like my attempt at the book would only succeed if I got to heads-up. If you get to heads-up, you have played all the hands in the tournament and the project is complete. At three-handed, there is still meat on the bone and no ending. Fortunately for me, the cards ran well enough to get to heads-up and I also ran well there. I was very happy to finish a project that was kind of flimsy when I set out to do it. I have received many pats on the back from people who said the book pushed them in the right direction.
— I want to ask you a little bit about online poker in general. I have a theory about this as well.
Specifically regarding you, we mentioned earlier that you are someone who will play pretty much any variant of poker. I distinctly remember you playing online poker with a Triple Draw table, a HORSE table, a Stud table, and a PLO table all running concurrently.
What are your thoughts on that experience and your online poker career as a whole?
There is a simple answer: if you look throughout history, it is safe to say I have been an idiot. I was playing the best players in the world in whatever game it might be—sometimes playing two great players at the same time in different games. I was pushing myself into pretty much unwinnable situations. As is public information, that did not do well for me.
However, you learn something from that. I feel pretty confident that I am a better poker player now than I was back when I was winning tournaments. I have matured in some ways, though I still have ways to go. I created those unwinnable scenarios for myself because I like playing the limit games and I think I am fairly well-rounded in all poker disciplines. But I am not dying to play a high-roller No-Limit Hold'em tournament today, which I might have done back between 2008 and 2012. Back then, I thought I could beat them all, but I can't. I am not going to do well in a 50k buy-in No-Limit Hold'em tournament against the Adri Mateos of the world. I would like to play mixed games with all those guys every day for the next five years because I don't think they would do too well. But in their specific game, they are obviously better than me. Back then, I tried to battle everyone at their own game, whether it was PLO or Triple Draw. There was a group of Germans who were very good at Triple Limit Hold'em.
There was definitely a group of Omaha 8 players. I don't think I have ever publicly used this word before, but now that we are talking, I am just going to say it: I am 99.999% sure they cheated me. But that is beside the point. I played and I lost.
Editor's note: We're talking about top American regs KPR16, SallyWoo, and cottonseed. After winning millions, they all quit poker. In an interview with our website, Alexander Kostritsyn also expressed suspicions that they were using some kind of software.
— How is your tennis game currently? How far did you get in tennis, and have you ever had any high-stakes matches?
The natural person I would think of is Patrik Antonius, but you tell me who the best players are in the poker world.
The answers are pretty easy. First of all, my skill level in tennis has always been somewhat exaggerated in the poker world. I was a decent player; I could play at a lower college level, but not at a top school like Stanford. If you are not a tennis player, I am going to beat you for sure. If you are a good tennis player, I am in trouble. I have always been a very good amateur, never pro-level. Patrik Antonius was a better tennis player than me when he was in his late junior years. We did have a match set up once that never happened because Patrik was injured and it just slid into the sand. I actually haven't played tennis for a couple of years because in Denmark we usually play on clay, and the movement involved... I am just better suited and more trained for the movement of squash and paddle.
I have put the tennis racket on the shelf, for the most part. Unless you are playing against an actual pro—like the guys who played back in the day—they are obviously in a different league. I had a couple of encounters with Boris Becker in the poker world as well, so he would be in that top tier. But as far as actual poker players go, the best I know of is David Benjamin.
— Is that right?
Yes, he was phenomenal. He was very good. He actually lost a very close match in a third-set tiebreak against Boris Becker.
— That is a very good resume.
He was top-tier in France, and it is a lot harder to be top-tier in France than it is in Denmark. He was higher on the ladder there than I was in Denmark. I don't use this word too often, but David Benjamin is a very talented guy with a lot of strings to his bow. Unfortunately, one of those strings is aligned with a bit of degeneracy, much like my own. He was at the top of his game in poker about 15 years ago—a very strong opponent. Then he had a momentary lapse of reason for some years, as did I and many others from that era. But he would be my top guess for the best tennis player among poker players.
— For the longest time, I thought that in 2008, you were maybe fourth in the world at Omaha 8, tenth in No-Limit, and ninth in PLO. It didn't matter the specific rank, but you were routinely playing the #1 player in each of those games.
In almost any other situation, you would come out on top because you are nearly the best player, but it just so happened you were playing the best in the world at each specific game—sometimes at the same time.
Yes. Well, it goes back to that word "idiot," or perhaps "foolish." Foolish is probably the best way to describe it. On one hand, it is a great way to learn. Let’s say you normally play $100/$200. Now an upcoming guy appears who is beating everyone online. If you can get a heads-up game with him at $10/$20, you should go for it. See how he beats you and use it as a learning experience. That is a cheap lesson.
But when you are playing $100/$200, don't play that same guy for $200/$400, which is essentially what I was doing. I was firing on all cylinders just to play whoever wanted to play. In many instances, those were very well-rounded opponents, and as we all know, it cost a lot of zeros with a real number in front of them.
Was it part of shaping who I have become? Yes.
But I can still look back and think I should have dealt with those circumstances differently. I am not going to cry about it; it’s water under the bridge. I feel like I am more composed nowadays. You don’t just snap your fingers and turn from an alcoholic to a non-alcoholic—it is a very comparable way of looking at it—but I have definitely gotten better at addressing my biggest flaws.
Moving back to Denmark and having my five-year-old son has been a part of that.
— How much of an impact did having a son have on steadying you?
It definitely has. I have never been the "organized sheep" in my family; I have always been rather disorganized. Having my son forces me to organize things. When you are in the gambling world, it is a very different lifestyle. You can be on your own and technically have a nine-to-five, but you don't really have to be anywhere. In my world, I used to just call up my buddy Theo and say, "There’s a tournament in Cyprus, should we go?" and we’d leave that afternoon. Or I’d decide not to go because I wanted to play tennis instead.
Your life gets turned completely around when you have another focus point. He has been helpful for my sleeping patterns. I am not with the mother, so I have him half the time. He helps my routine when I have him, though it gets a bit discombobulated the next week when I don't. I just live in a different world now.
I have my two or three trips to Vegas a year, and I am working with Winamax, the French company. I am very happy about that. It has been good for me and it’s one of the reasons I am playing more tournaments and looking forward to the World Series of Poker this summer. I don't know what the limits are on this podcast, but I feel like I'm going to beat them all.
I feel confident and I am looking forward to it. I want to get back to creating good results. The camaraderie and the talent on the Winamax team—run by an old friend of mine—has really helped me get back into the swing of things.
