![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Mason and I are contemplating writing about the theory and practice of poker collusion in more detail. The fact is that colluding expertly is as difficult as playing expertly, especially if you are trying to avoid detection. In a nutshell, colluders will sometimes play their hands differently than they would have normally, either because they know cards that are folded or because a partner is in the pot with them. Of course most colluders are not very good at it.
Both the pros and cons to our writing about the subject are pretty obvious. The main con is that we would be helping thieves. One pro would be that players would know what to look for. So would internet poker sites who have the advantage of being able to see folded cards.
Though we do not consider ourselves bound by the results of any vote, we would like to hear your opinions as to whether or not the time has come to write in more detail about this stuff.
In the area of game theory, the subject of coalitions (in economics, in geopolitics, in warfare, even in organized crime) is widely discussed. To me, there really isn't that much difference between "collusion" in poker and "coalition" in other competitive arenas. They have the same essence in that both involve two or more competitive entities making coordinated competitive moves in order to achieve benefits that a single competitor could never achieve individually. Since the subject of poker collusion is already out in the open anyway, you and Mason might as well write a treatise on it. Someone will sooner or later. It might as well be both of you. A "coalition" between Mason and you is the best thing that can happen as far as the subject of "collusion" in poker is concerned.
You could call it: Partner Poker. It could be spread on the floor.
"Partner Poker". I have to admit that spreading this game on the floor would be a very creative idea. Sort of like doubles tennis. If I were a poker room manager, I would definitely give this concept a shot!
....to play poker on the internet without being a member of a collusion team would be like being a hyena that chooses to hunt alone, as opposed to being a part of a pack......
.....it is unnatural and goes against the laws of nature.....
.....team versus team competition should be the norm in internet poker.....
.....anyone who plays internet poker as an individual as opposed to being part of a team is an idiot who is not maximizing his profits.....
.....anyone who tries to stop collusion is anti-capitalist and anti-freedom......
........collusion is the rule of internet poker..... if you don't think so, you are naive..... .....collusion play is what internet poker is all about.....
.....i cannot wait to read your treatise...
In response to:Posted By: truth finder and seeker
Date: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Who responded to: Should We Write A Treatise On Collusion? (David Sklansky):
Truth Finder & Seeker -- I wonder where you are coming from. Are you the Archie Bunker of Poker(dumb conservative) or like the gifted actor who played Archie, i.e., an extreme liberal and not-so-liberal very extreme frugal type at the studio commissary when treating the stage hands to a late dinner when they put in long overtime hours. Or maybe you are just an nice average American?
You don't have to be a "brain" to realize that cheaters or wantabe cheaters will infest Internet Poker. Are you a cynic(unrealistic realist) that treats poker and capitalism as an evil thing? If you think poker is evil then stay away from it. But(in my opinion) you are right about cheating.
There will be cheating on Internet Poker and people would be morally wise to avoid playing Internet Poker for real money. Why? Because in spite of the cheating, there will be a relatively few semi-honest very good players who can still beat the games("only-game-in-town right"). How? The semi-honest foxes realize who the cheaters are and use them to their advantage. The semi-honest players are honest players in the sense that they do nothing wrong other than play in games where they suspect cheating. These semi-honest very good players will usually avoid the traps set up by the cheater; they will know when to release a hand. In spite of being cheated some by the cheaters, the semi-honest expert can still show a profit by beating the sheep in the game.Why? Because the majority of the Internet Players will be like sheep and you know what happens to sheep. But talented cheaters should make a killing.
Good cheaters can probably make a killing by just knowing what hands their partners have and save a ton on saved bets. This form of cheating will be very difficult to detect and would require sophisticated techniques to expose it. Cheaters could also occasionaly jam pots in certain situations when they have the nuts. This technique would work well in HI_Low games(Omaha 8 & Stud Hi-Lo). But they would probably have to limit this technique to about once per session for obvious reasons.
....it's time to stop calling "collusion" in internet poker cheating....
.....the reason it shouldn't be regarded as cheating is because it is an unavoidable rule of nature in that poker "room" in cyberspace that everyone must take as a given each time they play....
....an unexpected thing that internet poker will do is to make poker strategizing and tactic making much richer and multidimensional than it currently is by adding to it the distinctions of team(s) versus team(s) play, team(s) versus individual(s) play, and individual(s) versus team(s) play, in addition to the more traditional brick and mortar play of individuals versus individuals.....
....these added dimensions and distinctions to poker are unprecendented and could be fully possible as the norm only after the creation of cyberspace.....
.....before the internet this was not possible......
.....in the brick and mortar world, they are the domain only of a few people that are rightly called cheaters....
....but in cyberspace it cannot be cheating as it is the norm that everyone has complete access this doing.....
....internet poker and the norm of collusion that accompanies it is an opportunity to be embraced not something to stay away from....
....I hope Sklansky and Malmuth do write a book on poker collusion and provide specific strategic and tactical advice on individual versus team, team versus team, team versus individual and so on.....
....a collusion book that does not cover all of these perspectives would be incomplete.......
Team cheaters goes back to the beginning of poker -- it is not new. In 1958 playing above at my cousin's house in Columbus, Ohio: I witnessed teams of cheaters playing against each other. My cousins teams consisted of three guys and the other team was comprised of three Airforce guys from a local Sac base (then Lockbourn Air Base - now Rickenbacker Field). May the best team win. My cousin refunded my losses at the end of the session.
At that time I also played above a saloon on the south side of Columbus where a team of three hillbillies have various ways of cheating. They were crude but their opposition wasn't too observant. They used marked cards, dealing seconds, stacked decks(using the excuse of going to the John to doctor the deck), and even holding out a set of trips and throwing some cards on the floor.
In my opinion, the majority of people who regularly read 2+2 articles do not need to collude to beat the game. So I think the demographic in consideration (i.e. serious students of the game who make a living through cheating) is not one to be excessively concerned about.
Besides, any essay which could put a damper on the series of "I've been cheated!" posts on the Internet forum can't be all bad.
Yes, I'd love to see a book by you on the subject of conlusion. Ignoring this form of cheating will do little. Ignorance is seldom a good stradegy.
A book on other forms cheating techniques wouldn't be a bad idea either. Haven't seen anything modern in some time.
You guys aren't making this any easier. My reference to Andy Morton was actually a subtle hint about one aspect to collusion that few understand. I agree that others understand the subject better in its entirety.
heres a question.
if everyone collaborated against you by playing all their hands to the river every time, what would your optimal strategy be? and could you win, as a practical matter?
now, how can they improve?
now, reduce the collaborators numbers, and how does this affect things?
brad
Yes.
If we assume (safely, I think) that most people do not cheat, does it not follow that the number of people helped to protect themselves from cheaters will be greater than the number of people who improve their cheating skills. I wouldn't want to try to put hard numbers to this, but I think protected/cheater would be huge.
There is a lot of information available on cheating at gambling games, some of it good, although much is absolute crap, e.g., "magician tricks" presented as "gambling moves" that could never be used in an actual game, or outdated material that no longer applies to the way the game is played in the real world. Books such as "Cheating at Blackjack" by Dustin D. Marks have not caused an explosion of cheating in the pits.
I, for one, have avidly read everything I could ever find regarding cheating because I have been a lifelong player. For example, I was somewhere between five and seven years old when I realized that the Old Maid in our beat up old deck had a unique smudge on it's back (that I did not put there). By the age of nine, I was ordering the loaded dice and marked cards from the ads in comic books, not to cheat, but to see what they looked like and how they worked so that I could protect myself from being cheated out of my lunch money. The knowledge served me well, allowing me to profit from running craps games in college and in the army, playing backgammon for a living, becoming a professional blackjack player, and leading to a 20 year career in the casinos of Las Vegas as a dealer, Floorman, Pit Boss, Shift Boss, and Surveillance Supervisor. After all these years, I still want to know as much as I can about what they might be doing to me, and what I can do about it. Poker being my main game these days, the prospect of a Sklansky/Malmuth treatise on the subject is ... (unable to find the right word, but it's a good one :)
I think educating the internet site operators is also a substantial positive. In my contacts with Paradise Poker Support (all pleasantly prompt, helpful, and literate), they have not really exhibited any knowledge of poker.
Suggestion: Since the driving force behind your post appears to be the current wave of internet paranoia (which I am also experiencing; my win rate online is significantly lower than in live games), you may want to consider bringing in someone with a great deal of technical knowledge of the internet, perhaps even someone recruited from the hacker world, to help either quell or justify the concerns that some people are able to see other players' cards.
The point of all this rambling? Knowledge = Protection
As has been mentioned in some previous posts we want to read some essays or a book on Big-Bet play.
I understand that a lot of the decisions that are made come from a psychological evaluation, that is they vary tremendously from hand to hand depending on your understanding of the opposing player's emotional state and strategic outlook. However, apparently there are some considerations in Big-Bet that can be discussed as principles and that have not been written about already, e.g. your mention of not raising unless you are already aware of whether you will fold or go all-in in the event of a re-raise. Patri on r.g.p., in his follow-up post to playing in the $200-$400 blind game also had some interesting thoughts about how to play depending on stack size in relation to the blinds. This is what you've got an audience for. Hey, I know, maybe Ray Zee has something to say on the subject too...
No!!!
Encouraging collusion is a bad idea. The information will benefit the cheats more than it will benefit the average player.
The online poker sites should have the motivation to keep their sites clean. They should be willing to pay experts like you to police the games. Online poker is doomed unless they take the initiative to police their sites.
The industry needs a group of independent experts to inspect and certify online poker and casino sites. The posters on 2+2 and rgp are justifiably concerned about numerous issues, not just collusion. You should consider bringing such a group of experts together.
I assume that a treatise would be a theoretical work.
I have thought about what would constitute an effective expert collusion strategy, and the issues become fairly complicated quickly. Most people's posts here touch on the very simple notions, but show significant lack of understanding of the type of considerations that an expert strategy would entail.
I guess a strong negative would be that people who are too lazy (or lack the required knowledge) to develop an effective collusion strategy would have a short-cut if you wrote a work on the subject. There are many players without ethics who would try to implement your teachings.
Considering the extent to which 2+2 goes to completely research a subject, I'm sure you would have to talk with people who had run successful *teams*. I personally think that cheating of this nature is reprehensible and would discourage anything but information on *how to catch cheats* being made available.
This being said, if you write it, I'll buy a copy immediately.
David,
Usually I just lurk here, but this one, I feel the need to respond to.
When I was a teenager, several kids I knew had copys of "The Anarchist Cookbook". For the uninitiated, its a book that gives "recipies" for making weapons, poisons, drugs, etc, out of easily attainable "ingrediants".
None of us would have thougt to "cook" any of these things if we didn't have the book, but since we had it, I know a kid who blew a finger off with a homemade bomb, and another who spilled his homemade LSD on his hands, and was never quite the same afterwards. After reading Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book", I myself ran a couple of sucessful scams, just to see if his tactics would work.
Now I read 2+2 books, and your tactics seem to work quite well. I have never cheated at poker. But after reading your collusion treatise, I just might want to see how well the tactics work. What if I decide I could double my hourly rate now that you have taught me to cheat?
I am an honest person, and I (probobly) would decide that my peace of mind is more important that any money I could make by cheating. But I'm sure others would take full advantage of the information you provide, without a second thought.
I don't have my copy of TOP handy, but in it you say something like "If I know something about the game that my opponent doesn't, and he isn't willing to learn, or can't understand, then I take his money". I would hate to think that in five years I will have to know, understand, and apply coullusion concepts to make a living at holdem. I think I'd rather get a "job".
IMHO... B$
Since Mason's never been cheated it would be impossible for him to write from personal experience. That leaves the theoretical only, a poor substitute for real world encounters with the enemy.
Perhaps a Sklansky and Caro book would be a better combination of talent on this subject.
When I said that I was never cheated, I was referring to organized collusion in a public cardroom. This clarification was written on RGP in detail. When Abdul brings this up, he always neglects this point.
You didn't say that in your Poker Digest article. You only later posted on rec.gambling.poker that when you wrote in Poker Digest "I believe I have never been cheated," you didn't mean "I believe I have never been cheated." Hope this helps. (Can anyone dig up that old Poker Digest issue, about #3, and give the context around the quote?)
-Abdul
Yes, I think such a treatise would be very worthwhile. You may want to check out Nolan Dalla's article on this subject that he wrote for Cardplayer magazine a couple of years ago. He discussed whipsawing, raising out legitimate hands, etc. You could make a valuable contribution here in a little understood area similar to what Mike Caro has done for tells.
I for one don't understand what you think you have to offer. To my knowledge you or Mason have never played on line and Mason publicly states that cheating is practically nonexistent. (Although I know he actually believes differently.)
You have also stated that you are theoretically very weak regarding computers. How could you speak with expertise on that subject.
You MAY have something to offer regarding collusion in live games but it seems to me most people want to know the truth regarding on line play.
As a side note I have had serious concerns concerning on line play. It doesn't feel right to me and I don't trust it. In the case of playing on line, what you CAN'T see CAN hurt you.
"To my knowledge you or Mason have never played on line and Mason publicly states that cheating is practically nonexistent. (Although I know he actually believes differently.)"
That's an interesting statement, Banana Man, why don't you explain to everyone exactly what it is I believe.
"To my knowledge you or Mason have never played on line and Mason publicly states that cheating is practically nonexistent. (Although I know he actually believes differently.)"
That's an interesting statement, Banana Man, why don't you explain to everyone exactly what it is I believe.
It's Banana Bob--not Man.
I would explain it but then I would be revealing my true identity. I don't want you to know who I am. You may be able to guess anyway. Doesn't matter. I post anonymously because I have no ego stake involved. Maybe I will expound later. I stand by my statement. (You know it's true.)
PS David Sklansky knows it's true too.
Well Banana Brain, what you're saying isn't true, and if you want to have any credibility you are just going to have to tell us who you are.
I am very uncomfortable with this idea. Given that expert collusion does not appear to be a common problem in live casino games, I do not think we need a treatise on collusion. I have no doubt that if such a treatise were published, it would be used by some cheaters to cheat more effectively. More ominously, it could contribute to the perception that collusion is common in poker, causing some players to avoid the game; other players may be enticed to join the ranks of the cheaters. I vote no.
I vote yes.Over the years I have seen a few things at the tables, that did not seem on the up and up.An expert's treatice would be beneficial for serious students of the game.
No. I am afraid that the effect of you publishing a good manual for collusion would both make collusion more common, and those who currently collude would get better at it.
However, if you think that players are frequently encountering compitent colluders already in today's world then there would be more benefit for players trying to defend against collusion. I hope that this is not the case. If compitent collusion is very rare today, then most of the benefit would go to colluders.
Steve
It is almost inconceivable that present day colluders understand the intricate theoretical considerations involved in the expert practice of their trade. There is no chance that anyone would know this subject better than me (Andy Morton might have come close.) Do these two facts change any minds among those who voted yes?
If David does know things about collusion that present day colluders don't, it would certainly be better for us ethical players if David and Mason did not teach the cheaters new tricks. Think of the physicists who regretted building the bomb.
Could David and Mason just write a treatise about how to detect *known* methods of collusion? (If they became known as the gurus of collusion detection, casinos would become eager to hire them in that capacity.)
By the way, David's reference to Andy Morton doesn't support his claim that he's the leading authority on theoretical collusion. Andy's poker mentors know far more about poker theory than Andy did. After all, Andy's Ph.D. was in Organic Chemistry, not Physics. :-)
Maybe write it as a scientific paper and publish it in an obscure journal. Then tell us where it is.
That should pretty much shut out most of the rif-raf.
D.
Collusion is the gun that criminals use to harm innocent citizens with. Knowledge about collusion strategies and counter strategies is the gun that the innocent citizen uses to protect himself and his family from those armed criminals.
If there is a defence to collusion other than leaving the table, your treatise will be valuable, if not what use is it?
My vote would depend on the following: Will the honest players be able to save more money because they would know how to protect themselves or will they lose more money because there will be more colluders or the colluders will improve in their ability to collude. I vote for the answer that would protect the honest player. Other than that, I would very much like to have the knowledge that would be contained in the treatise. By the way, in what medium would the treatise be published?
Egad! By all means write something on how to detect collusion patterns, but don't spill too many beans. The last thing we need is for the cheats to become more adept... or to learn how to best disguise their chicanery.
I still vote YES. The phrase "present day colluders" is the key. How quickly are the teams gaining knowledge? How many of their victims have not only the mental capacity, but also the time to do the thinking that you would put into this work? Research for its' own sake can be fun and rewarding, but it has a chance of becoming truly useful when it is shared.
The fear of "teaching" colluders seems to be the overwhelming reason for the NO votes. I wonder how many of them were emotional responses to the fact that the first reply to your original post was from a cheater. In fact, I have noticed a peculiar pattern to the voting. ALL of the YES votes were presented with lucid, logical thinking, and all but one of the NO votes were either based entirely on the fear of educating cheaters, or were irrational/illogical conclusions arrived at from baseless/irrelevant assumptions. The rational NO voter was rather wishy-washy, giving convincing arguments against his own decision. [insert rant concerning dangers of unqualified voters in democratic process]
I own dozens of books on cheating, scams, cons, etc., yet I have never cheated. I have demonstrated many of the things I have learned to hundreds of people over the years and have never had one say "I'm gonna run out and try that", but I have had people (urgently) say "Stop. Why are you showing me this? I don't want to know this." From this, I conclude that most people are honest, and that many people, for reasons I don't comprehend, have a fear of knowledge that seems to them somehow dark or dangerous. I cannot, however, conclude that because of those fears we should stop teaching physics because somebody might build a bomb. Somebody damn well better build a bomb because the other guys have them, even if theirs don't work as well as ours, and even though they might find out how we build ours. [insert rant concerning censorship, secret classification of "dangerous" knowledge, who decides, etc.]
So, yes. Please. Do the work. Share the work. The internet truly is a wild and woolly new frontier, and on any frontier people must take a greater deal of responsibility for their own well-being than is necessary in a more civilized place. You have the ability and the opportunity to help these pioneers achieve success in taming that frontier, not to mention the fun you're gonna have thinking all those new thoughts.
{gain * honest players) / (gain * cheaters) => 1
Increased knowledge of collusion is inevitable, especially in the time of Internet poker.
Writing a treatise will only accelerate awareness and knowledge. The process of the discussion of collusion techniques has already begun and will continue with or without a treatise. So will colluders' learning and experience curve. The hard part will be for those who wish to detect or deter collusion to be able to keep up.
Whether such a treatise will have greater value to colluders or to anti-colluders is a key question. Also worth consideration is whether it might be more desirable to give anti-collusion advice to establishments without giving every little would-be colluder a blueprint. If honest players also know the details of skilled collusion techniques, would they truly be able to do much to detect or prevent it, especially in an online environment? I doubt players could help police these games very effectively; it would be more the province of the site which has access to information about folded hands, etc.
Whether such a treatise is written or not, collusion will be increasingly on the minds of many. Countermeasures except against flagrant collusion may be largely ineffective. Algorithms sophisticated enough to detect subtle collusion would be very hard to develop and even harder to utilize. Collusion may eventually be what kills internet poker. Right now I think the problem is small enough to be overcome. But I also think the colluders are bound to grow in sophistication, experience and number unless the sites keep pace with their software and algorithms, and have an expert on hand to analyze plays.
Weighing it all up, and reading all the above posts now, I have to agree with the argument that it would help the colluders more than those wishing to detect or deter collusion---especially those colluders who would never have been able to get good at it on their own. You might easily help those colluders who would otherwise be losing colluders to become winning colluders.
Like any other scam, once the methods are made available to the general public the scam usually fades away. Of course, it will continue to work on the lazy ones who don't want to make the effort to educate themselves about the pitfalls, but that's their problem. The 11 o'clock news is always showing how supposedly legitimate businesses are ripping off their customers. One could argue that they are only showing other businesses more ways to screw people. Well, the people that weren't clued in do get screwed but everyone else who saw the report is a little better equipped when facing that situation. Just the fact that you guys have written it would put a spotlight on the problem. Ane when you shine a spotlight on cockroaches they scurry away.
If you're taking advanced sales let me know where to send the check.
I'd rather you didn't. While it is true that there are more non-colluders to benefit than colluders, it is surely the case that colluders will benefit more by reading how to do it effectively than non-colluders will benefit from reading of any counter-strategies which I imagine would be more difficult to implement.
Another point is that colluders will, by definition, play in many more games in which colluding is going on than non-colluders (does that make any sense ?).
Finally, however interesting the subject may be theoretically, you should consider your reputation. Without wanting to be too much of a suck-up, my impression gained from your books and this forum is that you are honest, and that you do not hold back on information as much as other poker authors if at all. Releasing a book or essay which, whatever the intention, could easily be used as a "how to cheat better" manual would cost you more in terms of lost reputation (and future sales) than it would earn in $$$. The only way you can do this is successfully is to make it 100% "how to identify and play against colluders".
Andy.
Yes.
The people that currently collude well will be more identifiable.
The people that currently collude poorly probably lack the talent / discipline to collude more successfully, even if you give them more / better information.
It would be valuable information to players looking to protect themselves. Human nature being what it is, I have a pessimistic feeling that some percentage of people who set out to be pros and fail turn to collusion as a last resort.
Bob D.
"The people that currently collude poorly probably lack the talent / discipline to collude more successfully, even if you give them more / better information."
I think that this statement bears careful consideration. I do not agree. I am assuming that there is a range of effectiveness regarding collusion, just like there is in playing poker.
If the publication of quality poker books can frequently transform slight losers into slight winners, and occasionally into experts, then wouldn't a quality collusion treaty do the same for colluders?
Did the publication of HPFAP make hold'em a tougher game to beat in most public cardrooms? If so, then it scares me what impact a good book on collusion would do to games accross the country and on the internet.
While it may be true that knowledge of how to collude well will eventually become relatively common, that might not happen for a long time. When it does happen, then that would be the time to "shine a spotlight" on the techniques.
Normally, I would favor open sharing of knowledge, as I enjoy learning. So my resistence here is a rare exception.
A counterpoint to my argument is that common knowledge of collusion would create a lot of "collusion cops" in cardrooms (online and live players). This would make it almost impossible to collude well. However, I fear that only a few would be good at it, and the benefit would not keep games generally clean.
Steve
Steve Fiete asks:
"Did the publication of HPFAP make hold'em a tougher game to beat in most public cardrooms?"
Maybe, but I don't think we can just assume so.
Certainly many players who would have played public poker anyway now play better public poker.
But how many players who would not have played public poker, or who would have played less public poker, continue to play because they are armed with a little information?
How many players are chronic losers who lack the skill and discipline to implement what they read?
How many people play craps and roulette, fully aware of the casino advantage? They just want to gamble.
I'm not saying HPFAP hasn't made the game tougher, only that I don't think we can simply assume so.
Bob D.
If you had an expert three card monty dealer show how the scam works are you teaching people how to do it or what to watch for?
David,
I vote yes. I think it is virtually impossible for the online casinos to figure out who is doing it, and if they could, maybe they might look the other way anyway -- do they want that publicity? -- "COLLUDERS FOUND AND KICKED OFF" -- I don't think so, I wouldn't if I ran it. And let's say they could figure it out, and they made the decision to kick colluders off, then why can't the colluders open accounts in their wife's maiden name, their kids names, etc, and keep doing it?
And David, I do not believe PP is cheating and I do not believe the hackers can get in, but I strongly believe that colluders SHOULD BE playing, especially in split games. In other words, if I were a pro, and I had a good friend, also a pro, and we were both really really good at Stud H/L or O8, we could sit in my den, with two machines, play in mostly the same games, and share info and trap people. This SHOULD BE happening, so I think it very very likely is. Check out the lineups, by the way, at the high stakes, same players a lot of the time.
Now after writing this I feel even more strongly: Please publish more about this so people might know what might be happening to them.
Mark
Question?
Is there a law against cheating on Internet Poker?
I don't think so?
DS forgot to mention Mark Glover as an expert on collusion. I am sure that Mark is an ethical player but he has demonstrated a great and vast knowledge of collusion in the past in his writings.
yes you should write one
Elsewhere (http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/inet.pl?read=2315), David wrote that proficient colluders could win two big bets per hour, and no algorithm would be able to catch them. He implied that an expert could catch the colluders, but I don't find this credible. If you didn't rely on some degree of automated screening to identify possible colluders, then you would only investigate complaints brought by players ... and as (I think) Abdul has pointed out, you'd be swamped by inaccurate accusations.
David, there is a reason that the U.S. doesn't publish nuclear secrets on the internet. Sure, it might result in a call from a concerned citizen who finally realizes what those barrels of plutonium in his neighbor's yard are for, but it is more likely that the info will used by terrorists to further their own ends.
Like you said, most colluders really don't have a clue what they are doing. Let's keep it that way.
fyiw, i read somewhere (like cnn.com or something, a reputable source) that the atomic energy commission or nuclear regulatory agency or whatever its called somehow inadvertantly connected some computers to its network that werent supposed to be, and the end result was that there were nuclear secrets available on the internet.
just thought it was funny.
brad
Widespread paranoa of cheating will keep the new players away...
p.s have not read a single response
David,
I hope that you are not going to waste your time writing a treatise on something as inconsequential to the average poker player as collusion. The most anyopne can say about collusion is that for the vast majority of poker playing it does not occur. If it occurs at all it probably is seen at the very high limits. A place where 99% of poker players will never visit. Advanced poker concepts are much more interesting and valuable to your readers. Writing a treatise on a subject that is bound to cause unfounded paranoia and could in fact be detrimental to poker by raising suspicians that have no basis in fact seems to be counterproductive for the good of poker. I know guys like Abdul and Glover willl disagree but tell me, who do you like best?
Vince
it will be bad for poker, but it would make for interesting reading.
i say write it. even though it's publication will lose me money in the long run.
scott
What is the correct amount of money to buy in for in a 15/30 game?
How much money should you have around with you to rebuy with?
I'd take $1,500 and buy in for $500.
How much do you take for 4/8 or 10/20? Just make a ratio.
CV
That's what I was going to do, but I wanted some opinions based on what players who are in these games actually bring.
I usually play 5/10, I've never played higher limit. I know 15/30 is a huge jump, and the only thing that is enticing me to play is that the opposition will likely be the same guys that are in my 5/10 game. The same guys that I am currently chewing up.
My local casino only spreads a 5/10 game and we only have enough guys for one table most of the time. On Thursdays there is a 1-2-5 pot limit game (which I don't play in). On the next Thursday, to celebrate the opening of the casino, there is going to be a no-limit holdem game with a $1000 buy-in. They think that there will be enough people to fill a 15-30 game as well. This is what I am going to play in, I think. I don't know if I have the balls to jump up so much. If the jump affects me psychologically I don't think it will be worth it. But if the game conditions are right I want to be able to play in it.
I do not think the ratio holds. I buy in for 500 and bring 1000. 500/1500 is probably better. The difference between 5/10 and 15/30 is night vs day
I agree that 500/1500 is about right. If you are worried about the first attempt at this limit, it would be ok to bring only 1000 but over the long run you will need more to stay in action on some poorly running day.
BTW which city is this new casino in?
D.
It's one year old actually, and it's in Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada.
If you want to play in a juicy pot limit game, it's the place (at least that is my perception).
I've had a running dialect with a local floorman for awhile. I play almost exclusively small games ($6-12 and below) and for the most part very loose/very passive $3-6 Omaha w/full kill. He says he prefers to play at clubs that only have one large blind and no small blind...that it costs him $1 less/round. I've felt, for the longest time, that all the bad players that automatically throw in the extra $2 to call in the small blind "because I've already got money invested" (love that logic!) more than make up for the extra dollar it costs me.
Discuss.
Now, for those of you that see it my way, my theorem:
One needs a better starting hand to call $2 in the small blind than to call $3 on the button.
Marc - It costs you an “extra dollar” once per round.
Thus if you scoop more than one hand per round (when it is not your small blind), or if you split the pot more than two hands per round (also when it is not your small blind), or if some combination of scoops and splits averages one whole win per round (again when it is not your small blind), then you show a net gain.
I don’t think a tight player averages one whole win per round. Too bad, because I like your theorem.
:-)
Buzz
Marc,
I agree concerning your preference for two blinds.
Regarding your last statement, I think it depends on how much the hand needs position. In both cases, you will know the number of opponents and the pot odds. So lets say you have a marginal hand in either position.
Marginal hands like baby pairs play almost as well acting first post flop as they do acting last. But Ax suited plays much better in back as do most drawing hands such as 87 suited.
That being said, I think your statement is a good rule of thumb.
Regards,
Rick
Just finished "Inside the Poker Mind" and wanted to add my .02.
I'm just a novice but it seems to me that this is a book written by a guy who can write. It is clear, concise, organized and covers aspects of the game at a practical level that is not only important to good play but easy to understand. I found it to be of great value in my continuing education.
Would suggest placing this book next to HPFAP, TOP, on yor bookshelf.
Lou
What exactly did you get from the book? You don't say how it helped your poker progress...
I'm interested in expanding my library a bit, so have an eye on this one.
Graham
Fair question, Graham ... I can not even count the number of posts here that start out, "That is covered by Chapter X of TOP" or something like that.
I e-mailed John a long time ago to tell him I loved the book. I'll make that public now as well.
Graham, the best specific new ideas that I got from John's book were in the section, "Easing the Transition to the Middle Limits." This is where I am going to be in the near future myself. I don't remember seeing a discussion anywhere before this book that talks about the changes you need to make in your game and in your outlook, as part of this transition.
My second choice for new material is his discussions throughout the book about psychology. John is a PhD clinical psychologist, and so he gives us a truly different expert viewpoint from our other heroes, who are either mathematicians or pro poker players or both.
Dick
Agreed. This book in fantastic. I think his book very clearly illustrates the "next levels" of poker play. I think it is a great book for anyone who already has the framework in place of a good, solid game.
In addition to that, it is clearly written. In fact, it is written very well, and I could not put it down. To tell you the truth, I cannot wait to re-read it, to absorb it a little bit more.
Feeny's book really clicked with me, and I believe that in the future, I will be able to look back and see that it represents a turning point in my poker "career." Get it - You will be so happy you did.
Two of my favorite sections, at least after the first read through, were: 1. Where he discusses a particular action in a hand from an average players perspective and from an advanced players perspective - you truly are inside the poker mind on this one. and 2. Where he discusses how he learned the game. I felt this historical perspective show us more novice players that anyone who is committed to the game can learn it, learn it well, and succeed. It offers a clear perspective to anyone who says "I want to play like that person."
John, thank you again for writing this book. I truly enjoyed it.
Thanks, Tim
Rather than doing all or nothing, I think it might be better to get our feet a little wet and see how it goes. This might be the first two of 50 questions or I might stop here.
10-20 Holdem. Ten handed. Average game. Two players fold. You have Ace clubs Queen diamonds. Your partner is in the small blind with the ten of spades and the five of spades. Call, raise or fold? (And if you raise, should he call?)
Same situation except this time your partner has the QJ of spades?
I am going to guess.
1) You can't possibly fold. Your partners hand is completely unrelated to yours and worse. I think calling before the flop is best. He can put in a flop bet and you raise and the pot won't be so big, kind of like the S&M argument for just limping with AQ in loose games. Also he might get in cheap and flop some big hand.
2) A raise might be better now as he can afford to call the raise and you can still make the play on the flop. However I am going to guess that, do to the lack of liveness for your hand, you can just throw it away.
D.
#1:
By raising you are getting more money in with a good hand and may win the big blind. Both your hands are live, although the Ts 5s is a trouble hand. However, by raising you are depriving your partner of the opportunity to see a cheap flop, and may reduce his odds to the extent that even the value of post-flop collusion may not be worth the preflop price he is paying. In addition if you are up against a much better hand and are reraised you have just been isolated and your partner cannot continue. There is little to gain here by preflop raising , especially since you may drive out those hands you would like to have call such as AJ. It would appear better to let your partner take a cheap flop, and then you can combine forces either to clear the field with a probably good but vulnerable flop, or to trap and extract extra value from opponents if one of you should get lucky and hit something big.
#2. My guess here is that your partner would not even call the $5 unless he were in a very multiway pot, since his Q is a detriment except for straights and flushes. In addition you should not raise and may well even be better off folding your AQ--this could be determined by running simulations. My guess is that this is a fold for the AQ since AQ upfront is a raisable but not a great holding even when totally live.
If I am right on these things let me state that I have never tried this and do not intend to, but that the above analysis does pretty much make sense to me from a "value" and "card sense" perspective at a first glance. It could probably be improved upon by running simulations and charting the results.
I would just call in both situations.
In the first case I want "partner" to see the flop with his live cards and flush draw. I could be in a position to raise people out if he flopped a ten.
In the second case I don't like the fact that my Queen is duplicated but partner can still flop a Jack or nice draw. So I would just call and see what develops letting him in cheap. If it gets raised both of our hands are cheapened and we can escape for one bet.
You should call in the first situation since you want to give your partner proper odds to call in the SB with 5s,Ts and you are not giving up much by making this play. It also looks correct.
When your partner has Js,Qs you should now raise since it is correct for your partner to play in a raised pot and you want to narrow down the field so that you have a great opportunity to whiplash a player when you happen to both flop a Queen.
In both situations you would like to keep your partner in the pot early since I suspect most money from collution comes from whiplashing and driving out players by creative betting and raising.
CV
I can't imagine you should raise in the second scenario. You have less chance to flop a Queen, plus how are you going to really whiplash someone if you do flop it? What hand would he call a whiplash with? What if he has you both beat? Your best hope here is to catch someone with KQ or QJ since they just >i>might call a whiplash. But if the victim holds a Q the chances of flopping one become really remote.
Here is how I look at the second problem.
First you want to play Pair Poker with both hands so raising to limit the field is OK. The only terrible Flop would be King High + Garbage otherwise there is Ace and Second best Kicker, Queen Best kicker, Queen Third best kicker, and Jack with Third best kicker. Of course there are lots of redraws to better hands.
If total garbage does flop the SB can bet and the AQ can raise to knock out any player behind them. Unless the opponent has a High PP or good draw he is gonna fold.
The you don't need to raise and reraise to whiplash in my thoughts of the term. Just setting the odd man in the middle will do the job with a bet, call, raise, call, call. This could be done on a least two streets.
I think "G. Ed" or "thecat" made an interesting comment of the SB being able to reraise and knock out the BB if no one else had called.
And no I do not Collude, I never have and never will. I do use position a lot to make colluding like plays. If I have a big hand and I think I can trap people in the middle when a second best hand bets, I'll go for it. I also like to drive people into second best hands if that person is aggressive enough to raise.
CV
I think Chris' analysis is a good example of how easily many poor colluders/poor players lose money (especially in his first post addressing Question #2).
Play "Pair Poker" by raising this hand? Just how would that be playing Pair Poker? Invest lots of money to try to win a Blind? Again, what if you are beat or get beat?
If I were playing against two opponents who were colluding by regularly raising and reraising with duplicated high cards, I would think that they were an asset to my bottom line. I would especially like them trying to whipsaw me when I held a powerhouse. I would let them raise me out of nothing pots, knowing that they are laying too much and that their gains from me will be small and their losses big.
Look M, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but if you don't respect my thoughts how can we have a conversation on the subject?
If I was colluding in with a partner and had a man in the middle we would have to be 67% sure one of us was going to win the pot since we are basicly laying 2 to 1 on a Whipsaw play. So the time to jam would be when we were quite sure our opponent was on the Draw on 4th or maybe had a total Fish in the hand who would be playing the Second pair ect...
Just my thoughts,
CV
Chris, I apologize for the tone of my remarks. It's not that I don't respect your thoughts, just that it struck me as strongly unlikely to work as desired and as sometimes very costly as well. I could be wrong too.
"You should call in the first situation since you want to give your partner proper odds to call in the SB with 5s,Ts"
I don't think this is correct. When playing with a partner, the bankroll should be thought of as common. Betting to give your partner proper odds is like putting one extra bet yourself in. The only consideration should be whether to induce an extra bet from another opponent later on, whom you think you have beat.
(We do assume that the partner in the SB has an open-line communication with you and you decide jointly on the play of your two hands, rather than the partner deciding how to play his hand on the basis of pot odds, or some other "standard" consideration.)
This is true; you could not give your partner proper money odds by using your joint bankroll.
However, allowing your partner to get in cheap may pay dividends after the flop.
1) AQo T5s - Play the hand as normal. Call. This two hand combination and the players poor position does not offer any significant advantage.
2) AQo QJs - Fold. AQo is one of the danger hands and the danger has just escalated. This is a very profitable fold, but one that would set off lots of red flags.
Question 2 is a GREAT example of a profitable collusion play that would have to be avoided when being detected is a problem.
And this is just the first question!
I think there is another consideration here, that you didn't bring up in the post. Am I supposed to play the hand optimally, or so that I'm not suspected of colluding?
I'll operate on the basis that I don't want to raise any *real* red flags.
In the first case, I feel the best way to play is to raise A-Q, just as in the case of a single player, the hand plays best with few opponents. The 10-5 of spades is sufficiently different from the A-Q that it warrants a call because it will have betting and raising equity after the flop enough times when the A-Q misses the flop to be valuable.
With the Q-J, the two hands work well together, like a bastardized omaha hand. The additional dead queen, hampers the pre-flop strength of both hands enough so that I would be tempted to limp with the A-Q as to not cost myself too much in case the flop is bad for both hands. If I were to raise, I would 3 bet with the Q-J if it helped isolate the hand or win the big blind.
In case #2, just how do "the two hands work well together, like a bastardized Omaha hand"?
The hand is bastardized because, of course, you are not playing omaha. But, what I'm trying to say is that there are similarities between a good omaha hand with coordinated cards, and a hand that will work well in collusion. A high flop that helps both hands will give a "psudo wrap" giving you many cards that will complete a strong hand with either the Q-J or the A-Q and both hands will apparently have a reason to be contesting the pot.
I'll take the internet poker tack.
If I were going to try to write software to detect collusion (e.g. on the internet), I would write routines that analyzed how players played their starting hands and looked for cases where they deviated. Then I would ask if the deviation was related to a hand or play deviation of another player. If I found several instances, those players would go under a (human) microscope.
I would also look at the starting cards in the context of the board and see if the play made sense (did all the players who were raising "have something"). Then I would ask if the deviation was related to some particular other player(s) "having something". When I found some instances those players would again go under a (human) microscope.
But in the middle of the game, things get so complicated that I'm not sure what I would look for. So as a colluder, I would try to make most of my "moves" on the flop and turn.
From the perspective of trying to avoid being under that microscope:
1. Raise, your partner will drop. Use the information about his hand when trying to determine what you are up against post-flop.
2. Raise, because your partner's cards are enough like your own that whipsawing becomes less detectable and he can freely call the raise because his cards are "good enough". Both of your hands are weakened, but your collusion potential is strengthened.
David
Note that I am writing this from the online perspective; much would change if hole cards and win rates could not be monitored.
Given that not being detected is of primary importance and that collusion detecting software and/or an observer is examining the play, whipsawing with a nothing hand is unacceptable due to the danger of detection.
AQ can probably never be folded at this stage, even if your partner should have AA or AQ. Your history will not show you to be such a tight player.
Raising presents the problem of causing your partner to either forfeit team money to the pot before the flop or to put even more team money at risk with a hand that has next to no actual value unless it hits the flop pretty hard. Keeping in mind that the action behind you is crucial to the small blind's decision, I suggest that the correct play for both scenarios would be:
IF your raises have been getting a lot of respect, raise, SB folds (giving BB 3.5 to 1 instead of 5 to 1), hoping to either play the BB heads up without the benefit of collusion or to win it outright.
ELSE call, hoping to get a couple more callers behind you, SB calls, and see how things develop on the flop.
This thought process leads me to suspect that correct partner play may involve very little pre flop raising. Although two players in collusion have twice the chance to flop a good hand, they are also paying twice as much to do so. Add in the "horse race" concept and the amount of luck involved on the flop, and it seems to me right now that most of the benefit of non blatant collusion is probably going to occur after the flop when the partners hold complementary, but not exclusive, hands/draws. It also seems necessary that they both have reasonable starting hands because a high win rate combined with a very large # of hands played would raise the red flag for the observer.
Let me add that having done very little thinking about this, I have correspondingly little confidence in its correctness. That is why I hope you continue with the project. I see this stuff, I don't "think" they're hurting me, but I am not sure. This one small example quickly became so complex that the guidance of a true expert would ... help.
Not knowing much about collusion, but here goes...
Q1: I would raise because you only have to worry about one player between you and the small blind, that is the big blind. If I thought that the big blind often (or even sometimes) folded for a raise, I would raise the AQ. I suspect that having two colluders next to each other is very valuable, so the raise is worth it. Then on the flop, the SB can bet and AQ can raise. The only flop that's trouble is the K high one mentioned in another post. I think that seeing a lot of flops is mandatory in colluding strategy.
Q2: I would raise/fold the AQ or QJ based on the game conditions. If the game was tight I would probably be raising/reraising with a lot of hands worse than these two. If the game was loose, I would probably fold both (under optimal conditions) or just call if I was worried about being detected.
I don't know anything about these topics, but these arguments make sense to me. I think that knowing solid poker strategy with collusion could be devestating. For example, me who is almost oblivious to game conditions and expert strategy would be a decent colluder. S&M could destroy. Why, because stuff that we take advantage of playing straight can really be exploited. I am talking about player tendencies and game conditions. Colluding with optimal play has to be ATM-like
This is wrong, what the hell are you thinking?
To the people that say you should raise I have a question. Are you raising so that you can win one big blind? Why not just call and try to win a big pot when you OR your partner flop something good?
This 2-part question raises some interesting theoretical points and shows why many would-be colluders aren't good enough to win.
This thread reinforces my previously expressed discomfort with this topic; in fact, I find your post disturbing. The phrasing of your questions suggests a tacit acceptance of collusion (though I do not think this was your intention).
Discussion of collusion from the perspective of how honest players can detect cheaters would be less dangerous, even though it might cover similar theoretical ground.
Acceptance is not the same thing as endorsement. If one thinks that there are colluders out there, then one should accept that it is happening, and learn what to do. Denying that it is happening when it really is will only cost you money.
So we can discuss this topic without endorsing it.
Acceptance is also not the same as acknowledgement. We can acknowledge the existence of cheating while making clear it is not acceptable. This discussion of how to most effectively collude with your partner implies that it is acceptable IMO.
Question #1. The AQo in this instance should be played in a straight forward manner. That is, it should be played as if there were no collusion planned for this hand - raise. If there are no callers once the action gets to the SB, the 10-5 must now reraise in order to knock the BB out of the pot. Regardless of the flop, the 10-5 must now bet and AQ makes an automatic fold regardless. Question #2. Same thing.
The more people who answer these questions erroneously, the more it should be apparent that most would-be or actual colluders would also be attempting to employ unprofitable strategies. This supports the view that there is little to fear from most colluders.
Also striking are the parallels to an understanding of poker itself; hand values, desired action, and tactics such as when to knock people out and when to trap. I think the two questions David Sklansky posed are highly instructive for these reasons as well.
One thing is clear: Everyone is coming up with different answers and that means most people are wrong. The fact that this is so means that most colluders would also very likely be wrong in their approaches; it is doubtful that most colluders have a better understanding of the game than most people on this forum. However, we have not yet heard from some of the best on this forum regarding these questions, so the answers given so far may not be representative of most people on this forum.
Based on the answers I have seen so far, I wouldn't mind if most of the people who have supplied answers tried colluding against me--I think they would be costing themselves money by employing poor strategy. This is not to say that my answers are 100% correct either (we will leave complete explanation to DS of course), but that there are some people out there who have little idea of the underlying basis for certain actions in poker. That's OK because we are all here to share ideas and to learn. It does really show that many people don't approach these questions from the proper perspective, and strengthens the argument that we have little to fear from many colluders unless they are also very good players.
Since most players are not very good players, and even fewer players are colluders, the percentage of players who are both very good players and colluders is very small. A poor player who is also a colluder is still a poor player, and is likely to be a poor colluder also (unless David provides him with an easy-to-use blueprint, that is).
I say to you what I said above: how much better do you think you would do if you knew the value and location of two extra cards on EVERY hand? Forget about whipsawing or helping out your partner. Just look at the situation from the perspective of having added information every hand that others don't have. What do you think this would be worth to you?
I haven't read all the responses and it seems to me one needs to do some calculations as opposed to giving general principles and basing answers on that.
For M's 8 03 response, what you are saying is very dangerous. Bc most can't answer this Q (or at least most don't agree), doesn't mean you wouldn't mind being colluded against. Youd get killed! I suspect if you had a 3 handed game youd get killed. It would b e very easy to squeeze you out of pots. And if there were more colluders it would get even worse.
For Cliff Note 8:43 response: knowing this would be HUGE! It would be joke.
First of all I chose questions that are not examples of major profit makers for colluders. I still am uncertain where I want to go with this. But I did choose two questions where the fact that you are colluding ought to change your play. Under normal circumstances the AQ should raise, the T5s should fold that raise and the QJs should call it. We will get to the answer shortly. First a few points 1. If two cards are shown that don't duplicate yours, that knocks up your chances of pairing by a small but not insignificant amount. 2. If you and your partner both play a non paired hand, the difference between duplicating one card and not, is the difference between having 12 cards to hit and 8 cards. One way, somebody flops a pair 59%, the other is 43%. 3. If you duplicate a card with a real opponent, his taking your out away is counterbalanced when you have him dominated and thus figure to win many bets if you both hit. This goes away if the dominated hand is held by your partner. 4.Because of opportunities to take advantage of your partnership after the flop, you should tend to want both partners to play a hand and thus hands that would be borderline folds no longer should be. On the other hand, borderline before the flop raises should not be made if it might drive out a partner or cost him more EV to stay in than the raise gained. When you have AQ in third position, after two players have folded your hand is pretty good. Knowing your partner has T5s makes that hand even better. Normally raising shows a profit. Here it would show an even larger profit. The problem is that a raise squeezes your partner who would prefer not to be raised. BUT: (a)The T5s has gone up in value after seeing the AQ, (b)The T5s has gone up in value because if it stays in it will be able to play with a partner after the flop, and (c) The ace queen goes up even more in value if it has a partner to play with after the flop. The answer to Question #1 is therefore normally that the AQ should raise and the T5s should call. In the case of question #2, your AQ has turned to crap. If you somehow knew a real opponent had QJs in the small blind that would make up for your lesser wins but being that it is your partner your hand totally sucks. To raise would be insane. Not only from your standpoint but also because your partner wants to see a cheap flop. Mathematically it may be right to fold that AQ. But there are three reasons not to: (a) you may be being watched, (b) your lousy hand goes up in value because you may be able to collude further later on, and (c) by limping you may dissuade a raise behind you which helps your partner. Thus the answer to question #2 is generally to call with both hands.
For the record, I find these type of questions fascinating. Aside from any ethical aspects, they are interesting puzzles to solve and add another dimension to the subject of poker.
Those Bridge players think they can send signals. Hah! They have a lot to learn from rounders.
Mark, While I respect many of your views on a myriad of topics on these forums, I believe in this post you have employed faulty logic in arriving at your conclusion. Let's take your paragraphs one by one:
You wrote: "The more people who answer these questions erroneously, the more it should be apparent that most would-be or actual colluders would also be attempting to employ unprofitable strategies. This supports the view that there is little to fear from most colluders."
The unstated assumpion here is that the posts made in response to David's original thread are representative of the current "colluding population." Clearly this is not the case...I would in fact be very surprised if anyone who posted in response to the original post has ever colluded in their poker career, much less have given very much thought to the tactics and overall strategy would be most profitable. Just because the overwhelming number of posts strike you as examples of "inept collusion" does not mean that your garden-variety colluding team is harmless. In effect, the sample generated on this forum, and by which you make your conclusion, is not likely to be representative of the "colluding population," thus your argument suffers from the fallacy of relevance of "false authority."
Next you wrote:
"Also striking are the parallels to an understanding of poker itself; hand values, desired action, and tactics such as when to knock people out and when to trap. I think the two questions David Sklansky posed are highly instructive for these reasons as well. "
i agree with this paragraph in principle, however, I think the important point that many of those who posted are unlikely to be regular colluders makes any conclusion you draw from this proposition shaky.
Next: "One thing is clear: Everyone is coming up with different answers and that means most people are wrong. The fact that this is so means that most colluders would also very likely be wrong in their approaches; it is doubtful that most colluders have a better understanding of the game than most people on this forum. However, we have not yet heard from some of the best on this forum regarding these questions, so the answers given so far may not be representative of most people on this forum."
Here you acknowledge that those who had responded to the post are likely not to be representative of "most people on this forum," yet, again you miss the critical point that unless most who responded to David's post are habitual colluders, it is illogical to conclude anything about colluders in general based on the posts found in this thread. On a side note, in your last sentence, I find another illogical statement: "However, we have not yet heard from some of the best on this forum regarding these questions, so the answers given so far may not be representative of most people on this forum." Does this mean that "most people on this forum" are also "some of the best?" This seems counterintuitive, since best inherently means above average, and thus anything but "most." Just a small point.
Further on: "Based on the answers I have seen so far, I wouldn't mind if most of the people who have supplied answers tried colluding against me--I think they would be costing themselves money by employing poor strategy. This is not to say that my answers are 100% correct either (we will leave complete explanation to DS of course), but that there are some people out there who have little idea of the underlying basis for certain actions in poker. That's OK because we are all here to share ideas and to learn. It does really show that many people don't approach these questions from the proper perspective, and strengthens the argument that we have little to fear from many colluders unless they are also very good players.
I would agree with most of this paragraph, with the exception of the assumption that David is capable of providing the "complete explanation," based solely on his position of authority. An argument is judged primarily by one factor: its adherence to the laws of logic. While authority can and often does become a reason to accept someone's opinions or judgements in cases where the concpets are subjective or inherently difficult to prove or disprove (a psychologist's testimony in court for example), in general it is much safer to rely on logic to assess the validity of an argument. There seems to be a running bias on these forums to blindly accept David and Mason's statements as articles of faith, without deconstructing the reasoning behind their statements. Indeed I think we do them a disservice by NOT actively dissecting their advice, precisely BECAUSE so much weight is placed on what they write in the forums and in their books. I am often extremely impressed by David and Mason's work, and how well thought out their arguments can be, but I try not to let this bias prevent me from rationally analyzing each new thing I read, and I think many others would profit from this approach, since it often leads to much deeper understanding of the concepts involved.
On to the last paragraph: "Since most players are not very good players, and even fewer players are colluders, the percentage of players who are both very good players and colluders is very small. A poor player who is also a colluder is still a poor player, and is likely to be a poor colluder also (unless David provides him with an easy-to-use blueprint, that is)."
Most players are not "very good players." Clearly this is true, how can it be anything but true if "very good" is defined as "well above-average" (traces of binomial distribution here). Compare this statement with your earlier on above. I think pointing this fact out is a good idea, and you use this proposition to make your next conclusion, that a poor player that is also a poor colluder is still a poor player, and likely a poor colluder. However I don't think this tells us anything about whether the posters on this forum are represntative of colluders in general, and again I think it is faulty logic to base the conclusion that collusion is not an important issue (presumably on Internet poker) on the posting of those few that chose to respond to David's original post. I would even venture to state that any "professional colluder" reading this thread would be unlikely to post ANYTHING.
Let me put this dissection of your post in perspective, Mark. The fact is, I tend to agree with your general opinion that collusion is probably not a very significant problem, and that most would-be colluders are sufficiently poor players that any attempts at collusion would likely backfire.
Nevertheless, I chose to lay out my dissection of your argument, along with its presumptions and propositions, and ultimately its conclusions, to demonstrate what I think many people on this forum fail to do; namely, to think logically and critically about the arguments of others. Now this critical thinking is not to promote discord on the forum, but to promote rigid thinking and to fight what David aptly terms "fuzzy thinking." I chose your post because I often find much of what you write here to be very thoughtful, and thought you strayed a bit from the path of logic here. I aslo chose you since I have met you in person, and seem the type that would not take this post personally, but would recognize it for what it is: an attempt to promote thoughtful and structured thinking on the forum.
P.S. On your next order from Amazon, be sure to include "With Good Reason" by S. Morris Engel. This text is excellent reading on logic and informal fallacies. Many on this forum would do well to read it as well. I recommend it to you because I am familiar with your varied interest in philosophy and logic.
Maven,
While you would be right if my statements were absolutes, I don't think the ones you are questioning are. None of my statements are attempts to draw any definitive conclusions, only likelihoods. If I were trying to draw hard and fast conclusions my logic would be seriously flawed. However, I am only drawing likelihoods. For instance, while the sample size of posts is small and clearly not necessarily representative of either the people on this forum or of colluders in general, it would be illogical to assume that it is more likely that there would be no correlation at all than that there would be some correlation, however small. While it is illogical to conclude anything about colluders based on what others have posted in this thread, it is not illogical to assume that colluders, as poker players, share many of the same thought processes as non-colluding poker players in analyzing a hand or poker situation. It is more likely that both groups do share some of the same tendencies towards similar analyses of poker situations than that they do not. Note that I do not say "professional colluders." If they are professional they had better know what they are doing or they won't be professional very long. My guess is that most colluders are trying it and failing at it just as they have failed at poker.
The greater the ratio of erroneous versus correct answers that are posted, the more the likelihood of it being representative of colluders increases (even if that likelihood is so small as to be virtually negligible).
Likewise when I say "the more it should be apparent", I am not saying that it actually is of yet apparent as a proven fact, only that it becomes more apparent than it was. If it was only very remotely likely, it is still true that as the ratio of erroneous answers increases, that likelihood does move however slightly in the direction I have specified.
I agree that ALL of the tentative conclusions I drew are shaky, and I realized this as I wrote them; I wrote them, or tried to write them, in such a way that allowed for drawing tentative conclusions based on likelihoods, however slim, without stating them as facts.
I don't think I ever said that collusion is not an important issue, even in my other posts, only that I felt it was relatively rare and could be overcome with skill and good game selection. I also somewhere stated something to the effect that I guessed most colluders really aren't good enough as either players or colluders to be much of a threat. This may change as Internet Poker continues on its merry way, and collusion may possibly become a much more serious problem. It could even become what eventually kills Internet Poker, though if that occurs it won't be anytime very soon.
I too believe in analyzing everything and not just accepting things on "authority." When I referred to David providing a "complete explanation", I did not imply that he could not be in error or that we should not analyze it on our own as well. However, I do think the chances of most of us coming up with either as complete or as accurate an analysis of something like this as David could are slim.
When I said "this supports the view that there is little to fear from most colluders", it does indeed support the view. What is open to question is how much support does it lend to the view.
Finally I did not say that most collusion is harmless. It is not harmless, but I think most collusion can be overcome by skill, or avoided by game selection. If colluders play poorly enough, or attempt collusion with improper strategy, the better player will generally beat them anyway. It is my opinion that colluders of this type are the most common variety, far more common, I would guess, than professional colluders. However, professional colluders probably last longer at their chosen endeavor.
I think structured thinking, logic and analysis are extremely important and I do not take your critique personally. I believe it is good to deconsruct arguments and look as deeply as possible at anything one cares to analyze.
I do think that if one looks at exactly what I wrote, it can be seen that my logic was not flawed when the English is taken literally. Instead of actually drawing conclusions, I am merely bolstering certain arguments. I admit that how much these arguments have been bolstered is far from defined.
*
Colluders must balance the EV gain of collusion plays with the risk of their cheating being detected. For this reason, I believe cautious colluders would forego most preflop collusion plays and focus on more profitable post-flop collusion. Although post-flop collusion opportunities would be relatively infrequent (thereby helping to avoid suspicion), they would usually be much more profitable.
Student,
I agree. The colluders would love to collude postflop at O8, especially when they can catch someone in the middle. Even if one of the colluders gets qtr'd with the non-colluder, the colluders win 3/4's and they've bet 2/3s: They can raise and raise. And no one will notice. And when one of the colluders can scoop...hm, a few of those a day are big money in the bank.
But read on about pre-flop, my message about sims. I think serious study of collusion could win a fortune online.
Mark
David,
You show great ingenuity with these questions. I ran sims on both hands, these showed me some interesting results, these results agree completely with you on #1, but I am not sure about #2.
#1: Normal sim: AQo early raiser avgs about 1.1 small bets profit per hand, but then SB avgs about .5 loss; this is with AQ raising, SB non-partner folding. Most of the profit comes from taking the big blind's $10....I then tried lots of combinations of calling with AQ, both raising, etc, but none of these did better than the usual AQ raising, and Txs folding. By Txs knowing more and staying in to limpers, and AQo knowing more, I believe that this set of hands does much better than it does with 'normal' play. One difference is that Txs always stays (except to re- raisers), but his loss is his partner's gain generally. This makes a lot of sense.
#2: Normal sim: AQo, with QJs in SB. They average together winning, but half (or slighty less) as much as in sim #1. The AQ is weakened a lot, and the QJs loses (but not as much as Txs), at least to the average lineup. And the QJs plays for the 1 1/2 bet.
I found two interesting things in the sims:
1. Unless someone else had a strong strong hand, a hand with which they would re-raise: AA, KK, AKs or AKo, or QQ (yes it happens), or JJ, they are a giant dog! (OK, they almost break even with KJ and KT too). What about this strategy: AQo raises. If anyone else re-raises, the QJs folds, the AQo calls, and QUICKLY folds to anything on the flop which isn't a great match. This should be profitable, and hides the collusion. If you didn't care about collusion, they could both fold, but this would look bad. I do not think that anyone could detect this collusion if AQo raised, QJs called limpers or folded to a reraise, and then if AQo folded to a bad (or non-good) board bet.
SO: If you eliminate the AA, KK, AK, QQ, JJ from the sims, the AQo/QJs combo takes all. If they fold quickly to re-raisers who will have such hands, and they are skilled players, they clean up here.
2. If I set it up for both AQo and QJs to call, they make less than the AQo raising (and sharing wins with QJs). It is not more profitable to call, even with the dead Q. Perhaps my sim setup or reasoning is flawed.
David, this example, on which I spent only a few (under 30) minutes, scares me to death. I wish the online poker sites no harm. But if I can start to figure out what to do here (perhaps flawed, etc, but only 30 minutes and I am beginning to understand what CAN be done by colluders): What could pro's who are smart smart smart (yes, smarter than I am) and know simulations better than I do, what can they do?
And what about AQo, coupled with KJs? Or other interesting combos? If someone spent real time studying a few dozen combos to collude with, worked on this using TTHE sims, got it down well, they could kill any game I think. Also, what about split games? Isn't that worse?
Mark
You're shinnying up the wrong tree and the poker gods are mighty upset.
Warped cards are still out there. I payed in an Iowa riverboat casino yesterday (7-01-00). They used blue/red Kem cards. Most jacks and queens had very noticeable warpage; the aces and kings were sometimes warped (to a lesser degree), sometimes flat. Occasionally other cards (some 2s and 3s) were warped so my reads (ie warped=high card) weren't 100% reliable. Nobody said anything; I'm not sure if no one noticed (unlikely) or if they just tried to do their best to use the information. Management seemed unconcerned.
It is correct that there are still some warped cards out there, and this includes the red/blue decks. What happens is that some cards that appear perfect when taken out of the wrapping will begin to warp after a couple of hours of being exposed to the air even if they are not used.
In Las Vegas, the two major cardrooms, The Mirage and The Bellagio -- where I have spoken to management -- are both very aware of the problem and are removing bad decks as they find them.
As stated before, this is a manufacturing problem, and the manufacturer Kem Cards is well aware of it and is suppose to be working on a fix.
The Commerce has been using another brand of cards which doesn't seem to have the warping problem at all. I forgot to ask what it was, but will try to remember to ask the next time I'm there (probably this Fri.).
(n/t)
Jim and all,
Hollywood Park Uses brown and green Kems for top section and Red and Blue for limits below 6/12. I haven't noticed the problem yet but I'll stay on the lookout also.
Regards,
Rick
In my casino they use Bee cards for all house games, adn the Kem cards in the poker room. The Bee cards seem much better in quality. Why don't they use these in the poker rooms too?
Because they are made of paper and not plastic. Thus, they can't take the type of abuse they are subject to in a poker game.
Greetings,
I was playing in a 10/20 game w/ a half kill. I had AQs in early postion and open for a raise for 20. I forgot it was a kill pot, and then the dealer asks me do i want to raise... I toss in another 10 and the table almost freaks out. ANd say it is not a raise bc it is less than 1/2 and vehemently argue that it is not a raise... (I didn't say raise but almost never do, but I think it was clear what my intention was).
As it turned out the first floor man said it was a raise, the table screamed for another man who said it was not. I asked to speak to his supervisor and he said that he was the final authority. I thought it was unfair, and even thought considered leaving the table. (If everyone was so hostile, is this the game I should playing in? I want happy and laughing gamblers at my talbe, not a bunch of angry hotheads who get bent out of shape over technicalities for most don't matter).
I should note all folded to the blind. I asked the table why are they arguing so vehemently if they weren't going to play for 1 bet.
Is this the correct ruling?
As a side Q: would you stay a such a table? The table was somewhat aggressive but it was clear not many knew what they were doing w/their excessive calling, and weak starting hand selection.
All comments appreciated.
This issue has come up at Foxwoods on occasion. Intent is not the issue here; calling a string raise was quite acceptable. The first floorman either didn't understand the situation or was just plain wrong (perhaps equally likely). If they playing lots of bad hands and your goal was to make money you would probably have stayed even with the hostility. If your goal was to have a relaxing or enjoyable time then I would suggest changing tables. Your own personal preference.
Well I didn't make a stink bc it would only make the situation worse. BUt i disagree, rules are there for reasons. If this was a "pure" 15/30 game then i could see the pb, but here I think my intent was clear. The reason for this rule is to stop the raiser from getting information. And it seems the table information and not me...
The first floorman did understand the situation ... but the table insisted on getting another opinion. There wasn't any other 10/20 games, the 6/12 game i left was good but i thought i would make mre money at the 10/20, the 15/30 wasn't, and 20/40 is too high for me...
Intent cannot be allowed to be the issue or we would have people taking all kinds of shots. That's why the rules must be clear and enforced clearly. If someone really wanted to take a shot, and intent was allowed to be the determining factor, all someone would have to do would be make an unethical move to gain information and convince the dealer/players/floor that it was unintentional. A person like yourself who really did not intend to shoot an angle and who was unable to convince others of this would be ruled against.
To avoid the inequalities in such situations, in poker the rules must be uniformly enforced. Allowing the floor to make judgments as to a player's intent is not in the interests of fairness to all in poker. Who really knows the player's intent? rules which are unambiguous are fairer to all.
Rules in poker are not like laws in court. The fairest way to ensure poker fairness is to have good rules and enforce them uniformly. Leaving much room for interpretation in poker rules is a sure way to invite abuses and brew conflicts.
Finally, consider this. You apparently weren't aware that it was a kill pot. Whose responsibility is this? In poker if you snooze, you lose.
"Unusual circumstances can, on rare occasionj, dictate that the technical interpretation if the rules be ignored in the interest of fairness." Supervisors are expected to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process, but should only deviate from the technical interpretation when fairness would obviously be lost should this interpretation be used."
This is a quote from our rule book (Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas). WIth this in mind I would rule that placing $20 in the pot constituted a raise (therefor the player does not have the option of withdrawing a chip and calling, he must complete the raise)
One of the problems with poker is there are certain players who make the game unhospitable to new players by asking for a literal interpretation of the rules. One of the ways supervisors are selected (or should be) is they they are knowledgable enough of the game so they can determine if it is an angle play. The best way to prevent angle players is to eject the angle shooter from the card room. As always all comments are welcome.
Randy Refeld
While in principle I agree that in the interest of fairness at rare times less literal interpretations of certain rules could be applied, I find it hard accept having a rule about string bets that applies except in kill pots, unless it always is so. Or a rule that only out-of-town players can get away with breaking. Or, more to the point in this case, a rule that can be broken because Joe just wasn't paying attention and he didn't know it was a kill pot.
You say you would rule it a raise, always. Yet he only put 4 chips in instead of 3, clearly less than 1/2 the bet more. What if Joe told you he only meant to put out 3 red chips, that the fourth one was an accident, that he only wanted to call? Would you still make him raise? If so, you are saying that you would enforce the string raise rule differently in kill pots (or based on what the player told you). Yet Joe has gained information by the other players' responses. Rules on string bets should be cut and dried one way or the other, period. It is too easy otherwise for a player to take advantage of information gained even if that was not his original intent. For instance, if a player throws out enough red chips to constitute a full raise, then when the dealer says "raise", the player claims he didn't mean to raise, he is probably telling the truth. I've seen it happen, and I'm sure you have too. But that doesn't mean he should get to take his raise back. Certain things are just part of the player's responsibility, and putting in the right amount of chips is one of them. That's poker. In poker, your mistakes usually cost you. That's part of the game, and that's the way it should be. It isn't too much to ask that players bear responsibility for putting in the amount appropriate to their intended action.
Ambiguous interpretations of string raises leaves the area wide open to abuse. It's much simpler and fairer just to follow one rule on this. Allowing the floor to attempt to discern a player's "intent" on this is questionable at best, and a waste of time too. If a player makes a mistake like this the penalty isn't even too severe, just a bet or maybe two , usually.
Clear-cut rules over minor issues like this actually reduce the amount of problems and disputes. If your cardroom wants to have a rule that 4 chips in a preflop kill pot constitutes a raise even though it is less than 1/2 the bet more, OK if you are willing to further complicate the rules book. But , as is usually the case, simplicity is probably best.
I like Randy's post alot. It seems to clear that if a player raised in this situation it is unlikely he is angle shooting (eg trying to rid the field w/just a call). The player should be told something to the effect that ,"next time you do this it will be just a call."
ALthough it seems to me discussions about the intent of the rule, or its purpose seems to beyond the scope of most floormen I have seen. And most floormen seem to think if its in accordance of the rules it is "fair." They make ruling bc they made a similar one before and they have to be "consistent."
Maybe I have been left w/the impression the casino and its floor are principally interested in keeping the games moving, and deviating from the rules bc of the subtleties might anger the rest of the table as opposed to angering one. (Although this probably isn't what they are thinking w/regard to the point of displeasing one player as opposed to the rest of the table.)
It would be nice if cardrooms would eject or even warn angleshooters but casinos are interested in getting players to continue playing and come back.
"It would be nice if cardrooms would eject or even warn angleshooters but casinos are interested in getting players to continue playing and come back."
It would seem to me one of the places to start would be to throw out the angle shooters; but what do I know, we do this and usually only have 1 or 2 games.
Randy Refeld
since Mr DS started it... When only two peaple colluding at a table (from the same team)I guess you have to wait quite a while, before the little team can pick up hands that matches eachothers (hands that are worth raising eachother with). My guess is that tree ore fore players (in the same team) at the same table can multiply the profit from the COLLUSION ITSELF. When four guys are there you could probably wery often find, at least two hands, that work well together... When I think of Mr DS example...It just seems to me that two guys can't be much to fear? Please comment!!!
How would you like to play in a game where you knew two extra cards and who held them?
Your implied assumption that profitable collusion involves raising your partner is incomplete at best. If I were to collude I would play "better hand" with my partner where rarely would we both play before the flop. This is all in addition to the obvious ability to lay down a pair of 8s when partner discarded 86o.
Multiple partners in a game can make it increasingly UN profitable since there are less cats to fry and fish to skin.
- Louie
Greetings,
Maybe this is a weird post but here goes. I have noticed after I eat, and play immediately afterwards I my results invariably suffer.
On the other hand a few times I went to eat, missed the boarding time, and had to wait 1 1/2 hours to play again I did quite well. Some of my best sessions happened in these scenarios.
Most casinos want I have played in want you to return to your seat 30/45 mins after you leave to eat. Which doesn't seem like enough...
Comments!?
ive noticed that after i eat i feel satisfied, happy, and feel like socializing. not conductive to a good poker mentality.
brad
It is common to feel tired/groggy and have difficulty concentrating after eating a meal...especially if you suffer from reactive hypoglycemia. This effect can be minimized or eliminated by choosing low-carbohydrate foods (and not over-eating) prior to playing. So enjoy a nice steak (or fish or chicken) with salad (or green vegetable), and skip the potato, bread, sugar-laden beverages, dessert, etc.
Same concept as not swimming immediately after you eat. Eating shifts the bodies focus to digestion thereby diverting some blood flow from your brain and muscles to your digestive organs. You tend to feel sluggish and not as sharp mentally as you feel at other times.
Excessive hunger should affect your results to some degree as well. Low blood sugar causes the brain to not function optimally and can also cause shakiness and irritability.
Your time frame of eating 1-2 hours before starting your session should be just about perfect.
Regards/
Eat lightly. Digestion increases the blood flow to your stomach and decreases blood flow to your brain. Hence, you are not as sharp. Try not to eat sweets and eat well balanced foods. Sweets will cause tremendous flucuations in your blood sugar and your mental acuity will suffer. In the summer and in desert climates drink fluids aggressively and stay well hydrated. Dehydration will also impair your thinking. In dry climates most people are not aware they are getting dehydrated.
Bruce
All the above makes sense to me.
Another thing I notice, especially here in California where food is comped when you play the bigger games, is that you eat a lot more when you are struggling at the tables. My guess is the average player eats twice as many calories per hour when stuck as they do when winning. Or so it seems ;-).
Regards,
Rick
It sounds hokey, but a good book to read is Managing Your Mind and Mood Through Food by Wurtman. It's got a lot of info on how different foods affect performance, eating tactics for different times of day to maximize alertness, etc. It's a good book for shift workers and poker players.
After these two questions I am done for a while until we have another vote. The first vote was about 6o-40 in favor of pursuing the subject. I am especially curious as to whether anyone will change their vote now that these four questions were discussed.
You are in the big blind with a pair of fours. Your partner, three seats to your left, limps in with J9 of hearts with no one else yet in. (Whether that is the right play is one of the questions. But for the sake of the other question, we will simply stipulate that the J9s limped.) The player to the right of the button calls. The small blind folds. You knuckle. The flop is AA8 three different suits. Three players total.
Question #1 How should you and your partner play this hand on the flop?
Question #2 If the game was honest, the J9s would have a a close decision between all three alternatives of call, raise, or fold. Does the fact that he is in partnership with the big blind who he knows has two fours make the decision clearcut? If so what should it be?
1) If the opponent is a reasonable/solid player, he would most likely have raised with hands containing an ace or a pocket pair of 8's or higher (to buy the button and isolate on the limper). Therefore, a bet from the BB and a call from the partner should convince this player to fold with little risk.
2) I believe the partnership makes it a clear call. Calling may entice other limpers (and reduces the likelihood of a preflop raise), thereby increasing the implied odds for the 44. Calling also increases the opportunities for post-flop collusion while promoting a loose image which could help to avoid suspicion.
Addendum:
1) In the unlikely event that the reasonably solid opponent raises on the flop after the partners bet and call, the partners should fold; the opponent probably has AXs. If the opponent calls on the flop, 44 should check-fold (unless you spike a 4 of course) and J9s should make one last attempt to represent an ace by betting. This is because J9s can mimic a slow-play of an ace, and J9s probably has more outs than 44 if the opponent calls. If the opponent raises on the turn, it is a clear fold.
If the opponent is a poor, somewhat loose-passive player, I believe a better course of action would be for 44 to bet and J9s to raise on the flop to drive the opponent out. If the opponent reraises, the partners can fold. If the opponent calls, the partners should check-fold the turn and check-call the river (with their best hand) if they can beat a pair of 8's.
#1 If the fours bet and you raise and the limper calls you must give up. (Unless a four comes on the turn) If he folds you have achieved your goal. You risk 3 bets to win 3 1/2. Two of those bets were yours originally. You net 1 1/2 bets. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. I guess it probably is but it just doesn't feel right to me. However, if you are going to try to win the pot I believe you must play it this way.
#2 I don't know if it makes it clearcut but you definitely want BOTH hands to see the flop.
In the first set of questions I was wrong on #1 about limping, although I think it was close. In this situation I think raising is probably slightly correct but I think limping is OK too.
Q1: Keeping in mind that this is a typical 10-20, I think think the blind should check, and his partner should bet. This puts pressure on the third man without investing too much of the team's money to steal a small pot.
If the third man raises, then the team should fold. If he calls then the blind should fold if the third man is at all a reasonable player. The benefit from collusion is that the J9 player knows that the s.b. is not slow playing ane Ace, but the third man does not know this making his decision more difficult than the team's decision. Note that the team invest's one small bet to steal the pot, where the third man would have to invest two.
Q2: pocket 4's do best with lots of players. If this is a game where an utg call often induces a "calling frenzy" then it is clearly a call for J9s. Not only does this make flopping a set pay off better, but the beneifits a partnership play are huge if 4's hit their set. For example, if they want to drive players off of their flush draws on the flop, then the set of 4's can bet and his partner can raise, or the could try of a double check-raise. Then of course, if either one of them flops a big hand, the parner can bet it for them to disguise the big hand to help the big hand get action on the end.
Steve
Till I am satisfied that I can adequately defend myself against the types of plays mentioned (and more importantly, not mentioned) I am ceasing all hold'em activity forthwith. Unfortunately, I may reach the conclusion that the best form of defense is attack.
Sorry David, I am addicted to Sims. Not sure I set them up real well, but they help my thinking, here goes:
1. Q1: Once that flop hits, the partners are dead men to the caller. I don't think someone needs a sim to tell them this. The 4's only lose a little. But the J9s gets clobbered. I even made one of the AA8 a heart. Big deal. And even shared info doesn't help this mess.
2. Q2: On a random flop, the J9s does pretty well against one caller next to the button...not great (and the sim left a lot of high cards in the deck with a calling station (pre-flop) in that cut-off-seat) ...with the partners coming out ahead, but not a great deal.
But that's the not the question you asked: You asked, should the J9s stay -- period. With no collusion, it IS very close, the sims show a good player will lose .1 bb or less. I think collusion in this case makes it profitable when it is played well: A 4 hits, T8 hits, hearts hit, etc etc, you get one or two callers, you can make the pot big enough for people to see the river, and you can control them from two seats. Point here is: You control your losses like you would anyway, but you can push winnings up a lot, especially in a loose game.
Mark
An Addendum:
I just read the other answers, suggesting that the partners can mimic an A or an 8, and then get off this quickly if they get raised.
There are two BIG problems with this:
The first problem with this is that a good player will *wait* til the turn or even river to pop you with his AJ...or A8 or other winner, and then you are fried.
The second problem is that this is EXACTLY the behavior that the software or a good player monitoring the action could detect (and probably the only behavior easily detectable) so that the 3rd or 4th time you do it, you will be stopped. Maybe, unless they don't want the scandal.
I think this is a silly place to try this kind of trick...and the correct way to use the collusion is building of large pots with one powerhouse hand.
Mark
I second Steve Fiete's answer.
I'll have a go at #1. Surely the key to this is the likelyhood of the 3rd man holding an Ace or 88. If he does not hold these he will not be able to justify staying in the hand if the colluders show enough strength.
If he is for the sake of argument a 50% chance to hold an Ace or 88, the colluders can afford to risk 3 small bets to show a profit of 1/2 a small bet. This is probably not bad considering this is not the best situation to find themselves in. The 3 bets are best utilised by the 44 checking the J9 betting- this may win the pot outright. If the 3rd man calls the 44 should check raise and the J9 should fold. It would be very difficult for the 3rd man to stay without an Ace. If he does so, the 44 checks and folds, because either the 3rd man has an Ace or has the 44 beaten and will call till the river.
Steve Fiete and cat got it. The only reasonable alternative would be betting and calling if that would get an eight to fold. The general principle here is that in a three way pot, if both partners have little one of them should try to steal the pot. Usually that player should be the one who puts the third player in the middle, even if his hand is a bit worse than his partner's.
Do you, David Sklansky, think playing collusion is an acceptable form of poker? If you do, will you be writing a book on how to play with partners? If you do not, why are you posting these questions with your "correct" answers.
David,
We all due respect, I don't agree. Either a very good or a very bad opponent can cost the team many many bets if they do not succeed with the bet and raise strategy. When does the team get off the hand to someone who limps to these raises and re-raises? When does the team realize they're sunk, after the remaining member gets CR'ed on the river? How many steals does it take to make up for this? And furthermore, why bother, in what might be a trap? And then get caught? Isn't it much better to have some patience and pump it up when one of them catches the nuts (or likely nuts) on the flop? Won't get caught then, by either a better hand or by the poker police! And might get a reasonable player caught in a very profitable cross-fire.
Sorry, I am probably missing something.
One more thing: I have played 50-60 hours at Paradise, a teeny bit ahead, no big deal one way or another. More interesting, though, is FREE LESSONS!!!!!! Watch the people play 20-40. There are few REALLY REALLY GOOD players, easy to tell who they are after 5 hours of watching. I think I know who at least one of them is based on their id; this player is amazingly good. Even beat the other amazing players.
There was a post here a few months ago, it was short and great, about getting off small pairs which don't flop a set, not playing too many pre-flop, not paying off, etc etc, just a nice simple straightforward post about straightforward good play. Watch these people play. Little calling: mostly raising and folding. Not too fancy much of the time. But no stupid chasing. Miss the set with AQx on the flop, out they go. Miss the flop with AK, out they go (yeah, some assumptions on my part). But late position, 1 limper, holding anything reasonable, pop a raise. No fear. This is so helpful to my understanding: One can read, and one can study, and one can play. But this is so good, watching the best, whenever you want.
Just my 2 cents.
mark
I don't understand what you are saying.
I may need to be convinced of this one.
I agree with a bet and an overcall being a persuasive method of getting an 8 to fold, but you must commit two small bets before you gain any information about your opponent's hand.
There are 16 Ax(s)and 8 A-T's and 3 8-8's. That's 29 hands where you lose at least 2 small bets. Of hands that contain 8's, there are 15 that are in the top 6 hand groups. From what I understand, we are twice as likely to lose two bets as to get an 8 to fold.
I'm not totally convinced that a check-raise will be more or less persuasive in folding an 8 than a bet-call, what I AM convinced of is that a bet-call will be more effective preventing a raise-bluff by my lone opponent. So, again, I will say that the answer seems highly dependent on the type of opponent you face.
Since most of the time you opponent(holding 100 hands or so) will probably fold for 1 bet, I believe you gain by only risking 1 bet on the steal. I'm sure open to input, though.
I thought those other guys had answered 4's bet, j-9 calls.
You said that colluders should try to steal with garbage against a lone opponent when a flop hits of AA8.
Sorry if I was longwinded and oblique, all I was saying was that the colluders could themselves get whipsawed when the lone opponent played a hand with an A or an 8 or some other strong hand; and that this possibility might cost so much -- and also show them to be colluding -- that they were better off waiting for a board giving one of them a very strong holding.
Mark
here is what he is saying.
let's forget the collusion for a moment.
the pot is three handed with no preflop raise. this flop probably didn't hit anyone. the pair of 4's is probably the best hand.
the pair of 4's can't just always check/fold with what is probably the best hand because of a scary board.
but the pair of 4's does not want a call. for one thing, the chance he is beat just went way up. also, if he is losing he is drawing to at most 2 outs, while his opp has at least 5 and likely 9 outs.
so without collusion, 44 will usually bet. J9 in the middle cannot call. and it is up to the cutoff (i think that was his position) who will usually fold sometime resteal and sometimes have a hand.
now let's put collusion back in.
do you remember how easy a fold J9 had? we want the cutoff to have that easy a fold. so let's put him in the middle. the 44 checks and J9 bets. now if the cutoff plays we know he has at least a pair of 8's and we can safely fold.
so david's big point is that it is more important to middle the cutoff than to use the likely best hand.
i hope john gets back soon. it is usually his job to explain david. it sure is tiring.
scott
Thanks scott, I think I understand now. Point is that if cutoff even calls, we, the colluders, fold. Ok. I got it. No temptations...makes sense. I guess I am hung up on 'why even bother', since a lot can be made by whipsawing with the nuts if possible, but this makes sense too.
Also, it shows how hard it would be to play against colluders.
Mark
In order to answer the first question, more knowledge would be helpful regarding the 3rd player in the pot. I believe the correct play would be different if it were an aggressive player that would attempt to take the pot if checked to him/her than it would a weak-tight player or a loose passive player. However, since none of these parameters were identified, I will assume that we only think of this player as typical.
No mention is made of the exact suits of the 4’s or the flop, but while I think that they’re not entirely irrelevant, the suits are not crucial to this question.
Since many players will raise with an Ace-(good kicker) in this situation, a hand to be concerned with is Axs. Other than that holding, no other holding is too likely to be interested in this flop. (You’re not going to run into pocket 8’s here too often). This is a case where both partners must read hands and play well.
#3 Ans.-----The play I would use is: Fours check and J-9 bets, to try to win the pot. If the 3rd player calls, Fours raise, and J-9 folds. If this doesn’t win the pot outright, 4’s should bet the turn. If the pot gets 3 bet, there’s only one thing to do, fold.
My reasoning for this play is as follows: Most opponents are going to miss the flop altogether. Many hands that players limp in this type of game would be like K-10, Q-J, and other hands from groups (Sklansky) 4, 5, and 6. The J-9 is of little use in defeating these hands, whereas the 4’s are a favorite. The J-9 would help against middle pairs (like 7’s), but the check raise should get rid of these hands. A bet by the 4’s and a raise by the J-9 could cost too many bets before we discover whether the 3rd player has any real strength.
#4 Ans.-----The partnership makes the decision clear-cut. The decision is to limp.
Both hands are usually going to be helped independent of the other, that is when one makes a hand the other doesn’t (and will usually be discarded). The fact that two 4’s are dead helps the J-9, and the J-9 being dead helps the 4’s. Both hands are dependent on implied odds, and should usually enter the pot cheaply. There would be situations where we might not play these two hands, but we already have equity in the 4’s (due to the blind), thus a call is mandatory for the J-9.
What is appropriate to include in ones standard deviation(s) (and other statistical) calculations?
Do these "rules" sound reasonable?
Limit Ring games: It seems standard deviation must be calculated based on LIMIT. For instance, one s.d. must be calculated for 15-30 hold em and another for 20-40 hold em and another for 30-60 hold em, etc. These games should NOT be combined (into a "medium limit" s.d.). However, (I think) 15-30 hold em and 15-30 stud and 15-30 omaha data can be combined and ONE s.d. calculated for these.
Pot limit ring games: games with identical blinds can be combined. For instance, pot limit hold em with 2-5 blinds should not be combined with pot limit hold em having 5 - 10 blinds.
No limit ring games: All no limit games can be combined, blind values and minimum buy in amount, etc. are irrelevant.
Tournaments: Limit, no limit, rebuy, prize pool size, number of places paid, number of entries, etc, etc. etc. Because of the variability and home run or strike out nature of tournaments s.d. analysis is meaningless. Better would be straight cash flow analysis.
I believe the same restraints that apply to data grouping for s.d. calculation also apply to hourly rate, and correlations (e.g., net to :hours, rate to hours, etc.).
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
For limit games, you are correct in noting that the standard deviation needs to be computed for each limit like $15-$30, $20-$40, $30-$60, etc. I also believe that it should be segregated by game like hold-em versus stud. In most limit games you will get an accurate fix on your hourly standard deviation after about 200 hours. It takes a much longer period of time to get an accurate fix on your hourly earn despite its ease of computation because of the large statistical uncertainties associated with the bigger games.
With regard to big bet poker (pot limit and no limit), I am not sure standard deviation would be meaningful because these games have such huge amounts involved on the outcome of a small number of hands. You may want to talk to Bob Ciaffone but I don't believe that pot limit players compute their hourly standard deviation or even their hourly earn.
THEIR WHAT?.Pot limit players arent normally spending their time thinking about the bollocks that you guys call poker.Were playing the real game .
Exactly. The pot limit players that I have talked to can tell you how much they made last week, last month or so far this year. $5-$10 and $10-$25 pot limit players can swing thousands of dollars in a single session and they really don't seem to think of it in terms of hourly rate. Hourly standard deviation is meaningless to them.
I am thinking about buying a software that can simulate startinghands for showdown in "Omaha High". Can Caros "poker Probe" do that? If not, is Wilson's "Turbo Omaha" the best program for this matter? Or is there another better program for this?
Post deleted at author's request.
Missoula,Mt. pop about 70 thou. Fifth owner for game in the 6 years I've been here. Last 4, 1-5 dealers choice, 10% 5 max rake, one $1 blind (popular structure in Mt.) New owner leaning towards 2-5, one $2 blind, 10% $4 max rake. Basically 3 other games in town, 2 1-5, and 1 3-6 , 4-8 weekends( best action but poorly run). My question, what would be the best structure for a small market with a weak poker economy? $20 buyin will get you $40 for first 9 players, helps take the sting out of high rake.
Fixed limit games are almost always best for a small market. Fixed limit gives the bad/loose players the best chance, and so keeps the game going. In spread-limit, good players and rocks get the money too quickly from the bad players. Fixed limit games will also have more action, and that will keep new players in the game. A 10% to $4 rake is high, and a 10% to $5 is almost unbeatable at very low stakes. Overraking like that could easily kill the game in a small market. Out of the structures you mention, 4-8 is probably best (blinds of $2 and $4).
a 2-4 game might be good and if they want to go bigger you could have a half kill or full kill with a $40 pot won. but the drop is the killer.
Anything but a spread limit game. While these games go good for a while, they eventually dry up because the bad players go broke too fast calling raises with bad hands pre-flop. Maybe a 2-4 game, or 3-6 game... 2-4 with a 1/2 kill would probably be O.K.... Anyway, whatever you do, stay away from the 2-5. I've probably played a thousand hours of that game, and can assure you that it's not a good game to spread in the long run.
I have to agree with GD. The $2-$5 spread game is intrinsically dull. I have written a 144 page book on strategies for the game and would discourage it from being spread. A structured game is much more interesting.
LOWER THE RAKE MAN! $3 is plenty.
Don't make the antes so small that it discourages action. A $1 blind is too small except for beginners. Keep in mind the whole battle starts over the blind, if there is a small blind correct strategy is to play tight. How are you going to get a drop?
The game needs to have some winners, who wants to come lose day in and day out?
I've often toyed with the idea of getting $2.50 chips and spreading a $2.50-$5 structured game because $3-$6 is a little big for some people. However, the limit being that small makes it hard for someone to subsidize their income, and your game needs players that can play all day (or night).
Dear Fellow 2+2ers: I'll be playing some spread limit this weekend and it's been a while. Over the past year, I've been playing only fixed limit, and I need to get some adjustment ideas. It has 1-2 blinds. 2-5 limit. Up to $10 on the end.
I do understand that basically you want to get in cheaply for drawing hands, and you want to make it incorrect for drawing hands to play.
What about some more specifics? For example, when raising, do you *generally* want to raise the max? How about deception? Since the betting is not fixed, has anyone noticed any generalities about betting patterns revealing hand strength/weakness?
If I have pocket aces, for example, do I want to come in with a max raise? Limp re-raise if I think someone behind be will raise?
Any advice appreciated. I am looking forward to playing in this game again (it's been a year, due to it's location, and I am going that way this weekend), as I recall, it is pretty soft, and I think my play has significantly improved over the year.
Thanks, Tim
Premium hands are worth more than $2 so you WANT to get called when you raise. As a crude rule I'll raise the minimum plus $1 for every body that is in; so I'll put in $6 ($4 raise) if there is one caller. I'll bet $5 once the pot reaches $8.
Often/usually fold for a raise after just calling $2. Don't even THINK of calling raises with trouble hands.
The biggest difference is that it is rarely correct to chase in unraised pots. This means you should generally bet out your good flops rather than go for the riskier check-raise (so the opponents make the mistake of calling one bet).
If the turn is NOT going to be worth a call then rarely call the flop.
There is a lot of money to be stolen against sensible post-flop players who play too many hands pre-flop.
I have significant good results making surprise $4 (instead of $5) on the river. This makes for a pretty good bluff (it looks like you are fishing for a call) AND it discourages a raise.
- Louie
You are in the big blind with J2 offsuit. Six limpers behind you including small blind. Your partner folded K2. The flop is KK4, three different suits. Small blind checks.
Bet.
Since I'm 0 for 2 I am now relegated to the role of guesser; bet?
I've found my probability to successfully steal on a flop like this with 6 other players in it to be close to zero, even when it turns out that noone had a king. As such, I'd be tempted to check and fold. But maybe I play online too much :)
It occurs to me that betting on the flop is too obvious otherwise David wouldn't have asked the question. Therefore, I'm changing my answer to check-call-and then bet out on the turn if you have exactly one opponent (perhaps two-but I'm just not sure).
If no one bets the flop I don't know the correct answer.
The immediate problem I see with betting the flop is that you will have a very difficult decision on the turn and river if you get called. If you bet the flop and get raised you fold; if you bet and get called in one or two spots-now what?
just kidding,
Normally I love to bet these types of flops QQ3,JJ6, even if I didn't know there was a king in the muck. But knowing that there was a king mucked I might try for a check-raise then lead on the turn.
I feel like Old Pro here, but this question seems so simple that I'm suckered into putting myself on display.
First your hand is total garbage you may as well have no cards at all, but you also know it is highly unlikely for anyone to have a good hand since only one King is left in the deck.
So there are three decisions: Bet, Check and Fold, or Check raise.
By betting you are getting 7 to 1 so everyone must fold over 12.5% of the time for this play to be profitable.
If you check raise you are getting 4 to 1 so everyone must fold over 20% of the time to make this play correct if someone does happen to bet.
Check raising to represent the King looks like the worst play. Betting is good if everyone will fold 13% of the time or more. Checking and folding is correct if they are loose enough to not make a Bluff possible.
There is the oddball chance that you will catch a Jack and win with two pair but if it goes to a showdown I doubt Kings and Jacks w/Deuce Kicker is going to win. (though in some games I play in it may, but then I couldn't bet as a Semi-Bluff in the First place)
OK forum tear me up.
CV
45 unseen cards, your opponents hold 12. Nobody raised so the last King being out is even less likely. How best to steal solo now? It sounds like a loose game, so if it is super-loose consider forgetting it and check-folding. In a normal game where many players just happened to take the flop probably bet twice unless you get more than one (or maybe two)callers on the flop. Good judgment time. It always helps to know your players. If you check-raise the flop the bettor may give you credit for a Four rather than a King, and many players tend to sort of discount bets or raises on the flop anyway. One big problem with trying for a check-raise on the flop is that giving a free card could easily hit someone holding something like AT or QJ. Betting twice in a normal game makes it hard for anyone to call you twice unless they really have something. The cost of betting twice is not much at all compared to the price you are getting and the high likelihood that nobody holds a King.
Another advantage to betting the flop is that you make it harder for early/middle players to call you with say a middle pocket pair or an Ace because they also have to worry about potential action behind them. It also shows more strength to bet into the large field than it does to check-raise a late bettor.
check. call one bet back to you if there is no callers (maybe one caller).
if you get little or no action behind you, steal on the turn. either bet out or check raise depending on the situation.
scott
Sounds a bit like one of the sections of HFAP when paired flops are discussed. The probility another K was dealt is 16/45, and the probility it was played is less. And considering there was no raise, and people tend not to llike (play) these flops I would try to represent the K. (i feel like ive cheated but here goes...)
Betting doesn't look natural in this type of situation as most would check and call on the flop (im assumingn the flop is rainbow), and maybe checkraise the turn.
A reasonable play is to check and call if you are the next in after the initial bettor. If more players come, fold. (I suspect one could still try to repn the K if more come but if you checkraise the turn now it is more likely someone will continue esp if he has the K). Now hopefully all will fold behind you and then checkraise the turn and bet on the river if player fails to bet the turn. (if more come check and fold the turn (what could someone be calling w/?).
If more players come fold. It probably isn't worth it to continue to try to steal. What would someone call w/here who wasn't stealing?
If it gets checked around bet. It now appears theres a reasoable chance you have a K, and are now betting bc you don't want it to get checked around again.
A bit depends on your opponents, whether you would bet a flop like this if you had flopped trips etc. Could your opponent put you on this play bc he has read HFAP himself (And thus reraises on the turn?, you may have to fold here unless he's capable of folding on turn for another raise...)
... on the other hand, shoudl you bet on the flop bc you are betting into so many people your opponents might think there's no way youd try to steal from so many in a multiway pot, and most would fold.
I like the play to check and call if you are the first one after the first bettor, and folding otherwise, then checkraise the turn.
If checked around I would bet the turn, most would be especially reluctant to call here what to do if raised here really depends on the player...
There is no one right answer here except that it is almost never right to simply check and fold. In most games you should simply bet. Given you were playing with a partner, this situation would come up fairly often. For that reason you should also tend to bet those paired flops when you really did have trips.
evenn granting that noone else has a K (which is very likely but not certain) and that since you are in the blind you are in the best position to represent a K that was not worth raising, i still think that you have to fold if it is two bets back to you or if the whole field is in.
lots of players will not release a 4 or bettor here. if i bet the flop and it goes call, call, raise, cold call i am not putting in another bet. if i check and it goes bet call raise, i have to fold.
one exception to folding to 2 bets is if the bettor and the raiser are in latish position. you might be able to resteal with a 3 bet or delay the attempt until the turn. especially if these are players who would lay down 2 pair.
i don't think there are many exceptions to check/folding or bet/folding when the field appears to be large.
it is unfortunate but i think you have to often fold here even though you know noone has a K.
scott
Scott,
I like your answer. I think that the steal on the turn is obviously predicated on the turn card. Check-raising a rag on the turn is good, but against two players, hm, let's say when an A hits, that is suicide. I also think that colluders who practice these situations and get good at them can do very well.
Mark
The chances that a K is out there against is much lower than normal, but not at all remote. I'll guess at least 30% of the time you are against a K. It could be much higher if you have opponents who will play any suited K in any position (there are a few like this in my local 10-20 HE game).
Add to your difficulty that simply betting will not persuade every non-king hand to fold. So you should check and see what happens. If it is bet and raised before it gets back to you then fold. If it is bet and there are no callers between you and the bettor, then (check) raise.
Now if anyone cold calls the two bets you are beat. Check and fold on the turn. Even if they don't it will be difficult to play correctly if the bettor calls. In this case bet into your opponent on the turn, and fold if he raises. This is not a happy situation, because your opponent might raise with a pocket pair. Although he has the best hand, he would fold if you three-bet. But you don't know if he has a pocket pair or Kings. Still, most players will not do this, so I will say that it is correct to fold to a raise on the turn if you are head's up at that point.
Steve
Bet....fold if raised
Check-fold vrs an early bettor; check-raise vrs a late position better.
It depends on your image and whether people are aware of your image.
You might have better luck by checking the flop and, if someone in late position bets, call. If it is now heads up, you win!
Now either lead bet or checkraise the turn. This makes it look like you were slowplaying your trip kings. If he calls your reraise you might worry a little bit. If you bet on the river and get raised you obviously have to dump it in most cases. You might call if you are against a tricky player and made a pair of jacks on the way. Maybe he was on some kind of draw, suspected that you were bluffing, and tried to bluff raise you. Proceed with caution.
That's why I don't play on line poker. In a live game you can try to get a read on the player - you can't get the same impressions from a computer screen.
-SmoothB-
Is beating colluders ethical? The answer would seem to be an obvious YES.
Suppose you manage to identify colluders/cheats and the techniques and signals they are using. You now adjust your play to take advantage of this information. You can now identify situations where the team is raising out unsuspecting opponents and you can now put a move on the colluders and steal the pot. You are not one of the colluders, but you are directly benefiting from the collusion. Someone reviewing the play might think you are one of the colluders. Is this ethical?
I started trying to identify ways of identifying online colluders and possible ways of beating them at their own game. The problem I have is that I’m not comfortable with benefiting from cheating even though I’m not directly cheating myself.
About a year ago, I identified two cheats in a $10/20 Omaha High/Low game in Atlantic City. Two very good-looking women were playing at the table and being very friendly with the male players. The women were situated at opposite ends of the table. The women would show the men their hands when the men were out of the hand and the men reciprocated. Then when one woman was out of the hand and the other was in the hand you can probably guess what happened. The one woman then signaled her partner about the man’s hand. I adjusted my play and was able to steal several nice pots. I also folded several hands that I would have normally played. I walked away with a nice win, but felt guilty. Several players that I discussed this with were all of the same opinion, “If the men were stupid enough to show their cards then they got what they deserved.” I have difficulty agreeing with this position. No one deserves to be cheated.
You could report the colluders to the card room manager. My experience with card room managers is that they are not interested in investigating or stopping collusion. Online poker room managers seem to be the same.
The only ethical thing might be to not play.
I have a question using the theme of collusion that I would like to put forth, one that I and many other pros have had to deal with. There is a person in the game that has a piece of your action (you have no part of hers). Though you do not advertise this, a number of the players are aware of it. Your sole goal is to keep your reputation for good ethics intact. Do you alter your play so there is absolutely no appearance of collusion, and if so, how?
If there is a pot you are both in in which raising forced out all other parties, at the showdown you may both wish to show your hands without being asked to do so. Other variations on this theme may occasionally be relevant on earlier streets.
I would like to cite something that happened to me a few months back in the low limit weekly OM8 rebuy tournament ( at a casino which I will not name for obvious reasons.)
I finished second in the OM8 tournament (last four players did a chop-chop), and I had a nice win. When collecting the prize, I left a nice tip to the tournament person allocating the payoff money. The tip was only about 8 percent, but it turns out it was more then the other final four tipped and I guess it was much appreciated.
The next week after the first break in the OM8 tournament, I opted to only make one final $400 rebuy. Most players make the maximum final rebuys; i.e., two or three more $400 rebuys -- depending on how big their stack is.
When I came back after the break, I noticed that I had been given $800 in tournaments chips, but I only payed for $400 worth of rebuy chips. I was a little embarassed because the person selling the rebuys chips was the same person who I gave the $40 tip to on the previous week. Maybe this person made an honest mistake or maybe I had put down a twenty rather than a $10 bill. I'll never know. The moral of this tale is that there is many ways of cheating in a tournament which is transparent to most of the players.
Bob Ciaffone said, "Your sole goal is to keep your reputation for good ethics intact."
In the Talmud there is a code of conduct referred to as "Mares Eyan". It states that you do not put yourself in a situation where people might reach an unfavorable conclusion about you. So, if your ONLY goal is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety then play at separate tables.
It is the person who has the piece of you who could gain slightly from altering his play.
Beating colluders is ethical but you don't want to mess it up too much. A friend of mine used a baseball bat once and was not really happy with the results. Back home in Tirana, we used pocket knives a lot.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
s
Here is a real life story that happened in a LoBal tournament about 17 yrs ago in LA county CA. Two friends who had 50% of each others action were at the last table with about six players left. At the showdown, the friend with the best hand souped his hand so his friend(2nd best hand) would remain in the tournament. They told me this story so I guess it worked out OK for them. Of course something like this could backfire.
In over 30 years of playing poker I have never ONCE even THOUGHT about what do if I had a partner(s)in the game. I HAVE thought about almost every situation that can come up in a Hold-em game and many other poker games. I'm really not that bright so I have to sit down and think about things that have happened to me or things I think CAN happen and then reason them out so I can decide what to do when they come up again. This coupled with experience is how I learned to play.
These collusion questions are things I have never even considered. If I did think about them I would have no way of knowing if I was right or wrong except through experience. That and consultations with my partner(s). Eventually, I think I would hit on the right answers, but I'm sure not without a lot of trial and error.
The point of this post is to say that I believe most honest players have never thought about these situations. I would guess this is brand new material for 98% of the poker playing public.
I do think however, that there is insight to be gained for your regular poker game by thinking about these types of problems even though they relate to cheating.
old pro,
I agree and I am learning from them also.
paul
If it's decided "rationalized" that it's OK to collude on the Internet real money poker games -- because other people are probably colluding. Then I think that High-Low games would be the best games to practice collusion. I feel there would be more opportunities and they would be more clear cut -- i.e., less guesswork "particulary in Omaha 8". This is because it usually takes a nut hand to win in OM8. Subtle selective collusive cheating in OM8 would be hard to detect as it would be in Holdem, but (repeating myself) there would be more opportunities in OM8 with a higher probability of success.
When there is only one cheating team in an Internet OM8 game and I was a member of this team, then I would have a big advantage over the other players. Some of the reasons being:
(1) Frequently knowing when to release one of the hands
(2) Seeing more cards(partner's)-- examples for
Omaha 8 HiLo:
(2.1) Knowing that a king hi flush would be the nut
flush.
(2.2) If partner's blind hand contained two
deuces and I had the nut low with a deuce on
the River -- then I could probably raise with
little fear of being quartered.
(2.3) I'm in a big pot with A 3 suited, I miss the
nut flush draw on the river. but I have the
second nut low. If my partner has the nut low
then I can release the A 3 and save a BB.
with A 3 for low.
I could cite many more examples -- but I think most experts can easily figure them out by themselves.
You haven't even mentioned the biggest thing.
nmsg
Okay, I'll take a stab at it.
In O8 it is sometimes correct to fold even the nuts when you think it is very likely you will get quartered. A partnership can jam the pot to knock out nut and near nut lows.
On the flip side of this situation, you don't have to make such folds yourself when your partner is getting half of the pot. For example, if you have the nut low and your partner has the nut high (or close) and it is bet and raised to you. Sometimes you can be fairly certain that either the bettor or raiser has the nut low and you will get quartered, which forces you to fold. But since you have a parnter getting half, you can call.
Steve
What about being able to jam confidently when one of you has the nuts in each direction. EG I have nut flush, you have nut low, we get to jam in the full house draws etc. This seems so obvious that I really didn't believe noone else had seen it... So if somehow even after checking twice I am wrong and someone else did mention this, feel free to call me stupid.
In response to DS:
"You haven't even mentioned the biggest thing."
If the biggest thing is also the most obvious thing -- then maybe that is why I didn't mention it. But please explain. Thank you.
My opinion or thought was that a cheating team in hi-lo (actually in any poker game on the Internet)who caught a third player with a losing hand in a cross-fire and capped the pot would be exposed and barred from playing at that Internet site.
A response to DS concerning:
"You haven't even mentioned the biggest thing."
What I would consider the biggest thing would be connected to the Internet Poker Site providing the action. For example....
Back in the late sixties or maybe in the seventies, there was a seven card stud scam going on in the first original MGM casino in Las Vegas, Nevada(they once had a fire there). If I recall correctly, it was executed by a dealer and a confident man player in the #1 seat. Supposedly the dealer knew the hole cards for all the players and signaled to the player in the number one seat when he should play or fold. I think the MGM card room was shut down on two different occasions by the authorities because of this type of cheating. Consider the Internet poker site....
The Poker Internet casino could have an array of many players(cheats of course) who take part in these games. They could also change these player's names at will and the honest players would not have the foggiest idea what is going on.... Also....
With readily available software the Internet poker site could/can easily know every players down cards. If the casino was dishonest, then the players playing for the site could make a killing for the casino -- like "candy from a baby". I'm sure the poker Internet sites already have this software whether they are honest or dishonest. If the sites were honest then this software could be used to help detect team cheaters external to the casino.
I would also like to mention another thing along this line of thought. Many poker rooms employ proposition players or maybe even shills to start poker games. I would be surprised if Internet poker sites did not have something similar to this to start poker games. After all, the more games going the more money you make. Now proposition players have to be paid. So the thing to do is use good computer software programs to simulate "be" proposition players. These types of players don't have to be paid and would be a big savings "salary wise" to the Internet poker site. Also computer generated players don't tell tales if they are fired -- real people do (and I heard some good stories from touts who worked in the sports betting busines).
I would like to read other opinions on subject connected to this thread.
Regards Bill
Well I suspect the "biggest thing", is the ability to jam the pot whenever you like if you have partner. You can often do this for value, not just to squeeze someone else out (though doing this at the right times is very good too). This is a tremendous edge.
For example suppose on the river you have a scooping hand and have 4 other players (including your partner). If this was a legit game you pbly would win only 3-4 bets. however now you (your team) could win considerably more maybe even 16.
Things would probably be even better in high low split game w/declare!
Does anyone know of a website where I can find the results of all the events ever held at the World Series of Poker. Conjelco only goes back to 1995.
I'm not talking about just the winners. I'd like to get recaps of the hands, etc.
Thanks in advance for any responses.
You can get all the winners at www.tocpoker.com No reports though.
Regards,
Richard
www.pokerpages.com and then hit tournements. Check in the month of May.
You're in the small blind with Qh-10s, your partner has 10h-10c on the button. Two fairly loose mid-position limpers, Big Blind is weak-tight. How should your partner and then you proceed?
I think the 10s are likely the best hand preflop and should raise. If an A or K comes off, the SB should either bet out a la Question #5 or checkraise the 10s.
You should probably both fold.
TT can win unimproved, but I'd rather not take the flop where I know that my chances of flopping a set with it have been cut in half. Any card AKQJ could make a better hand, if I'm gonna play the TT I need to raise preflop to drive out the big blind, and when I do so my partner with QT should fold, so it's not even like we might win if a Q hits. So, that's 15 overcards that might kill my hand on the flop, and only 1 out for a redraw (when needed).
Maybe there is a more profitable team play, but folding and folding seems best this time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you're discounting the value of the unimproved TT too much. Sure, you won't make a set, but how often does that happen anyway?
A preflop raise indicates either big cards or a high pair. If overcards come on the flop and your partner bets out, the field has to fear a raise from you and therefore can't get cute unless they're actually ahead of you. So I think you become a playing favorite.
Call, call. Not even close.
Why are you spreading the knowledge of 'how to collude'? It is clearly not in the best interest of poker, paradise poker, or their advertising on your website.
Danny
I dutifully left David Sklansky's name out of the title of this thread. He requested that a while back and God or Oz knows I'm so afraid of the guy that I will respect his wishes.
Last night at Bellagio's, that's in Las Vegas Nevada for all you novices, I observed our hero playing in a $80-160 mixed game. Mixed stands for Holdem and some other silly games, not coed, in this instance. I decided to post this for you doubters that think the mighty Oz only talks about poker.
This part is a little regression and can be skipped. Just thought it might be interesting to some. Earlier I had played in a noon Holdem tournament at the Orleans. $20 buy in with rebuys. My game plan was to make one rebuy and do the add on at the end of the rebuy period and spend the minimum I thought was necessary to take a shot at the prize. Just before the first cards were dealt, to my amazement, Daniel Negreanu, sat down right next to me. Daniel explained that he was just killing some time and was playing in the tournament just for fun and in an effort to get back on a regular schedule. We won't get into that. Well the best layed plans of mice and men are sometimes reduced to "well it was a good idea" by unforseen or unprepared for events. Daniel had come to play and play he did. And raise became his calling card. His play became infectuous. Chips were flying, rebuys were buying and a partridge in a pear tree was crying. I too, undisciplined sloth that I am, was diverted from my money management goal and soon found four rebuy reciepts in front of me. At the end of the rebuy period even after buying the max chips I could I was low man on the chip pole. Daniel who may have rebought 10 or more times had more than twice as many chips. I began to think I had been taught a lesson from a successful tournament player. I was a little depressed because I felt my good play was going unrewarded. I was playing good, yes. In fact it wasn't until the final table that I made two mistakes, the second influenced by the results of the first. The point of this diversion is that there is no point of this diversion. Daniel was knocked out early and I finished Seventh out of 81. Go figure!
Back to Sklansky. BTW, I put all this in one thread because I am lazy. So sue me. I watched this hand from the rail. David was in the cut off seat. Barry Shulman was on the button. Not that it matters but I am a name dropper and his is a familiar name to CP readers. A mid positon plyer raised and David got it heads up by three betting. The flop came J high I couldn't see the suits but I could tell they were not all the same suit. Check to David, he bet and was called. The turn was a K. Check and Daveid checked. A blank came on the river. Bet to David and David folded. Now tell me, is that anyway to play poker!
Vince.
What's the big deal? Who hasn't bet with nothing after having raised pre-flop and decided to bail after Bad King John hit the board on the turn. At least he got to see the river for free.
Sounds like David had AQ to me (or TT?). Once this opponent called the flop bet, DS was sure he was behind, and prudently took the free card, and folded the river when he was beat. Unless there was good reason to think he was ahead, or good reason to think he could push this player off the pot, what else could he do?
Vince, how did you do in that game? And when will we see your ugly mug cracking the mirrors at Foxwoods again?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Nothing extraordinary here. Even the great David Sklansky has to lay down a hand once in awhile. Like the FossilMan observed he probably had AQ suited or maybe pocket Tens and decided to 3 bet in order to isolate the player with him having position. When checked to on the flop, Sklansky takes a shot on the cheap street by betting. When his lone opponent calls he figures he is beat and when the turn brings another over card he correctly takes a free card. When the river is a blank and he is bet into he correctly folds. These little jabs pre-flop and on the flop followed by backing off on the expensive streets are the trademarks of a top player.
I agree with Jim, and I also now feel better about making this same play myself.
mick wrote: "I also now feel better about making this same play myself."
The very reason I began this thread myself. Of course I didn't realize that until I read mick's response. Sometimes the simplest movement is the most beautiful part of the song. And of course Jim Brier and Fossilman, et al, are correct in their analysis. The reason behaind Sklansky's play should be obvious. If not I suggest one reread 2+2 poker material.
Vince
(Note to Fossilman: I'll see you at the TOC. I haven't forgotten the $100 I owe for my 5%)
As you may have noticed my spelling is so bad that I spelled my name wrong in the previous post. Hey, Las Vegas will do that to you! I saw this young woman at Bellagio last night and oh the memories she brought up. Er... I mean rekindled. Vegas will do that to you also. Rekindle memories that is. Old men should take a visit here and forget about Viagra. What a country!
While we are on the subject: Kudo's to Dan Hansen on his Poker Digest article. He goood! Not a bad looking fellow either. That is if you like your men with hair on their heads. Well I don't like men at all, at least not in that way. Just thought I'd clarify that for you mach types out there. The article is worth reading. Also I am reading John Feeneys book. I am skipping around as John suggested. I think I'm gonna like it! Wait and see.
Vince.
Jim wrote: "These little jabs pre-flop and on the flop followed by backing off on the expensive streets are the trademarks of a top player."
I agree that reraising pre-flop to isolate an opponent is a sign of a strong player...but I'm not so sure about the rest of the statement. Are top players really more likely than the rest of us to bluff/semi-bluff on the flop and back-off on the turn? When facing only one or two opponents, would not top players be more likely to follow-through on the turn after betting the flop?
It depends but in general no. Some players are always trying to win the pot by just bettting away on every round with no hand and hoping their opponent will fold. The top players are more selective and frequently back off on the turn and river after showing aggression on the cheap streets especially when they have hardly any outs and they have a good read on their opponent. Steve Badger once wrote an article in Cardplayer about how costly it is to try and win every pot you are involved. Badger emphasized that maximizing your chances of winning the pot through spurious betting will cost many aspiring players lots of money over the course of a year. Aggression is important in poker but selective aggression is even more important.
I suspect my different perception is attributable to the low limit players against whom I usually play. Many of these players will call one bet on the flop with extremely weak hands, then routinely fold on the turn when they do not improve. Against such players, it is seldom correct to semi-bluff the flop and check the turn/river IMO.
From the tone of this letter, I suppose we are to assume that the player discussed here made an error. I am not a good enough player to decide if this is true without seeing anyone's hand, and can draw no conclusion whatsoever from the meager evidence presented.
Ciaffone wrote:
"I am not a good enough player to decide if this is true without seeing anyone's hand, "
Before he wrote that he wrote:
"From the tone of this letter, I suppose we are to assume that the player discussed here made an error. "
From these two statements "I suppose" I am to Ass-U-Me that Bob Ciaffone can interpret the "tone" of a letter but is not able to analyse a hand with all the information present. Maybe he, Ciaffone, would be a better "tone" analyzer than poker author. Just a thought.
Vince.
"...Bob Ciaffone can interpret the tone of a letter, but is not able to analyze a hand with all the information present."
With "all" the information present? ALL!
Far from it, not even close. And that was Bob's point when he said, "..., and(I)can draw no conclusion from the meager evidence presented."
Long ago I swore to never read a Vince Leper post again. I break my vow based on the interesting names listed below his with this thread. Now I find that this jerk is doing his best to piss off Bob Ciaffone, a poker personality who's boots Vince is unfit to lick. I won't make this mistake again.
/
"Long ago I swore to never read a Vince Leper post again."
That'll learn ya! Stay happy! Do yourself a favor! Stay away from anything that has Vince Lepore as the poster. Be happy with Bob ciaffone. I am!
Vince.
Vince,
What's your point? DS can have just about anything. Are you or the rest of the posters knieve enough to think he plays the way he writes? DS is capable of three betting with anything from pocket Two's to Ace rag suited.
Bruce
Making the right play is dependent on your opponent. Against some you should bet on 4th st. and check the river, against some you should bet both on 4th and the river, against some you should check on 4th and fold if bet into on the river, against some you should check the turn and if checked to on the river bet, against some you should check the turn and call on the river with no pair, and against some you should check on the turn and raise on the river if bet into.
You should not end a sentence with a preposition. I don't care how long it is.
Nyuk. Or, as Churchill put it when rebuked for his bad grammar, "Ma'am ending sentences with a preposition is not something up with which I will put."
Being compared to to Churchill wow!
For those of you that found value in the hand that I posted in the beginning of this thread try the Following. For the rest of you like Big Fan that find my posts a waste of time go and do something else. Please!
Remember before you read this that you must have found some value in the hand I described that Oz played. This is a very simple non complex hand. I found this hand intesting mainly because of the participants. I believe it, like the first hand, shows a very important aspect of poker. That is, that poker playing, once understood, is for the most part a simple endeavor. Keep in mind though that to make the game simple requires a lot of knowledge and experience.
Act one scene one: Bellagio's
30 - 60 Holdem.
Yours truly: On the rail, watchin. I don't play 30-60 Holdem. Too rich for my blood and bankroll right now.
Preflop: Pass to the button. Button raises.
Small Blind: Reraise.
BB: Fold.
Button call.
Flop: Js,Tc,9s
SB: Bet
Button: Call.
Turn: 5d.
SB: Bet
Button: Thinks for 5-8 seconds. Raise!
SB: Thinks momentarily and calls.
River: 2h.
SB: Check
Button: Check.
SB shows pocket Queens.
Button folds.
Button: A female, California style (aggressive), player.
SB: Roy Cooke.
Note: There is no hidden meaning nor "tone" hidden in this post. I believe the hand speaks for itself. I hope it helps some of you to gain a better understanding of expert play. One can argue that the hand is so simple that a child could play it correctly and not an example of expert play. Nothing could be further from the truth. At least not the way I see it!
Vince.
Vince.
For some of us beginners, how about you annotate the hand somewhat. Explain YOUR perspective on it. I know that I would learn a great deal from your explanation.
Mark Dodd
Mark for what it is worth I will give you my perspective. Pre-flop when everyone folds to the button who opens with what could easily be a steal-raise, a good player in the small blind will usually re-raise on any kind of half decent holding as well as any premium holdings. Good players do this for several reasons: 1) Get more money in the pot when they have the best hand, 2) Force the big blind to pay two more bets to take a flop or fold, and 3) Send a message to the potential stealer that crime does not always pay.
When the flop comes, Roy has both an over pair and an open ended straight draw plus only one opponent. His choice is to either bet or check. With this board and one opponent he must bet given his pre-flop re-raise. He does not want to give out a free card to an Ace. If his opponent has any piece of that board he will stay given the pot size so Roy is betting both the best hand and possibly the best draw.
On the turn when a blank comes, Roy keeps betting what he assumes is the best hand plus he has outs in case his hand is not the best. When raised, Roy prudently calls instead of re-raising because the flop was highly coordinated and his opponent has now shown strength and could easily have two pair or even a straight.
At the river when another blank falls there is no point in Roy betting now so he checks planning to call any river bet. His opponent decided to check it down perhaps because she had a busted draw and did not feel that a river bet would get Roy to fold or perhaps she had a hand she could show down like a big Ace or a pocket pair.
This is hand is informative because it shows that a top player like Roy Cooke plays his hands in a straight forward manner when faced with a simple situation like this one. He took control of the hand when he thought he had the best of it and backed off when he got some heat. Also note that he avoided any check-raise or slow play nonsense.
Good Post Vince!
JIm, Thanks for your perspective. Simple, but interesting
I found your annotation informative, but I wonder if there isn't a good argument for betting the river.
With that kind of flop, its true there's a lot of way that Roy can be beat, however it seems theres even more combinations of a mediocre holding plus a draw. I'm thinking of hands like K-J through Q-9. While there is certainly a chance that the button is raising on the turn with a hand that beats Queens, my guess would have been that it was a pair with a card on the board (maybe even a late raise with A-J) who was trying to get a free river if no improvement and an extra bet on the end if the draw was made or the pair turned into a set.
It's a risky bet, but if a blank comes on the end I would probably bet out. Then again, if your read is that this person would not call unless they specifically had top pair and good kicker and waited to the turn to raise then the likelihood of being called by a hand that you beat would diminish substantially.
The other problem Andy with betting the river is that you will get raised by a better hand so you are risking 2 bets to win 1 since you will be obliged to call the raise with your big over pair.
(n/t)
x
Jim,
When you say, "a good player in the small blind will usually re-raise on any kind of half-decent holding as well as any premium holdings."
What would be the minimum hands you would re-raise with in this situation(when sending a message to a possible stealer)?
Dan
I would 3 bet with pocket Sixes or better. I would 3 bet with Ace-Ten offsuit, Ace-Nine suited, King-Queen offsuit, and King-Jack suited or better.
.
"This is hand is informative because it shows that a top player like Roy Cooke plays his hands in a straight forward manner when faced with a simple situation like this one. He took control of the hand when he thought he had the best of it and backed off when he got some heat."
Jim did an excellant job on annotating the hand in question but I think the above statement from his post best summarizes the way I felt about this situation in which Cooke found himself. Notice that Cooke could have played the hand in a number of ways. He could have just called the preflop raiser. Certainly a bad play given that the big blind is yet to act but it was one possibility. He could have tried for a check raise on the flop. An aggressive player may have over played the hand on the turn and reraised, another poor play, IMO. Another option, a bad one IMO, would be to bet the river as someone suggested. Even though the original bettor raised from the button that is no gaurantee that she doesn't have a hand. The hand is very simple as Jim pointed out and Cooke's playing of the hand is the lesson. It was, IMO, a beautiful employment of the KISS principle.
Vince.
Well, Vince, I know that I learned stuff from this simple hand that you posted and I thank you (as well as Jim Brier of course).
One more question, what is the KISS principle?
KISS stands for Keep It Simple Stupid. It means that it is frequently correct to play your hand in a simple, straight-forward manner as opposed to trying to be tricky or fancy. The term was originated in the world of bridge where the game was getting cluttered with so many artificial bids that it was frequently confusing to your partner as to what you were doing. The KISS concept was introduced to eliminate a lot of the fancy, artificial bids.
The frontrunner is that person who is ahead of the field in any particular endeavor. They generally get a lot of flack.
1
Jim,
Given you formally worked for NASA, I am surprised you have ever heard of KISS ;-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Great job in your post getting into Roy's head.
Vince,
Who the hell gave you internet access? What were they thinking?
JOhn
"Who the hell gave you "
JOhn, Did you say that you teach english? Cancel my enrollment for next semester! I didn't know that you meant the Queen's English.
Vince
(BTW - Is there a hidden meaning in capitalizing the O in JOhn or can't you type either?)
Vince,
I used to misunderstand your posts too. I used to think that they were just random babbling, but after reading a lot of them, and then THINKING about what you said instead of just assuming it was nonsense, I LEARNED a lot.
Sometimes I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I think that is usually because I am still just beginning to learn poker. I have decided that anytime I don't understand what you are trying to say, I'm just going to ask, because I'm sure there is something I can learn.
Just thought I'd let you know, since you get so many negative comments about your posts.
Mark Dodd
Of course Vince gets a lot of negative comments, they always pick on the frontrunner.
Frontrunner of what? Don't really understand this, sorry.
I understand what a frontrunner is, I just don't understand what Vince is the frontrunner of.
something along the lines of "vince is most likely going to be the first poster to emerge as a great player at the middle and higher limits."
it should be noted that vince, the co-president (with jamesh) of the scott fan club, denied this honor. he insisted (incorrectly) that it would be me.
i think that the issue rests on what david meant by 'great' and 'emerge'. and whether john is disqualified now that he has written a book. because john is already beating 80-160. so i guess he is the first. at least, i have him picked in the pool.
scott
I beg to differ with Jim and Vince. The button’s play was an obvious play. Since the button knew she would have to pay off no matter what, she puts two bets in on the turn and when she doesn’t improve on the river she shows down the hand. If she improves she bets and Roy calls and Roy probably loses the pot. If Roy re-raises he makes it expensive to draw out and he does have some outs if he’s beaten on the turn. She may call on the river as well when a blank hits.
"I beg to differ with Jim and Vince" "I beg to differ with Jim and Vince"
Tom,
Not understanding what you are differing with I decided to say it twice.
"The button’s play was an obvious play."
I never said anything different. There is certainly an "obiviousness" to the button's play. But does that make Cooke's check on the river any less correct? Certainly there are a number of drawing hands that should make the play that the button made but from Cook's perspective and were I playing the hand mine, the most correct and simplest play is to check and call the river. We could get list the buttons possible hands and those that she would most likely still call a bet on the river and after doing a lengthy analysis I believe we would conclude that the best play was to simply check and call the river. But as usual, Tom, I respect your opinion.
Vince
I'll make a confession that since I knew the results of the hand it was easy for me to see what happened and come up with the "right" answer. I was trying to stimulate some discussion. I believe I understand your basic point and I agree with it. However, I believe that David and Mason would say that all of the options were not being considered. I believe that they would also state a probability estimate for each option should be made in light of the size of the pot before determining the right play. Analyzing these situations correctly is usually a very involved process. Of course I try to do this away from the table so when it comes up again (it always does) I am prepared.
I am wondering if someone can tell me what the best books are for pot limit play. The games I am interested in are Holdem and Omaha High.
I am interested in learning the nuances of this style of play even though I am still new to the game of holdem.
I will appreciate all suggestions and reviews. At the moment I am only aware of two books, Ciaffone's and Cloutier's. Please review these and point me in the direction of any other books on this topic that I should be considering.
Mark Dodd
Ciaffone's Omaha book is absolutely essential IMO. Also the book he wrote with Stewart Reuben, "Pot Limit and No Limit Poker". Cloutiers Omaha and Hold'em books are also valuable.
Regards,
Richard
I agree with Richard. Cloutier's book is good, Ciaffone's is better. Maybe this post contains nothing new but a second opinion never hurts.
Andy.
I am curious what the the rake on a poker cruise is. I see that Card Player touts it all the time. It would seem that the rake would have to be higher that in a casino as it would have to cover the additional cost associated with the cruise.
Anybody know from experience?
Russ
10% up to $4 max has been my experience.
I usually play $10-$20 up to $20-$40 7-card stud. I am fairly proficient at reading my opponents, but occasionally I will run into a player who is hard to read. I was playing the other evening with someone like this. One hand he bet it all the way to the river and then showed down one pair (which lost to two pair). Another hand, he bet much the same way, but showed down a full house on the end. The guy played perhaps 75% of his hands, and he would see 4th street at least 90% of the time.
It is very difficult to put him on a hand because he is likely to play anything. My question is, how do you play someone like this that is difficult to read? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Short 'n' Sweet answer: I'd only play top hands against him...if you can't read him, no sense in guessing what he's holding.
I think an important piece of information is how often he bets all the way to the river when he is in. If its rarely then it means he bets only solid hands but may bluff once in a while.
If he's playing as many hands as you say then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he usually doesn't have anything. It may not matter if you can't tell WHICH hands he really does.
There is something amiss here. Its perfectly reasonable to bet one pair all the way to the river. If I raise with Kings and get called by a Jack who doesn't seem to improve, then HEY! I'll bet it for value on the river. If THAT bet is unprofitable then I should be ramming draws down his throat often.
But to answer your question: you should objectively observe how he plays certain hands and whether he'll play the same hand the same way almost every time.
- Louie
U Make the call:Card Room Control -- OM8 game
This incident occurred last night at the Hawaiian Garden's CA casino: A 6-12 OM8 pot with about $60 in the pot. After the river card, they was a possible flush, no low possible, and no pair on board.
Player A: bet $12. "on the river"
Player B: "all-in" called $2.
Player C: (sitting on player A's right), quickly and forcefully shoved back $10 of Player A's $12 bet and only called $2 and then "Player C" quickly showed two pair(aces-up).
Player A then showed the nut flush and won the pot. The dealer insisted that player C put $10 in the pot to complete his call. Player C responded, "I would call $2 but not $12." Player A player gestured with his hands to let it slide and mumbled, "that's OK." (End of incident)
U MAKE THE CALL:
What if player A did not have the flush and player C had the best hand with Aces-Up. Could player C claim the pot? I don't think so. I would have objected and called the floorman for a decision. After the showdown, I'm sure that player C would put the $10 into the pot if he had the best hand, but then it would have been too late.
Maybe player C just wanted to give $2 to the pot winner. I don't think so.
Background on players A and C: Maybe this is a moot point -- but I would like to mention that both players A and C were Korean immigrants. Player A a a kind timid gentleman at the poker table. Player C is a loud aggressive player who somewhat forcefully pounds bets into the poker table for effect. Also player C is a big prop at this casino who was playing on his own time.
Would you report this incident to casino management?
If its OK with A then let it go. If I were A I would ask if he was calling and when I got ANY positive response (such as "I'll call $2") I would call the floor and insist on the rest.
If you believe C is unethical or annoying and is a Prop then report it to management.
- Louie
You're being far too tolerant of this cheater. Occasional mistakes or boorish behavior can be overlooked, but money is money. If it were my cardroom, C pays up the $10 or picks up his chips and leaves, and if I tries to give him back the $8, I tell him "no passing chips", or else he's gone too.
Player C was totally wrong for touching another player's chips. No doubt there. Secondly, he HAS to call the ENTIRE 12$ bet (since he is not all-in) or fold. Calling only 2$ is NOT AN OPTION. I would not have let this one stand, especially if player C is both obnoxious and employed as a prop by the casino. He was blatantly wrong. I would not tolerate that crapola at my table whether dealer or player. NO DICE.
Dave in Cali
Being a realatively young poker player, these are some of the things that I hope I can add to my box of wisdom. I hope someone reading this will be able to put these observances in a new order of importance if I am wrong.
I believe that In the grand scheme of things poker is
1. Card Selection
2. Having the highest mathematical edge possible while contesting a pot.
3. The ability to read your opponents and guess their hands.
4. The ability to detach yourself emotionally from the game as much as possible, to think logically, and not emotinally.
Rock
Game selection should be #1, I believe.
1. Game Selection
2. Card Selection
3. Having the highest mathematical edge possible while contesting a pot.
4. The ability to read your opponents and guess their hands.
5. The ability to detach yourself emotionally from the game as much as possible, to think logically, and not emotinally.
Your ability to exquisitely and effectively do 1, 2, 3, and 4, is entirely dependent upon your ability to fully and consistently access the mental state you describe in no.5. No.5 therefore is no.1. Game selection would be 2. The ability to play well (and thus maximize your mathematical edge in the long run) is no.3.
I recommend reading Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays II for a complete discussion of what's important. (Poker Skills parts 1 & 2).
1. Whether to play on 3rd street which constitutes the knowledge of card values, position and mathmetics of the game
2. A close 2nd is Game Selection which is not always possible if you get assigned a table. You must be willing to adjust your style to the game until the table you want opens up.
3. The others are a distant 3rd. When loosing, you have to be able to analyze why and adjust and make believe you are starting at "zero".
I don't think there is an order of importance because all these things (and many more) are needed to win. There is, however, an order in which they can be learned.
I'd say that the first thing to attack would be card selection, because it can be done away from the table by reading books, visiting web sites and reading boards.
Game selection will grow in importance as your increasing skills afford you more options.
Having the highest matematical edge can mean many things, but will also increase as you acquire the skills on your list, and others such as position.
Reading opponents takes a lot of experience. Gaining the experience will take some money. Knowledge of hand selection and game selection can give you the playing time needed.
Detachment is a disciple that, like hand reading, takes time and experience to acquire.
If I were gathering wisdom I'd start with hand selection, and, if I had playing options, game selection.
Good luck. Whatever you do, have fun.
Luck is #1. All of poker is based on the hope that luck will win the day for you. Either in the form of "please don't let the other guy get lucky on me" or "please let me get lucky". It's always one or the other.
natedogg
Luck has nothing to do with it. Zero zip nada.
Winnning players rely on playing good cards in the right position and out thinking their opponents.
Sure on a hand by hand basis and even on a given session luck might swing things but if I thought luck was the deciding factor in over all poker success I'd go back to playing the horses - I enjoyed them more but can't make as much money.
Rock,
Those are important but as you move up in limit the big thing is developing your skills to the expert or near expert level, focus, and getting into your opponents heads (BTW, don' put your mind into their heads!). Not tilting is a given.
The biggest thing is game selection, especially where you have a choice.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I agree with you completely about game selection. One of the best things that I have learned to do in my poker carrer is to look for tables with lots of chips on it and lots of loose callers (loose players). I have sat at too many tables with Rocks like myslef that don't make the pots worthwihile, and I end up loosing to the collection on the button
Rock
Rock,
Position is a very great advantage. If you are the button, do some creative betting based on your high cards strength.
Domination is another, you have to get rid of players on the draw (especially if they are weak) and play with confidence against your opponents. Never show weakness, never falter in your betting.
The following is possibly the worst ruling I've ever witnessed. It happened at Hollywood Park yesterday and I was just curious what others thought:
Hold'em before the flop several callers (probably 4) before it gets around to the big blind who finally looks at his cards to see if he is to check or raise. When he looks at his cards, he discovers three and tells the dealer immediately. The dealer calls the floorman who takes several minutes before coming over (beside the point, but illustrates the incompetence). When the floorman arrives, he declares the big blind hand dead and tells the dealer to continue the hand. How insane is this?! So, basically, the bigblind is being penalized for the dealer's mistake.
Fortunately, the other players in the hand were gentlemanly enough to agree to give the big blind his money back. However, now they're the ones who are penalized because there is no blind money in the pot.
I think the proper ruling would be to give everyone their bets back and re-deal the hand.
I believe the big blind should have realized that he had an improper number of cards before action began. Each player is responsible for making sure he has only two cards and he should not wait until the action starts before pointing this out to the dealer. Players are responsbile for protecting their own hands which include making sure they have two cards and not one, three, or some other number. The ruling was correct.
Actually this happened to me in an O/8 game when I was the blind. The floor declared my hand dead but gave me back my blind money w/o any problem.
I think this is the correct ruling. Very often players wait until it is their turn to act to look at their cards, now if they find they have 3 (in a Holdem game) somewhere in the middle of the actions (say the 5the player just called) then what? Should the blind surrender 1/2 of his blind money? This seems wrong also.
The real issue is if anyone is at error it is the dealer and the blind should not be penalized. There is also this rule which said action cannont be terminated once it starts. So although maybe the first player or two got a slightly unfair deal (entered the pot w/less money in it than there truly was), in the ineterest of fairness and gentlemanly conduct the blind should be given his money back.
Finally if you should insist the blind should play you should give him 2 cards to play and dicard his current hand (and show it to the table).
You need to distinguish between looking at the face of the cards to see what your hand is (okay to wait until your turn) and simply gathering in your hand. A player should take in the cards immediately, both to protect his hand and make sure the right number of cards were dealt. A player who fails to do this is subject to penalty, either by getting his hand fouled by discards or having a dead hand by having the wrong number of cards. He does not deserve to get his money refunded, shorting the pot for the other players, because he failed to take this elemental poker precaution. The dealer sometimes deals two cards stuck together, and is not to blame for this type of error. If the player has three cards because the dealer filed to stop at the button after the second card was dealt, this is very noticable and will be caught.
Bob,
You make great points as usual. Perhaps I need some advice. In my post below, I mention that I sometimes allow the very low limit player to get his blind money back. I used the work “cajole” but that is not entirely accurate.
So you don't get the wrong impression, I would only do this if it is a multi-way pot (where the blind money would hardly be missed), the player has three cards because they were stuck together (as opposed to him reaching and intermingling the third card dealt), and it is very apparent that the players want this anyway since often several will say at once “why not let him have his blind back” (I'm speaking of 2/4 holdem with recreational players). If I do so, I do warn the player that this is a "one time break" that I can only allow it since no one objects and mention how they can protect their hand (but not as well as you describe above – that will change).
Now I wonder if I should consistently have them forfeit the blind money no matter how low the limit and no matter how friendly the table. After all, I am making a dangerous precedent and it will cost them in the future if they move up in limit. And your explanation above on why they need to protect their hand is priceless.
My question is this: Should I never make exceptions for friendly low limit tables or is what I am doing acceptable? Are there any times I should allow a break at the tiny limits in matters such as these? I have the utmost respect for your opinion on these matters and clip your rule columns.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Please don't think I can be bullied on decisions. For example, I will not call a misdeal (by players tossing their weak hands in the muck) before I reach the table if the situation doesn’t warrant it. My decision is based on how much action there was when the mistake was first discovered, not how many hands are currently in the muck.
jdca,
I knew I would regret opening this thread (too much like work ;-).
Jim is right. The correct ruling is that if action has taken place in two or more spots before the mistake is discovered, then the hand is dead and the blind money if forfeited. That is the rule at Hollywood Park (and most of the Los Angeles clubs) and the floorman was right (it could have been me it is so routine).
The dealers are human and will make mistakes. I believe ours (at Hollywood Park) are among the best. But how hard do you want to be on them when you consider that lately they have been going six or more tables in a row without a break (because so many have been calling in sick).
Given the realities of dealer fatigue, a careful player will track his hand as it is dealt to him. When he spots the three card deal, he speaks up right away and a misdeal will be declared.
That being said, in low limit games I can often cajole the table into returning the blind money to the player with three cards. There are usually so many bets in the pot the blind is hardly missed ;-).
Regards,
Rick
"But how hard do you want to be on them when you consider that lately they have been going six or more tables in a row without a break (because so many have been calling in sick)."
Rick put Vince to work once he gets there I'm sure he'd be a quick train and he's already been sick or is that still sick!!
paul
Paul,
I can't believe he says he was already at hollywood Park, saw me in a game, but did not introduce himself. Could he have been pulling my leg?
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
He may be everything you say but he wouldn't lie. He'll be back!!!
paul
Your "worst ruling ever" was actually the correct ruling. A player has an obligation to find out if he has the correct number of cards before action starts. Once a hand has progressed to a certain point, it is a go. The exact defining of this point varies with the cardroom, but no room would call a misdeal after a couple of players have put money into the pot to call or raise.
I really can't believe what the consensus is and frankly I think this rule is very unfair. If we carry this rule to its logical extreme maybe its fairness will be easier to evaluate...
First note a player may take his cards put a chip on them, under the impresssion he has 2 cards. Then when he looks he discovers he has 3 cards. Has he really done something wrong?
I suppose someone will tell me the blinds get their cards befor everyone esle, and the first things they should do is verify they have 2 cards...
Suppose someone posts a late position blind one off the button quite a few act before he gets his 2nd (and 3rd) card. SHould he have to forfeit his hand (and blind money?) What if another player (say on the button) see alot of players acting before he gets his card(s) and then sees he collected 3 instead of 2? Is he forced to fold?
Frankly it seems alot of people have a great reverance for rules for their own sake and are not sensitive enough to the rule's intent. It seems to me since in these noted situations shoudl the player realize he has 3(or more) cards he should notify the dealer at which point he dealer should turn up the 3 cards, and deal the player (hopefully) 2 (and only 2) new cards and the action continue.
Thus I think either a)the blind should be allowed to reclaim his blind money if he cannot play b)the blind should be given 2 new cards. I really think b) is fairest.
Now what happens when someone (who thought) he had 2 cards showsdown w/3 I wont comment on (yet).
Other than the fact that the player who wasn't paying attention in the blind now gets to see 5 cards, I think your "b" solution is a great idea. Although, I guess we could just take his word for the fact that he hadn't looked at them?
I always remind myself that the dealer isn't risking any money on a hand, so doesn't the player have as much if not more responsibility than the dealer for making sure things are done correctly?
I didn't think anyone would respond to my post.
I think w/b) all of the BB's cards are turned face up. I still contend the dealer made an error though maybe one which was beyond his control and it is hard to fault a player for having 3 cards as he really didn't have any control over the situation.
The Orleans is having their big annual poker tournament here in Vegas over the next two weeks to be followed by the Tournament Of Champions. I have never played in a tournament and know nothing about them. However, I picked up a cash summary sheet for the Omaha Hi-Lo event on July 9. There were 551 entrants with each player putting up $160. Of this amount, $30 is for administrative fees so only $130 goes into the prize pool. I also noticed that to win as little as $210 you had to place 40th out of 551 players. Consider the following observations:
1. Only about 80 cents on the dollar is being returned to the players so the house is keeping about 20%. This is far worse than playing basic strategy at blackjack, making the pass line bet with odds at craps, or even roulette.
2. In order to even get your money back you have to beat over 90% of the competition. When I play in ring games I don't have to beat 90% of the players to make money much less break even.
3. If you are a winning poker player then time is money. The number of hours you play in a tournament and fail to win represent hours of profit you could have made playing in ring games.
4. If you get lucky and win any serious money you have to pay federal income taxes which further reduces your gain.
Based on the above, I think tournaments are ripoffs and good players are better off spending their time playing in ring games with a reasonable rake.
What does everyone else think?
4. If you get lucky and win any serious money you have to pay federal income taxes which further reduces your gain.
i think that you are kinda supposed to pay federal income taxes on monies won in ring games too.
(n/t)
i guess everyone knows now.
just kidding. jim i enjoy reading your posts. thanks for taking the time to contribute on so many different threads.
What you're supposed to do, and what you can get away with, have nothing to do with one another. If I want to avoid paying taxes on my tourney wins, I can lie about my ring game play, and make up some losses to cover the tourney wins. Just like you could choose to lie about your ring game play, and say it never happened.
All I'm saying is, it should be a non-issue for most people.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Jim, I absolutely believe you are correct. I only enter the free-roll invitational tournaments where there are about 220 entrants with only the top 9-10 % paid, but entry is free. Top prize is about $800. certainly not the "big stuff", but the entry price is right and only takes 4 hrs. I have finished in the money 3 times over 2 years, never top prize
.......Mike Laing, T.J. Cloutier, the late Stu Ungar, Eskimo Clark, Tom McEvoy, An Tran, John Bonetti..........
.......What do these people have in common? Two things: they are all tournament specialists and they are all broke.....
...... The only way to make a consistent living playing poker is to be a consistent winner in the live games. Ken Flaton, Men Nguyen, Miami John, Ted Forest, Erik Seidel, Dan Negreanu are not broke because they know how to grind out a win in the live games.....
...... If you want to make a living at poker, be an expert of live game play. .....
......Tournament play should never be a fulltime endeavor. They should just be making a score/taking a shot attempts at best. .....
.....If you play tournaments fulltime, you're a bum regardless of the publicity you're gonna get.
I'm sorry but I didn't know that it was "the LATE Stu Unger" Does anyone know what happenned and when to this great player?
Stu Ungar died of a drug overdose in a cheap motel room on Las Vegas Boulevard.
I don't play many tournaments, for much the same reasons as you have illustrated. In addition, the variance is very high, and for a fixed bankroll you could certainly make more in a ring game, in my opinion.
I play small tournaments ($100-$200 buyin stuff) for fun, but that's mainly because they don't come along that often round these parts. I would never consider tournament play as my profit center.
You've overlooked the worst feature of tournament poker. The game is not entirely on the square. So many players are on the same bankroll that it's impossible for an outsider to have an even shot. They'll soft play each other and cut you no breaks.
The good news is that the Orleans has barred world recognized cheat Pat Fleming. Now if they'd just 86 about 1/3 of the other crooked tournament regulars...
-Fred-
I remember Barry Schulman wrote some kind of response defending tournaments in the last few months in (everyone's most beloved magazine) Card Player.
I think one has to consider how much the would get in tokes and rake if live games were present instead of tournaments. ( I don't know if the 20% rakeoff is more or less though i would guess less).... ( I couldn't resist doing some math..) If one assumes a dealer deals out 30 hands per hour and makes 6$ in tokes and tips (5 for rake, 1 for tip) thats 180/hour/talbe. Lets say There are about 20 tables (on avg for K hours). If the tournament lasts between 4-5 hours the casino takes about the same amt!
Another note is tournaments are often pot/no limit where strong players have a MUCH bigger edge over weaker players than in limit games.
Are Mike Laing, T.J. Cloutier, the late Stu Ungar, Eskimo Clark, Tom McEvoy, An Tran, John Bonetti.......... really all broke?
"Only about 80 cents on the dollar is being returned to the players so the house is keeping about 20%. This is far worse than playing basic strategy at blackjack, making the pass line bet with odds at craps, or even roulette."
There is a logic flaw here that needs to be addressed. Which is better, a game with a 1 percent house edge or a game with a 20 percent house edge? Most of you will say the game with the 1 percent edge, but that's not necessarily true. If the 1 percent game plays very quickly like a hand of blackjack does, then in a short amount of time, you can easily be in over the 20 percent.
Isn't this what happens with poker tournaments. They don't play quickly.
Here is a copy of the footnote that appears on page 173 of the current edition of GAMBLING FOR A LIVING.
"Percentage edge (or disadvantage) is not really a perfect measure of the strength of a bet. "Longshots" don't really get a completely fair shake when evaluated this way. As an example, let's say you were playing a game where you were getting even money and your chances of winning were 49½ percent. If there were no possible ties, each bet would have a 1 percent disadvantage. Suppose, however, that your plan was to either lose $1 or to let your winnings ride until you had $64. To do this you must win six bets in a row. The probability of this is (.495)6 which is .0147 or 1 in 68. You are in reality getting 63-to-1 odds on a 67-to-1 shot. But a one-time bet on a 67-to-1 shot that pays off at 63-to-1 would be calculated as a bet with a 5.9 percent disadvantage! You would thus be better off taking a one-time bet where you were laid 63-to-1 on a 66-to-1 shot (a 4.5 percent "disadvantage") than trying to get to the same result using 1 percent "disadvantage" bets.
The upshot of all this is that a small percentage disadvantage is actually quite strong when applied to even money bets.
If you average playing about 3 hours per tournnament, you have paid about ten dollars per hour to play stakes averaging about 15-30. That is about equivalent to ring game rakes.
this sounds correct, however, do you expect to make $30 per hour on average of 3 hours per tournament? or in the tourney case, make $90 per tourney in a $150 buyin tourney? how many people can do this compared to the how many people can average $30 per hour in a 15/30 game. and yes, I understand its hard to compare, because the standard deviation of the 15/30 game must be about $300 - $400 during the 3 hours, but you can only lose the buyin for the tourney....so that makes it hard to compare the two.
I would like to take your point about the speed of blackjack and see what the results look like. Suppose you play $5 blackjack and you play basic strategy perfectly. You make flat bets and only play at full tables. You play against 4 deck shoes with favorable rules meaning that the dealer has to stand on soft 17 and you can double down after splitting a pair. According to Julian Braun and other authorities the house advantage is about 0.4% against you. Now at a full table you will only play about 50 hands per hour. If you wager $5 per hand, then you are wagering $250 per hour plus another 10% to cover pair splits and double downs so it is more like $275 per hour. You rate to lose $275 x 0.004 or $1.10 per hour. Now according to David Sklansky you rate to lose about $10 per hour playing in the tournament. I can survive a lot longer at the blackjack table losing $1 per hour than I can in a tournament.
The typical player loses at a rate of about 2 percent when playing blackjack. (To be exact it is about 1.5 percent more than basic strategy.) That is the number that you should look at when trying to make a fair comparison. (Note that the typical player losses only the juice (plus tip money) in a tournament since the rest is returned to the players.)
But Mason it is far easier to learn basic strategy at blackjack than it is to learn poker well enough to win at tournaments. Putting it another way, anybody who is a student of poker will lose less at blackjack by learning basic strategy (which takes a few hours) than he will at tournament poker.
You're neglecting the skill factor in tournaments. If you're an excellent tournament player, you should have an overlay big enough to overcome all but the ugliest of house commissions.
Peter Griffin estimated that the average blackjack player loses somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of his money (the difference apparently being mostly geographical). I think that's about right.
But your whole comparison is flawed anyway. Basic Strategy blackjack is a negative expectation game. Tournament poker is a positive expectation game for the best players, just as ring poker is.
My belief is that a lot of big tournament players are broke simply because they are grossly overbetting their bankrolls, and not because they are playing with a negative expectation. This especially applies to the 'prestige' tournaments like the WSOP, where the buyins are very large, the field is very large, and the average quality of play is very good.
Another reason some of the 'name' players are broke has nothing to do with tournament play, but with other bad habits like Craps, Baccarat, and drugs.
I stated that having to pay 20% upfront to play in the tournament was worse than playing basic strategy at blackjack. Mason disagreed and implied that because blackjack plays faster the smaller house edge is actually more costly. I believe I showed that for somone who just plays basic strategy which can be learned in a few hours, this wasn't true.
Look at it another way. Suppose they took 50% of the entry fees instead of 20%. Agreed there would be some players who would win but so what? For the vast majority of players it would be a loss expectation situation. How high would the "administrative fees" have to be (30%, 40%, 50%,??) before you would agree that the tournaments are a bad deal?
I happen to agree that many poker tournaments are now charging too much juice, and this will hurt them in the long run. I fact, I believe that the attendance at the Orleans is off this year.
However, my problem with your analysis is that it has logic flaws. You are trying to compare someone who beaks even at blackjack to someone who loses at poker. That doesn't make any sense.
In addition, you are not taking into account the speed of the games. Suppose you play fairly high stakes blackjack, are against a shoe, and get to play heads-up with the dealer. You can easily play 200 hands an hour. Suppose you average $100 per bet. Assuming that you are a basic strategy player who looses at the rate of 0.4 percent, and given that your total action will be more than $100 per hand due to splits and double downs, your expectation will be approximately a negative $100 per hour.
Now you would argue that this comparison is not fair. It is no more unfair than what you are giving. In fact, it is probably fair when you think in the terms of a higher buy-in tournament.
The proper way to analyze this problem is to think along the terms of what Bob Ciaffone suggested. Tournaments have been around for many years. Are there consistent long term winners, and how many of these exist?
Unfortunately, I do not believe that these are easy questions to answer. Here is what I have noticed over the years.
Many years ago the most successful tournament players were simply those players who were just live ones in the regular poker games. They were then replaced by a new breed of player who was not only live but extremely aggressive. (This partly explains why these people tend to do very poorly in the side games.)
The reason why the extremely aggressive live player seems to do so well is that many of those who enter a tournament play too tightly in many spots because they cannot rebuy. Thus those players who fire away have an edge. (In addition, the fact that many tournament hands don't get real action on the later streets helps this style.) However, I have also noticed something else. As time goes on those players who fire away tend to lose their edge because many of the tournament regulars learn to call them down. (This also partly explains why every year or two there appears some new young tournament star who ends up being a perament broke. His correct by accident tournament strategy looses its edge because other players learn to adjust.)
With all this being said, I do believe that there are a very small number of tournament players who have gone well beyond what I am saying and they are life long winners in these events. But most of the names that you are hearing about now, probably won't be there (as winners) in the future.
(n/t)
And sports.
Think how badly most people play blackjack! That's where the edge comes in a tournament; from bad players.
Jim:
David said it *costs* $10 per hour to play in a tournament, not that you *lose* $10 per hour.
Tournaments are well worth while, not at all a "rip off". Here's why:
• 1. Poker players pay the house much more per hour by paying the collection fee every time they have the button (or however else the house fee is collected) than by paying the flat (and relatively modest) tournament administrative fee.
• 2. By playing in a tournament you can afford to play games that you might otherwise tend to avoid. For example, last Sunday I played crazy pineapple for the first time in a casino. I eventually lost, of course, but for a very low investment ($15 + $20) I got a three hour lesson in crazy pineapple. I expect that a three hour lesson in crazy pineapple would be much more expensive in a ring game. The house collection fee alone would be more expensive, let alone the "tutoring fee."
• 3. You can try strategies and tactics for your regular favorite game that you would not try in a ring game - without expecting to pay dearly. For example, to see the effect of random raising I experimented with raising every time (1) I had a playable hand and (2) my first down card was red.
• 4. Unless you are "in the money" the custom is not to toke in a tournament. In ring games tokes cost me a dollar or two every time I win a pot, even if I am losing for the session.
• 5. There aren't many sharks in the water. With a few notable exceptions the local "pros" can't make enough money playing in tournaments to make it worth their while.
• 6. Once you have converted your small investment into tournament chips, which are not directly redeemable, you are competing against other players for TC rather than taking their dollars. The effect is to make the game friendlier.
• 7. My dream is to some day win the Omaha high/low championship in the world series of poker. Maybe it's silly of me to dream. Probably won't ever happen. Almost surely won't ever happen. But there it is: a goal. The way to learn how to play in tournaments, I think, is to play in tournaments. Thus when I play in tournaments I feel I am working towards a goal rather than just trying to take a few bucks from some pigeon. For me at least, it's a much better feeling.
So, Jim, if your goal is to prey on the weak, then maybe tournaments are not for you. But maybe you have secret dreams of wearing a world championship ring too. If so, or maybe just to see how good you really are, to see how you measure up to other good poker players, some of whom you might not see in a ring game, a tournament might be worthwhile for you. There's a lot of luck involved, just like in a regular ring game, but when the players start thinning out you'll likely encounter some very fine opponents.
From the standpoint of casinos, tournaments bring new players into the game and are thus promotional, a strategy which may pay off for the casinos in the long run. However, in the short run, I doubt that tournaments are profitable for casinos, especially compared to other ways the space could be utilized to make money.
By all means, Jim, you owe it to yourself to test your tournament skills. The experience will probably make you a better overall player (which would certainly be worth the entry fee). And you might learn something about yourself.
Buzz
Well, PacBalfuz I was playing in the $20-$40 side game at the Orleans tournament and they were raking $1 on $50, another $1 on $100, and another $1 on $150 which means that in a typical pot of say $150-$200 they were only raking a total of $3. This is 2%. On the average I win 2.2 pots per hour so it is costing me $6.60 per hour to play. As David Sklansky points out in his post, the tournament would cost me about $10 per hour to play. Furthermore, I have played several thousand hours of ring game poker and I have a positive expectation which includes the house rake. Now I agree if you are going to play ring game poker where they have the infamous dead button charges or play ring game poker where they have an exorbitant collection than it may be more difficult but that is why I play here in Vegas and not in the cardbarns of L.A.
Post deleted at author's request.
I agree after reading Mason's posts and your posts that my comparison of the "adminstrative fee" in the tournament process with house edges in blackjack, craps, and roulette was wrong. But still want to discuss some of my other concerns. I have to go to show at the Mirage right now so I will post later. Thanks!
Jim,
Year’s ago I used to play a few and did OK, but over time I stopped liking them pretty much for the reasons John Feeney stated in his book. I also agree with the gist of what you say but have a few thoughts.
First, the house rarely makes money on these tournaments. Or at least that used to be true given that the entry fee at the Orleans is very high. Keep in mind that a near 20% fee is not actually greater than a 5% rake in a normal game. The card room gets that 5% (or most of it) almost every hand. The amount taken out relative to what most players bring into play in the average session is much greater percentage-wise than in a tournament.
I do know the little tournaments are loss leaders. I’m not even sure they bring in business to compensate. The Orleans is a mid-limit event that probably is under scrutiny from upper casino management to at least break even. Mid limit poker players don’t spend or gamble much outside the poker room (IMHO) and I believe the casino industry is wising up to this. But I have limited direct knowledge that this is true.
Anyway, it will be interesting to read the others thoughts. . I might play a few small no-limit tournaments for fun but that is about it. The steady money is in the ring games.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If I haven’t answered email it may because I just switched computers and am still getting things set up.
While there is not much poker here in the UK and limit is almost unheard of, we are lucky in that the house cannot charge any juice on the tournaments and in that we don't have to pay taxes on the winnings, which makes the tournaments a zero-sum game in which it isn't as difficult to record a profit.
Andy.
Post deleted at author's request.
Jim: "2. In order to even get your money back you have to beat over 90% of the competition. When I play in ring games I don't have to beat 90% of the players to make money much less break even."
what i think jim means here is that if hes in a ring game with 2 real live ones, the other 6 or 7 players can all be good players and still he will come out pretty good, because hes really playing and taking the money from the live ones.
this contrasts sharply with a tournament in which you simply must take the chips directly from the good players to finish high.
this sounds logical to me. yes?
brad
In a tournament you have to beat those at your table if you worry about the others you won't have a chance.
I believe you find more live ones in a tournament for a lot of reasons.
no,no i mean if payout is final table, and youre down to final 20, those 10 people you have to beat are probably pretty good(say 200 at beginning of tournament.) in other words, the suckers donate money all night in a ring game, but bust out(relatively early) in a tournament. makes sense to me, but i dont play that many tournaments.
brad
I think one way to analyse this situation of ring game vs. tournament is to simply see how many people are making a living at each form, and what kind of living it is. Tournaments have fewer people making a living from them, and it is often a feast or famine proposition. This does not mean tournament poker is a ripoff, but it does mean that it is harder to make a living from it. One only need to look at Sklansky, Malmouth, and Zee (and me) to see that the vast majority of good players feel that a money game is the more reliable way for most pro players to earn a living, sucesses of the Badger at tournament poker notwithstanding.
Post deleted at author's request.
It's also a function of variance. When I play poker in a ring game, I'm going to come home with a profit more than 50% of the time, and maybe as high as 70-80% of the time. If I play in a tournament that pays out 10% of the field, then I'm only going to get into the money maybe 10-20% of the time, depending on what my overlay is. And I'm only going to make significant profit perhaps 1/3 of those times, depending on how the payout is structured.
This means that tournament players can go through some pretty long dry spells, and that they need a large bankroll to sustain their play. I believe that most 'professional' tournament players are overbetting their bankrolls.
What do you think a reasonable bankroll would be for a player to enter a 10K buyin event? How many of the players in such tournaments actually have bankrolls that large?
it is exactly those inevitable long dry spells that leaves a tournament specialist flat broke........three consecutive years with negative income is just more than enough time to break any tournament only pro player......there's just way too much variance in tournaments....only a tourney player who was lucky enough to have had a big win early in his tournament career could survive these inevitable cold spells.....a lot of full time tournament players don't even have bankrolls.....many of them get to survive only because they have good skills in the area of talking people into staking them into a tournament.....in my opinion, salesmanship (in order to get a stake) is the most important skill for the tournament specialist, more important than skill.....it's who you know not what you know that counts.....of course, you have to show some wins too.....but remember, according to many market researches, people would rather buy from someone they like (but who has a poor product) than from someone they don't like (but has a good product).....
Post deleted at author's request.
"More wrong logic. If you take Roy Cooke's guestimation, I believe he postulated that 90% of the ring game poker income is made by *one* percent of the players. I may be misremembering what he wrote -- and I don't agree with him, I think the percentage of players is a little higher -- but certainly less than 10% of the players take home virtually all the money. I suspect the distribution of money/income is similar in tournaments to ring games. Same ballpark."
My opinion is that about 70 percent of the REGULAR players in ring games win something. This may not be true at limits below $10-$20, but it is certainly consistent with my experience.
To see that this is fairly accurate, I can think of many games that I have played in where there was just one very live player who was losing enough to cover everyone's rake plus some. Once you get to the higher limits, this is not an uncommon occurrence.
By the way, I believe that it is fairly easy to make between $5 and $10 per hour at the poker table and this number is after you have paid your rake and tips. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make $30 per hour or more. However, a few people who play very well are doing it.
Mason,
You state that it is hard to make $30/hr. or more at poker, but that a few people who play very well do it. This corresponds with my feeling and observations that there are actually VERY few people averaging even one BB/hr. at 15-30 or higher limits over the long term. This figure, 1 to 1.5 BB/hr., is much bandied about and I think many players consider it a not too hard goal to attain---but I feel very few indeed ever really get there.
It has long been my goal to make 1BB./hr. long-term and I do not do it either, except when I play lower limits and am very choosy about the games I sit in. If I am playing 10-20 or 15-30, I sometimes do it or exceed it for a few months but then my average always seems to sink until it is below 1BB/hr. again.
I am curious just how many players actually achieve this 1-1.5 BB/hr. long-term, specifically at 15-30 thru, say, 40-80 limits. I am curious both in actual numbers terms and percentage terms. I believe I could count on one hand the number of players I know of personally who do so (two hands at most if I count players I don't know, but have only played with and/or heard of over the years.
Your insights and observations would be welcome, as would the observations of others.
*
First of all the vast majority of the players who enter a tournament lose money in that tournament. In the example I cited there were 551 entrants and over 500 of them lost money. In ring game poker it is not necessarily true that 90% of the players lose money. What typically happens is that a few players make a lot of money, many players make a little money or break-even, and there are a small number of players who lose a lot and are really subsidizing the game. I believe with all due respect that Roy Cooke and other authorities are mistaken when they think that less than 10% of ring game players make money. Roy Cooke is thinking in terms of earning the highly tauted "one top bet per hour" metric and in that case it probably is true that only a tiny fraction of ring game players make that much. But I can assure you that there are a lot of players who manage to make something over the course of the year in ring games.
Secondly, like I pointed out under Mason's post for a player who knows basic strategy blackjack is far less expensive than paying $10 per hour in a tournament.
Third, as I pointed out under PacBalBuz post my average hourly cost at the $20-$40 side game at the Orleans where the tournament is being held is $6.60 which is less than $10 per hour.
Fourth, despite your assertions to the contrary time is money for any ring game player who has a positive expectation. Furthermore, there are only a small number of players who consistently make money in tournaments whereas there are a lot of players who make money in ring games. It is far easier to be a winning ring game player than it is to be a winning tournament player in my opinion.
Fifth, my point about taxes is simply reality and no moral judgement is relevant. Income to be taxed has to be verifiable.
Post deleted at author's request.
Your points are excellent and I think I was wrong in my assessment of tournament poker. Thanks!
Post deleted at author's request.
........In poker, in the final analyisis, only one thing counts, in the bank (or in the "box"), large amounts...... ......Badger, honestly, how many big name tournament specialist players do you know who aren't broke and stake dependent for life? ..........When I was just starting out a few years ago, I was in awe of the high profile tournament players whose names and faces were all over the pages of CardPlayer magazine...... ..... Then I met some of them, we got friendly, and guess what happens next? They're begging me for a loan or a stake......... ... ....It turns out that a lot of them are pathetic bums who don't even have a personal bankroll to play 10-20. ...... ....Most successful live game pros, on the other hand, have their own money and play with their own money..... ...... They also make a real living out of playing poker...... ..... Sure, they play tournaments from time to time but they never kid themselves that they can actually make a fulltime living at it..... ...... In Getting the Best of It, Sklansky points out the three reasons for gambling: to make a score, to have fun, and to make consistent profits (by getting the best of it)...... ..... Only the first two are justified reasons to play in tournaments...... ..... The number of totally broke tournament players proves my point...... ..... In the final analysis, it all boils down to cash..........at least two thirds of the world's top tournament specialists are dead flat broke and aren't able to play without having to get staked, and when they win, there are dozens of creditors waiting in line for them........ ........and once these creditors are paid (assuming they're paid at all), the tourney specialist has nothing but a worthless trophy to fill his garage with...... .....Badger, you know that this is the pathetic truth.....
Post deleted at author's request.
Jim,
I can't believe the response you got to this post in so short a time. I will read the others after I post this - the Orleans is a bad example as the juice is a bit higher than a typical tournament but the juice is there - I consider it a cost of doing business just like the rake and although in bebuy tournaments the juice doesn't usually apply to the rebuys which dilutes the initial juice payment a bit.
One big thing you missed in youe analysis is the dead money in most tournaments. I expect there are at least 50% to 60% (in limit) and up to 80% (in NL) of the field with little or NO chance of winning or maiking the money.
That is a huge overlay for a guy with some tournament playing skill. You are right if you are talkng about the dead money players they would be better off putting the money on red and letting it ride at least they have a chance but a skilled tournament player has a really good chance to score some big bucks in a tournament.
And it is not a rip off for them.
I agree with Rounder there is a lot of dead money in tournaments. Also, many clubs kick in money or offer guaranteed price money which really can make tournaments attractive. Many times when this happens it's equivalent to a free roll at a big pay day.
JP Massar wrote an article some time ago regarding EV and satellite tournaments which was interesting. There is a lot of dead money in satellites as well. I agree with Greg and Badger about the Tax issue. Satellites usually pay in such a way that a lot of players could avoid reporting their wins if they wanted to.
Finally there is the issue of tipping in tournaments. I hate it and I try to keep it to an acceptable minimum. Mason has written some excellent material about this issue.
Post deleted at author's request.
Usually comes from the jackpot pools - you know the buck a hand that goes down the rathole.
One point you inadvertently made is valid. The smaller the buy-in for a poker tournament, USUALLY, the less value is being received by the players. This is simply a function of economies of scale. Someone had earlier asked this question as it relates to small satellites and the same idea applies.
This is one reason why I feel that it is usually better to go to the WSOP for the last 10 days instead of arriving for the earlier events (when you consider that your overhead for each DAY is the also the same, it becomes even more obvious that the higher stakes events are the places to be).
There is one general exception to the above idea. Small tourneys with rebuys are often a better value than medium buy-in tourneys with no rebuy: i.e., a $20 buy-in tourney with rebuys is often a much better value than a $100 tourney without rebuys.
Yeah the smaller multi rebuy tourneys are a better "value" but I prefer no rebuys or one and an add on, as I play better than most during the rebuy period and get tired of knocking out the same people.
They eventually "get lucky" and hit a hand.
Overlays are out there, and bargains are to be found. Many are terrible managerial decisions, but that's their problem, not yours. One of my favorite tournaments is $2000 guaranteed, $60 buy in and 17-35 players any given week, 40% of which is dead in the water money. I'm not going to be a millionaire playing this tournament anytime soon, but bargains can be found in low and even mid level tournies. Dan
Jim, I'm with you. I believe playing in tournaments is actually a waste of time. But I'm all for tournaments being spread because they bring a lot of players together who bust out and make for good game selection when they enter ring games.
Also, I'm talking about "overnight" tournaments spread on a regular basis at the typical casino, rather than the big events which attract high quality players.
There are really only 2 things to consider, how much money do you make, and how much fun do you have?
How much money you make is not directly tied to how much the house makes. I think the house makes more from a ring game than a tourney, but even if I'm wrong, all that matters to me is how much *I* make. If I'm a pro and dependent upon poker for my living, then things like bankroll management come into consideration. However, the vast majority of casino poker players are not pros on an irreplaceable bankroll, but either completely recreational players, or semi-pros (such as myself). I keep a bankroll, but I don't have to. I could intermingle all my funds, and just keep good records, and everything would be fine. So, if the debate is going to be whether or not a new, aspiring full-time pro should play tourney or not, that's one thing. I'm not sure of the answer. To say that tourneys are a ripoff is simply wrong, and only considers the personal needs and desires of the poster.
Now, how about fun? I enjoy tourneys more than ring games. There is a whole extra dimension to tourney play that doesn't happen in a ring game. I find that I can factor in this dimension better than most, and as such I can achieve an edge that is greater than I have in a ring game. Plus, because of the extra strategical and tactical considerations, it's more mentally challenging, even against weak opponents, and I like that.
So, for me, tourneys are more fun. Therefore, even if I knew that my historical earn was only $20/hour for tourneys and $25/hour in ring games, I still might pick the tourneys. As it is, the results of tourneys are so variant, I really have no statistically valid answer as to whether I make more or less per hour.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There are a lot of people who enjoy buying lottery tickets and then getting together with their friends to watch the drawings and the results. Once in awhile someone even gets to win something. Who can place a value on the fun these people have and their inner motivations? I know I can't. But I still maintain that lotteries are a ripoff. Same thing with jackpot poker. At some point, when the "administrative fees" reach a certain level in tournaments I believe they become a ripoff regardless of how much fun people have.
I think we need to bifurcate the discussion: limit tournaments and no limit tournaments.
The comparisons of the tournament entry fee to the cost of a few hours of a $15-$30 ring game or blackjack are fuzzy thinking for limit tournaments. A more realistic comparison of a limit tournament to a ring game would be that you're going to start with $500 in cash, play a $1-$2 ring game for 2 hours, and then you're going to move to a $100-$200 ring game table; you're probably going to bust out in a few hands, but if you last an hour you get to keep what you have (well, actually, no, you go to the $1000-$2000 table then, but never mind.) So, by $100-$200 standards, you are paying a very large time charge on average, plus you wasted two hours of your time on $1-$2. A few limit tournaments are well-structured to reduce the luck factor, but still whether you win or lose is largely a matter of luck, your variance is very large, your expected value is very low, and the house juice is very hard to overcome.
No limit tournaments offer more opportunity for skill (and team play.) Any mistake can be a fatal mistake in a no limit tournament, so a moron (or non-team player) has little chance of winning. Here, the house juice is not a significant issue for the best (team) players.
-Abdul
"No limit tournaments offer more opportunity for skill (and team play.) Any mistake can be a fatal mistake in a no limit tournament, so a moron (or non-team player) has little chance of winning. Here, the house juice is not a significant issue for the best (team) players."
The fact of the matter is that all tournaments become no-limit. This is because after the early stages, most hands are played where one of the contestants is all in before the river.
In fact, this is actually a weak form of no-limit. In a standard no lmit game, if a player bets a stack of chips on an early round, he is essentially saying that next round several stacks of chips may be coming your way, and lots more will follow that.
This isn't really true in many tournament situations. Thus if you know the caller does not adjust for this, you should begin to make more bets and play more aggressively since the penalty is generally not as great. (An exception is the first day or two at the final even of the WSOP. Due to the high amount of starting chips relative to the blinds, it actually does play like a real no limit game. That can't be said for the final day. Now it is back to the weak form of no limit.)
I jut began a new thread on this topic in the Tournaments forum, quoting from your above post.
A ripoff is by definition a swindle. Everyone that enters a tournament is made aware of the entry fee and buy in. They are told that the buy in money is what the prize pool. They are not swindled or cheated in any way. At least not by the tournament hosts. The players may collude but that's another story.
As far as the house percentage goes it is sometimes high as in the case of the Orleans open but for most tournaments it is reasonable. Reasonable being an amount that the house needs to make to cover cost of the tournament. Not unlike live game rakes.
The arguement most used for a reason to enter a tournmanet is Overlay. Overlay is related to the total buy in and the estimated amount of "dead money" that is believed to be in play. Most poker authors when discussing making plays in live games will sometimes mention consideration of dead money in play when deciding on a particular course of action. Dead money in a tournmanet is estimated by looking over the field and deciding what percentage of them actually have a chance at the prize money. If you are playing tournaments with a profit motiff then this is where you need to focus a good deal of energy. This is no different than Game selection in a live game. Of course looking over a field of 900+ as was the case with the Orleans open first event is not feasable. Not impossible but not an easy effort. You would have to take a samll sample of the field and the extrapolate from their and then maybe you get a feel of what you are up against. If your motive for playing is fun as Fossilman points out then the cost of the tournament is your primary consideration. If the entry fee is reasonable for your idea of approxametely 3 hours of fun then it if the tournmanent entry fee is high or low is a moot point. You are the decidcion maker when it comes to playing for fun.
I like to play tournaments for the challenge. I like the beginning and end aspect of them. Like John Feeney I do not like the non freedom aspect of being a tournament pro. Therefore I am very selective in the tournmanets I play and will not go out of my way to enter an event unless it fits my schedule.
Tournmanents, a ripoff? Hardly.
Vince
Vince
After reading this thread for a couple days now, I am just about sick of hearing the extensive, yet absolutely indecisive debate. I still cannot decide whether or not tournaments are a ripoff or not, especially since even the "experts" all seem to have a completely different idea regarding this matter.
However, your post seems to sum up the most relevant ideas all at once.
First off, I played in about 55 tournaments in AC last year. I usually got knocked out, as could be expected. However, I made the final table many times and finished in first or second five times. Between my firsts and seconds and other places in the $$, I just about tripled my $$$ overall. I kept good records of how much I paid to enter and how much I won. My best guess as to the reason why I was able to win is that the field was usually very weak, and my tournament skills were more than enough to cover the house vig plus beat the field. When your opponents are easy, you are going to win more than your fair share. Thus it is very feasible to make $$ playing poker tournaments. Perhaps my experience is too little to be statistically significant, but if I had to take bets on whether I could produce similar results again, I would.
Secondly, your point about having fun is right on the $$. One of the reasons I continued to play tournaments is because I was having fun doing so. They were fairly cheap and you got a lot of poker action for a very small risk. The prizes are fairly large relative to the entry fee as well, so there certainly is some thrill and motive to enter. I would highly recommend low cost tournaments to those players who have very little $$, but wish for entertainment value more than shot at winning big $$. Lots of elderly "bus people" came to AC from philadelphia and played in the smallest tournaments at the trop. They did not have the $$ to be playing 10-20 HE but could have a chance at a nice win for less than 30$. Also, they would get plenty of entertainment value for their cash, even if they did not win. These people are what made it so easy for a skilled player like me to win $$ playing tournaments. Of course if only top 2+2 regulars were to play, we probably would all go broke! No one would be able to beat the other players, plus beat the house vig often enough to win!
In the end, I think I am going to give up on this thread. It has become too long and hasn't really conclusively solved the original problem. I am also NOT going to give up on playing tournaments! Not yet at least!
Good debate guys, but I am outta here! See you on the HE forum!
Dave in Cali
Jim,
I think some are a ripoff and others are not. It's just like a ring game trying to find the right tournament to make money. Some, ring game players will not play a game where the house drops 10% up to a max of $5 plus $1 for a jackpot. These players will look for a drop of $2 to $3 without a jackpot before they play. But, I say they are wrong. Many times you will find out that the Jackpot games attract more live ones. I've sat down at plenty of high rake jackpot games and have found that these are the good games most of the time.
For tournaments it's the skill level of the opponents. Take for instance the Orleans daily tournaments. Ten dollars of the twenty dollar entry fee goes to the house! Then you can rebuy for the first 90 minutes. You may find this hard to believe, but for a good player you can make some money. Look at the Tournament Forum at this site. Awhile back players posted there records. Some have done pretty well.
Something else you need to consider, is that a lot of tournament players don't pay the big entrie fees. They win a satellite after a few tries or even have backers.
I think you should read David Sklansky's essays on tournaments in his "Poker, Gaming, and Life" book before you pass judgement. Tournament Poker is just another form of gambling that can be profitable for the right player.
I haven't read every post here, but I see some head into the question of where you can make more per hour. Maybe the answer is difficult to pin down when looking at tournaments vs. limits like 15-30 or 20-40. But isn't it obvious that if you live where higher limits are available to you the way to make the most at poker is to build your bankroll and play higher limits? (not that building a large BR is easy, mind you... One way is to avoid relying on poker income to pay the bills until you've built the BR.)
To me the variance issue is easily enough in itself that I would choose middle limit games over tournaments anyway. But if you can play higher, you avoid the variance problem and make more as well.
I have been getting pretty good at adapting to different types of games. I can easily handle wild games, full games, short handed games (3-4). But for some crazy reason I have a lot of trouble with loose passive 5-6 handed games!
I know this sounds crazy but its true. All 5 will see the flop, often with no raise. There will usually be a bet on the flop but rarely will it get 2 bet. Usually there is a showdown with 2 at the river.
This games sounds like heaven, right? But I can't make a dime! I strongly believe it's the rake because I don't see anyone else making any money either. With 10 % of the pot coming off each hand and only 300 in chips on the table, how can you beat such a passive game? Is it even possible?
I play my typical tight aggressive style but it doesn't seem to work. I can't put anyone anywhere.
Here is an example.
6 handed. I get dealt QQ in mid position. Early position player raises - he looks like a pigeon but I don't know him so I just call. We see the flop 5 handed.
Flop comes 5 4 2 with 2 diamonds. Preflop raiser bets - I have to raise to figure out if he has AA or KK or just AK or AQ. I raise, button calls both bets cold, he hesitates and calls. Ok, he doesn't have AA or KK.
Turn comes blank (9 of spades or something.) Check, I bet, both call.
River comes 9 clubs. Check, I bet, button calls, preflop raiser think a minute and folds. Now I KNOW he didnt have AA or KK because he is tempted to call his nut no pair thinking I missed the diamond flush.
Turns out the button had a3 offsuit and flopped a straight! That one cost me 4 BB. He never even put in a single raise. I later realized that he thought i had flopped a set, and he was going to slowplay his straight. But then when the board paired in the river he just called.
Anyway, I RARELY see anyone come away from this particular type of game a winner. Is this game beatable on a consistent basis?
-SmoothB-
When 5 or 6 handed, what is the rake? We can't judge until we know.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Let's say, 10% to $2 or 5% to $3. How about that? (I actually like the former better than the latter.)
Try playing tight but selectively aggressive. These games, loose passive, are as you say, heaven. However, if you are the only solid player in the game then you have a lot of adapting to do. You will need to be very Observant and alert to beat the game. But once you develop your skill in selecting when to play and how to play it you will run over this game. Notice I did not say what to play. Loose passive players have no chance, let me say it again, no chance of beating a solid poker player. Even a table full of them will only beat the solid player occaisionally as probability dictates. You must learn to thin the field at strategic places to beat this game. Check raising becomes the most prized skill in these games. Even loose passive players will lay down hands when faced wtih double bets. I'm tired. That's enough.
Vince
In a loose-passive game 6 handed (are you playing $3-$6?) you should 3 bet the queens. I can't think of anything to be gained by smooth calling, you don't trap passive players they trap themselves.
Loose-passive players are some of the players that you can develop a skill to read very well. Instead of focusing on what their original two-card hand was, try to focus on the absolute hand (rank) that they have, (like no pair, one pair, etc.). They often play in direct accordance to the rank of their hand. Watch the pace and way in which they call or make bets. They'll often *tell* you how good their hand is.
If the game is very loose, you can't bluff, semi-bluff much. The money is made in value bets and taking large odds with multiple players. Unless the rake is very high ($5), you should be able to overcome it, although at $4 it will be tough.
This happened a few weeks ago and I wanted to share it with the forum. I play at the Last Frontier in La Center, Washington (I believe there was an article on La Center a few CP's ago - The LF is a great room). It was a Saturday night, with the usual loose suspects at a 3-6 HE table. It was like being at an ATM...
There is one particular character that I'd seen before. Not a good player, but fortunately likes to think that he is. Any suited cards, any face card, most one and two gappers, playing nearly every hand etc. He also talks a great deal - about everything and nothing, sometimes obnoxiously verbose. He is a border maniac and definately bluffs too much.
A seat opens directly to his left, and I lock it up. For several hands, I was getting very playable cards, my draws were hitting, etc. He was getting somewhat irritated when my AT spades would beat his 7-2 spades, etc. He was getting somewhat irritated when I would snap his bluffs, etc.
After nearly an hour, I had beaten him about the third time in a row (again, getting very good preflop hands and they were holding up, draws were coming, etc). Enraged, he flings his cards across the table, and they hit a man who had just sat down. The table got quiet, and he said nothing. I said to him, "That was uncalled for, apologize." He said nothing. "Come on - that was overboard, apologize to the man." Nothing. Dealer calls the floor over. Elliot, the manager, hears what happened, and proceeded to kick the card flinger out for the evening, saying "you regularly annoy the other players, and you can leave now." If he had simply apologized to the man, that would not have happened, as it was obvious he was not trying to hit him, but he should not have thrown his cards.
I thought that was so professional of the room to do. Additionally, the LF has grown by leaps and bounds and gone from a little 5 table room with poor lighting and poor ventilation, to a 15-20 table room that is attentive and attractive. The bad part was the main ATM was gone, however, it was a much more peaceful evening.
Would this ruling be a norm at other places? I've seen this type of thing one other time (hitting another player) at a different room, and the floor did not do much, but the dealer gave a warning.
Thanks, Tim
are there any good places to play in philly?
Absolutely NONE. Drive 60 miles to Atlantic City and go to either Taj Mahal or Tropicana. There is also a train that costs $6 with free bus to the casinow which are within walking distance. I live in Phila and play in AC
especially if you're a 19 year old Upenn poker player. Oh well
Mark
yes it does suck.
You may think you were being honorable by asking for an apology for the other person but i think in a certain way you were being rude. You were telling someone what to do when it really wasn't any of your business.
And you chased off the live one. Just because someone is being rude doesn't mean you should be hostile to him. If you would be nice to him he might start behaving better. Everyone loses their temper, but to tell thme ,"that was uncalled for, you must apologize... etc." seems to me as attempt to belittle him and treat him like a child.
I don't really know how badly he behaved, but in general when the table contains much hostility it is bad for all involved. I can't help but think if you were nicer to him (when you beat him), he might have never thrown his cards, or been so "rude" for starters.
First and foremost, I hear what you're saying.
I was never rude to him once during the whole session, however. In fact, I was quite cordial to him, even when he was being terribly obnoxious, partially to not chasing off the live one, but mainly because I am generally cordial anyway.
I was shocked by his behavior, as was every other person at that table. I do believe that it was my business, and asking him to apologize for uncalled for behavior, IMO, is not overboard. I eould hope that anyone in a similar situation, either at the table or away from the table, would do the same thing. I do believe that it is the honorable thing to do.
That said, I can also see your point that by saying that it does set up a parent scolding a child dynamic which would be embarassing. Trust me, however, that he did not "leave" because he was angry and embarassed. He would have stayed all night. He was kicked out by the cardroom manager who would not tolerate his behavior. I had nothing to do with him leaving. Getting upset is one thing - throwing your cards is another. I do not care what happens, but there is NEVER an excuse for that type of behavior. That is childish... When upset or angry during a poker game, a mature adult regains his or her composure by taking a walk, standing up for a minute, counting to 10 - whatever it takes - but an adult does not throw his or her cards - at the dealer, another player, etc.
I am not suggesting that I, or anyone, should be the "Morality Police." However, when I see an injustice, at the poker table or on the street, I do speak up. As far as I am concerned, people are entitled to do whatever they want to do, provided it does not hurt anyone. Once that line is crossed, in my mind, a person invites comments/criticism/ etc., and observers are entitled to comment as they see fit.
More flames welcome, Thanks Tim
ive actually had this happen to me before, (although it was more verbal than an overt act like hitting someone with cards) and i actually apologized for the rude (fish)player, saying that i had been drawing out on him all night and that he was just upset at me:)
brad
excellent
Last night at the STARDUST in Las Vegas, a player at my Hold'Em table threw his last few chips at the dealer on his way out.The dealer called the floor,but the floor did not seem concerned.
BTW/ I think you did the right thing Tim.
Howard
Here's what I think is a great decision by a club President. I was officiating at a Junior Golf tournament a couple of weeks ago. The first group of kids was on the 16th green putting out, and the 7th tee box was nearby. I was in my cart, and the club President and the Junior Chairman of the club were in another cart beside me watching the kids.
A club member hit his tee shot (poorly) from the 7th tee, and angrily threw his driver about 40 yards down the fairway, and dropped a couple of F-bombs at the same time. The club President felt this was completely inappropriate behavior in front of kids (or at any other time for that matter), walked over to the guy, kicked him off the golf course, and suspended him from the club for 2 weeks. It would be great if more floorpeople in card rooms had this type of attitude towards rude and obnoxious patrons.
One of the first principles I learnt from a poker book - Norman Zadeh's classic "Winning Poker systems" - was that you cannot bet for value and as a bluff at the same time. If this is true then the semi-bluff is a complete myth because it purports to do both. A semi-bluff is a bet with a drawing hand which a)is highly unlikely to win without improvement, b)in a situation where a bluff without the backup of a draw will not increase your profits, and c) where the number of callers or potential callers does not warrant a raise for value.
My view is that if the bluff itself is not profitable then a semi-bluff cannot increase your profits, because the extra money you invest in the pot decreases your average profitability from the drawing hand, by driving out players you would profitably allow to play, and through the dead money youput into a pot you are an underdog in. (An exception might exist in NL play, where a bet on the come might set the stage for a big oversize bet at the end.)
To get down to cases, on P.79 of Winning Poker (Later renamed Theory of Poker - i think the pages are the same) the paragraph which begins "To make this point absolutely clear ..." (ie, the profitability of a semi-bluff) does nothing of the kind. In the example given, the initial presumption is that if you make your hand when the final card falls then your opponent will fold without contest. The figures given show that with the other presumptions made then a bluff will be profitable, in and of itself. The crucial point here is that in that situation, your bluff will be just as profitable if you have a busted hand, because you are going to win without contest at the end anyway, if the right card falls. So this is not a semi-bluff at all, it is simply a profitable bluff. If a different set of presumptions are made which show a situation where a pure bluff will NOT be profitable, then a semi-bluff will also be unprofitable.
This fact is somewhat masked by the fact that you will get a significant number of your extra bets back when you do make your hand, so your failed semi-bluff might (but not necessarily) be LESS unprofitable than a pure bluff, but the fact remains; if you cannot increase your profits by bluffing with a busted hand then you cannot do it with a semi-bluff.
A classic case is the advice given by DS, MM and RZ for the play of (7,K)7 against a raise from a queen: the best play is supposedly to raise when there are several players with cards lower than a queen (and none larger) still to speak. Unless we presume that the bluff itself is profitable, ie, that you can make money in this situation by bluffing with nothing, then this is without doubt the wrong thing to do: you lose money on the failed bluff AND get yourself into a heads-up situation against a hand which is going to beat you unless you improve, and it will cost you at least one, probably two extra small-bets (counting the probable reraise from the queens) to get into this unfavourable situation. When you DO improve, your profit is decreased, because you make more money in a three or four-way pot than you do heads up.
(7,K)7 v (Qx)Q is at best a marginally profitable hand anyway, even if you get in for just one bet. If you have to put in three small bets to play head-to-head you would be better off not playing it at all. By far a better strategy is to get in as cheap as you can and allow others to play: if you don't improve by fifth street you should fold anyway. By putting extra money into the pot you are committing yourself to play till the end in most cases, which is a losing strategy with such a weak hand. Arguments which are based on gaining free bets later, using scare cards etc to continue your bluff ignore the fact that in many cases you will be able to get a free card, or bluff using scare cards anyway, so you are not GIVING yourself extra chances to win, you are buying them at a high price, and committing extra money to a pot which you should get out of as soon as you can, if you don't improve.
The mistaken belief of these authors in the inherent profitability of the semi-bluff has led them to give what is clearly very bad advice. To recap: if a bluff is not profitable in and of itself, then a semi-bluff cannot be profitable in the same situation, in fact in marginal situations your expensive tap-dancing is going to destroy what little profitiblity you had. But hey, it's your money.
I couldn't agree with you more. In the games I play 15-30 to 30-60 you see a lot of players who semi-bluff a lot. What sometimes happens it that they get called or raised but they get lucky and draw out of the river. But usually, they end up calling with bottom pair or Ace high and losing the pot.
What semi-bluffing encourages people to do is to put more money in the pot with the worse hand. Most of the time the bluff part of semi-bluff doesn't work. The S&M player will then get stubborn and continue to call all raises or bets because he thinks the other player is semi-bluffing also. And this is where the true expert players make their money off S&M players.
If your "semi-bluff" doesn't have SOME chance of winning right on the spot then it isn't a semi-bluff.
This is due to the fact that many players mis-apply or misunderstand the *correct* theories contained in S&M works.
jizzm said "Most of the time the bluff part of semi-bluff doesn't work."
A semi-bluff without the bluff component is not a semi-bluff. Identifing players who abuse and misuse the semi-bluff doesn't prove that the semi-bluff is a bad play.
This argument neglects the fact that your hand has a mathematical chance to improve to the best hand, and your opponent is greater than 0%, but less than 100% likely to fold when you make a semi-bluff.
If your understanding is that you should raise against an opponent that you *know* has q-x-q with your 7-k-7 when you *know* he won't fold, then you haven't quite absorbed the concept.
In fact, the difference in profits between a semi-bluff and pure bluff is directly related to the mathematical chance that your hand will improve to beat your opponent's hand. With a pure bluff, the presumption is that your hand is too weak to improve enough to beat your opponent's hand.
G. Ed conly writes: That isn't my position at all. Have another look if you don't believe me.
What this neglects - and this is the heart of the whole fallacy - is that if your semibluff is not in and of itself profitable as a bluff, then your extra bet must cut into your profits: it may (or may not) be LESS unprofitable than a pure bluff, but you still make less than if you had just called.
Thanks for the input.
if you get called down when you have a big hand like a set and raise the turn, then probably theres no need to semi-bluff with a nut 4 flush. you know what i mean.
brad
.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 July 2000, at 3:10 a.m.
Posted by: .
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Your idea must be wrong.
Let's say the pure bluff itself is not profitable.
If you instead have some outs, it will not cost you as much because you save the equity that you get for when you hit your hand. This savings will sometimes be enough to make the (semi) bluff profitable.
The alternative of checking and keeping players in may not exist because you can't call, the pot odds aren't there. If you are last to act it might be a good idea to check in some cases.
In Holdem, there are many times when no one has much of the flop and semi-bluffs are good spots to try and pick up the pot a bit cheaper.
D.
Implicit in all of Zadeh's opening strategies is the possibility of the semi bluff. Your quote of him probably referred to the last round of betting where there is no such thing as a semi bluff. The 77K hand has basically nothing to do with semi bluffing. David Z. is confused about something. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that he thinks there is no difference between betting a small fourflush into one person and betting a hand with no outs.
David Sklansky writes: It's five or six years since I gave away my copy of Professor Doctor Zadeh's book, but if my memory of his statement is correct then I will lay odds that he didn't contradict himself by going on to say that you could bet for value and as a bluff at the same time, as you do with your semi-bluff theory. And his statement, if my memory serves, was to illustrate the futility of raising as a bluff when you are drawing to a flush, so I can't see anything in your statement which is correct, particularly the implied endorsement of the semi-bluff theory by Prof Zadeh.
It is always a bad sign when you quote a person's work directly and they insist that you don't understand what it "really" means. While there is a big difference between raising with nothing and raising with a four-flush (it actually makes more sense to bluff with nothing than with a drawing hand) nonetheless, according to the parameters you set in the example on P. 79 (which is the case in point, and is supposed to be an illustration of the power of the semi-bluff at work) it makes absolutely no difference whether you have a drawing hand or not, because you win if the flush card comes in any case. That completely destroys the validity of the example and shows that it is not a semi-bluff at all, it's jsuta bluff which worked. If the bluff itself was unprofitable then your profits from the flush would go down (on average). I'm not confused about that, it's there in black and white. But thanks for your concern... :)
AS for the (7,K)7 example not "really" being a semi-bluff, to quote p. 81 of WP/TOP "A semi-bluff is a bet, raise, or check raise with a wide variety of hands which you believe are not the best at the moment." Reraising a Q with only a pair of sevens must qualify by that definition. If this play is to be regarded as mainly a squeeze play to force out other players with intermediate pairs, rather than a bluff, then this is clearly an incorrect move, because (7,K)7 is much more profitable when played for one bet against three or four opponents than for two or three bets head-to-head against probable queens. When I pointed this out in previous discussions you suggested that this fact was compensated for by the fact that the "bluff" only had to work 20% of the time for the play to be profitable. While that is debatable, it directly contradicts the point you tried to make here, and shows that raising with (7,K)7 is a semi-bluff by your definition. I'm not at all confused at all about that either. I would say that the statement "David is confused about something" is very true however.
The problem seems to be that few people (including, if you don't mind me saying, yourself) seem willing to understand that UNLESS the bluff itself is inherently profitable, a semi-bluff must cost you money. Jizzm gets it though. Way to go J-man! Keep getting the money. (We aren't related BTW)
Thanks for the input.
Damn, I have just rerun some sims on the 7k7 v QQ question on wilson's turbo and realized that I have been running them wrongly. Initial corrected results contradict the earlier data on which I based my comments, and appear to support the view of DS MM and RZ that it is best to reraise with 7k7. But I'm still not sure I have got all the parameters right, so I'm not conceding defeat quite yet. If further runs confirm my mistake I will have to admit I got that one badly wrong. It's getting late so I'll get back to it tomorrow if I have time and post the results when I have them.
What this means about my views on the mythical nature of the semi-bluff generally I will have to think about; the 77k v Q question may be a separate issue which doesn't affect my major point, though I must admit I'm no longer as sure as I was. I'll be stocking up on floss just in case: crow is a stringy dish.
I wasn't going to post anymore hands because of the negative response I got on my Cooke and Sklansky hands but this thread irked me so heres one I played the other night.
Bellagio's.
15-30 Holdem.
Position: 3 left of the BB.
One limper to me.
Hand:7s,8s
Action: limp (I'd say call but it usually is limp at this point)
One more limper and then the button raised.
SB folds and the rest call.
Flop: 9s,3s,2d
Check around to the button. Button bets. Blind folds. Early limper folds. I call and late limper folds. Goes heads up, me and button. Note here that I could have raised and increased my chances of winning the pot but Im elected to call in this instance.
Turn: Tc.
Action: I bet and the button folded. Notice I bet with 9 high and a lot of outs. Possibly 21 outs if all the button had was over cards.
So was I correct in betting? Should I have tried for a check raise? Did I want to see the river or was I happy to win it right there? Is this not a good illustration of the semi-bluff?
Vince
>So was I correct in betting? Should I have tried for >a check raise? Did I want to see the river or was I >happy to win it right there? Is this not a good >illustration of the semi-bluff?
You made a successful bluff. The outs you had gave you the courage to bluff. Big deal. I can imagine waht your thought process would have been if someone called. "Oh shit now i have to hit my hand to win." If anyone had anykind of hand you would have gotten called. You just happened to bluff when nobody had a hand. I'd like to see your same bet work with a board of AsKs3h. So no this wasnt a good illustartion of a semi-bluff. It was a good example of a bluff.
The only thing a semi bluff is a bluff with some outs. The few times that the outs hit are the times most semi-bluffers remember. They usually forget about the times they get raised or reraised and lose a pot they had no business being in. Let me tell you. Any time a good player sees you semibluff the next time you bet you will get action, plenty of it. Most likely you'll be putting more bets into the pot than you originally intended to. But if semibluffing works for you then by all means continue doing so. I would gladly have you in my game.
With one caveot, the stuff that jismm and David Z. are saying is totally wrong and easily diproved with simple math by any one of a hundred posters on this forum. The caveat however is this: Some boards are more likely to contain draws than others. Astute opponents who are aware of your ability to semibluff will be less apt to fold against these boards. Vince's play might not have worked in a tough game (though a check raise might have). However against the vast majority of opponents there are times when extra outs turns a bet that would prefer not to be called, into the correct play only BECAUSE of those extra outs.
Jizz, I've read Vince's post, and I think he is right, it's a good example of a semi-bluff: Andrew Brock's figures in his post below show how it works, but the concept is, I now believe, correct. So while I agree with you that the semi-bluff can be overdone, it is a useful and profitable tool, not least because of the extra action it brings to your bets for value, particularly with non-limit betting.
(I'm still not sure about the reraise with K77 v xxQ, but I will not comment until I've sorted out some reliable sims. Initial results don't support me on that either.)
As to why I was so wrong, I guess it has to be put down to an early formed and not carefully examined view, plus reading too much into some incorrect simulations I ran. I must also have misremembered or misunderstood Norman Zadeh's statements, and by relying on my belief in what I thought was a first principle, neglected to do the necessary figuring.
My disappointment and embarrassment at being wrong is considerably compensated for by the knowledge that I've learnt something. So thanks everyone for that, and sorry about the tone.
You showed a lot of class.
"I would gladly have you in my game"
jizzm (whoever you may be),
You have a big mouth just like so many other anonymous posting idiots I have seen on this forum. My name is Vince Lepore. I play 10-20 through 20-40 Seven Card Stud and Holdem and occaisionally Omaha. I play at Bellagio's in Las Vegas or Hollywood Park in LA or Foxwoods in Conneticut. Anytime you want to play just bring your big mouth with you and let me know when you'll be there. I play with anyone and everyone that wants to play in the games I'm in. So bring a few dollars and let's have some fun. Oh yeah, get a real name when you look me up or you won't have the pleasure of talking to me.
vince
>You have a big mouth just like so many other >anonymous posting idiots I have seen on this forum. >My name is Vince Lepore. I play 10-20 through 20-40 >Seven Card Stud and Holdem and occaisionally Omaha. I >play at Bellagio's in Las Vegas or Hollywood Park in >LA or Foxwoods in Conneticut. Anytime you want to >play just bring your big mouth with you and let me >know when you'll be there. I play with anyone and >everyone that wants to play in the games I'm in. So
LOL! Cocky arent we?
>bring a few dollars and let's have some fun. Oh yeah, >get a real name when you look me up or you won't have >the pleasure of talking to me.
Alrighty. We can play a series of $500 10-20 holdem freeze outs in the Los Angeles area. We can meet somehwere besides in a casino so we dont have to pay collection. Since I have a real job the only time I can play are on friday nights or Staurdays.
You can semi-bluff against me all you want. I am not goning to divulge my name for obviuos reasons. Just tell me how to contact you. However, I think were secrtely hoping i would not accept your challenge and thats why you included your little bit about not wanting to play unless i give you a name.
BTW, I always get a kick out of poker players. Its so easy to ruffle their feathers. Obviously, you have sopme sort of inferiority complex. There mere fact the someone could imply that you are a weak player was enough to put you on tilt. Do you really think you are going to be able to beat me? After about 30 mins Ill have you so mad that you'll be throwing your money at me.
"We can meet somehwere besides in a casino so we dont have to pay collection."
I may have been right when I used the term idiot when applied to you. I did not challenge you in any way shape or form. In fact you did the challenging. You said you would be "glad to have me in your game". I told you where I played and what levels. Feel free to join one of those games. As far as playing you heads up, I don't think that I like you so why would I sit alone at a table with you for any reason. Cowards are not my favorite people. Anytime a clown like you wants to try and "ruffle my feathers" in a poker game have at it.
Vince.
*
Vince
I too was somewhat "irked" by this thread. The semi-bluff is one of the most important tools in a good player's arsenal. In no limit, it is one of my favorite (and most profitable) plays. so anyway, here is yet another perfect example of what a semi-bluff is, and how it is used, that should totally refute the theory of the semi-bluff being "fallacy".
holdem. You have KsQs and raise BTF. there are a couple of callers.
The flop comes Jh Ts 5d. you have 8 outs at this point, and a backdoor flush draw, plus two overcards which might provide more outs. SB bets and you call, one other caller.
The turn is a small spade. It is checked to you.
Let's evaluate.
What do you have RIGHT NOW?
NOTHING. You have king high.
What would you want to happen here if you were to bet?
What type of bet would you be making?
Answer - a SEMI-BLUFF!
Why is this?
You only have king high. you are basically betting the worst hand, sort of like... hmmmm, what is it... a BLUFF! Or is it? Perhaps not....
If you bet, several things could possibly happen. You MIGHT get everyone to fold. This is probably the best thing that could happen here (on the average).
BUT - you MIGHT also get called.
NOW - sometimes you will bet and get called in this situation. Not exactly the best possible outcome, but not the worst either. WHY? because you have OUTS.
Therefore, SOMETIMES you will bet and get called, and then the river will bring you a card that you need.
SO, you weren't EXACTLY bluffing now, were you? NO.
If, on the turn, you had 27o with no pair and no flush draw, THEN you would have been "BLUFFING". But in this case you had outs (and plenty of them).
so my roundabout conclusion is this: there is a difference between bluffing and semi-bluffing. Semi-bluffing is when you are "sort of" bluffing.
When you have an open ended straight draw and a four flush and two overcards, you are not exactly BLUFFING if you bet, now are you. There has to be SOME distinction between betting KsQs in this situation and betting 2d7c! therefore we could "theoretically" use the term - "sort-of-bluff". But that wouldn't really sound that good.
thus the term - "semi-bluff".
I am totally sure that my little self-righteous essay here must completely and totally describe the exact thought process in which DS came up with the semi-bluff chapter for his book!
????
Well, maybe not, but I had fun writing it anyway!
Dave in Cali
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 July 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 July 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: jizzm
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: jizzm
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: (now don't give this guy any more action
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (dave@genbio.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 6:29 p.m.
David;
What I think is missing from your understanding of the semi-bluff is that there must be a chance for a semi-bluff bet to win the pot right there. Implicit in your post is that you are likely to be called if you bet (point C paragraph 1).
As I read Sklansky in TOP, the semi-bluff can only be used correctly if you have outs if called, but more importantly, if there is also a significant chance that there will be no callers. Thus if you have no outs you are either betting for value with the best hand, or bluffing with a worse hand which has no hope of improvement. If you are pretty darned sure you will be called if you bet, this is also not a semi-bluff, but a bet for value. In this case you want to have plenty of outs and the best draw with enough callers to make the bet profitable when you do make your hand.
David
Excellent points.
This is an interesting arguement. I believe the poster to be completely wrong in the case of the semi-bluff. It is a weapon in the hands of an expert player. Just how valuable is dependent on the skill of the user.
The poster uses a seven card stud example to illustrate the use of the semi-bluff. If you read Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players and I don't have my copy in front of me you will not find this play used as an example of a semi-bluff. That's because it is not a semi bluff. The hand 7,K,7 against Q,x/Q is actually 7,K,7 against x,x/Q. If the poster cannot see the distinction then my explanation would do no good. The purpose of reraising in this case is not as a semi-bluff unless your image is such that you can get a good player to lay down a pair of Queens. Which by the way does happen. The purpose of the raise is to get an opponent heads up. This hand unquestionably plays better against a single opponent in a tough game. This is not a play to make in a loose passive game where players are likely to call paired door cards. In a game like that and Mason and David I believe will agree the best play is a call. To say that by far a better strategy is to get in as cheap as possible is a narrow view of poker strategy. Poker strategy is dynamic and must be tied to the type of game you find yourself playing. You can do as you like but if you want the correct "poop" on playing Seven Stud or Holdem at the mid limits, stick with the 2+2 boys.
It seems to me that the poster is more interested in belitling Mason and David or is it David and Mason I can never keep that straight than discussing the sem-bluf as a tool. I wonder what Bob ciaffone thinks of the "tone" of his post.
Vince.
Vince,
Your sounding much better must be your love of poker coming to the top, which is what this thread is about "The Felatio Of The Semi-Bluff". Stiffing Rick at HP that's beautiful. See you at FW in my Devils Hat.
Paul
David,
You are wrong. The semi-bluff is a useful and valid tool for a poker player. Maybe you didn't understand it when you read "Theory of Poker".
Let me try and explain it to you in a different manner. (BTW, I got this view of the semi-bluff from one of Phil Hellmuth's hands of the week, specifically the stud/8 one with Ted Forrest.) Let's say you have a 4-flush on the turn, and your lone opponent bets into you. There are 6 bets in the pot, so you naturally have the odds to call. But what about a semi-bluff raise? Is it warented? Usually it is. Let's look at the math.
Since you'll have to call in this situation you are getting 7:1 odds on your bluff. That is, if your opponent folds 1 in 8 times, you profit from the semi-bluff. But wait, there's more. You actually will make a profit if your opponent folds 1 time in 8 (12.5%) of the time.
To complete the illustration, we have to make some assumptions. First, we let's assume that the semi-bluff won't get raised. Second, let's assume that we will get payed off on the river by a worse hand if we make the flush.
Given that. The ev for just calling is .56 bets, while the ev for semi-bluffing is .71 bets. So the semi-bluff does in fact make you REAL profit, in this situation. Now, you can argue that this situation isn't universal. The point is that if you aren't in a situation that is at least very similar to this one, then you are making a mistake.
Don't semi-bluff into aggressive players. Don't semi-bluff into a pot with 3 opponents. Don't semi-bluff a calling station. etc...
Just for completeness, here is a table which illustrates the ev calculation.
call
9/46 win 7 bets 1.37
37/46 lose 1 bet -.80 -------------------------------------------- total ev: .56 bets
semi-bluff
fold .125 win 6 bets .75
call .875
9/46 win 8 bets 1.37
37/46 lose 2 bets -1.41 -------------------------------------------- total ev: .71 bets
David,
You are wrong. The semi-bluff is a useful and valid tool for a poker player. Maybe you didn't understand it when you read "Theory of Poker".
Let me try and explain it to you in a different manner. (BTW, I got this view of the semi-bluff from one of Phil Hellmuth's hands of the week, specifically the stud/8 one with Ted Forrest.) Let's say you have a 4-flush on the turn, and your lone opponent bets into you. There are 6 bets in the pot, so you naturally have the odds to call. But what about a semi-bluff raise? Is it warented? Usually it is. Let's look at the math.
Since you'll have to call in this situation you are getting 7:1 odds on your bluff. That is, if your opponent folds 1 in 8 times, you profit from the semi-bluff. But wait, there's more. You actually will make a profit if your opponent folds 1 time in 8 (12.5%) of the time.
To complete the illustration, we have to make some assumptions. First, we let's assume that the semi-bluff won't get raised. Second, let's assume that we will get payed off on the river by a worse hand if we make the flush.
Given that. The ev for just calling is .56 bets, while the ev for semi-bluffing is .71 bets. So the semi-bluff does in fact make you REAL profit, in this situation. Now, you can argue that this situation isn't universal. The point is that if you aren't in a situation that is at least very similar to this one, then you are making a mistake.
Don't semi-bluff into aggressive players. Don't semi-bluff into a pot with 3 opponents. Don't semi-bluff a calling station. etc...
Just for completeness, here is a table which illustrates the ev calculation.
call
9/46 win 7 bets 1.37
37/46 lose 1 bet -.80
--------------------------------------------
total ev: .56 bets
semi-bluff
fold .125 win 6 bets .75
call .875
9/46 win 8 bets 1.37
37/46 lose 2 bets -1.41
--------------------------------------------
total ev: .71 bets
Semi-bluffs, USED CORRECTLY, are profit making tools.
- Andrew
Andrew, thanks for the figures, which prove the point. I was wrong, no doubt about it. Semi-bluffing is not a myth, and I've used it myself, come to think of it, though I think I'll do better knowing how it works.
I suspect the following may make the semi-bluff argument a little more focused: Sklanski has shown that for a specific situation, semi-bluffing can be profitable even when both bluffing and betting for value are NOT profitable. That is, the combination of winning now pluss the chance to win the river add up to a +EV bet.
However, I suspect David Z's point is that this is NOT enough to "prove" that you should semi-bluff in this situation. You must compare the EV of the semi-bluff to the EV of checking.
- Louie
True, but in a limit game it would be hard to conceive of a situation where checking is more profitable than a +EV semi bluff. No limit is however a different story.
Down below, buried deep within the Tournament thread started by Jim Brier, is a post by Mason Malmuth where he states:
"By the way, I believe that it is fairly easy to make between $5 and $10 per hour at the poker table and this number is after you have paid your rake and tips. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make $30 per hour or more. However, a few people who play very well are doing it."
I would love to discuss this. I want to know how many players CAN make $30 per hour or more playing poker. How many can make $20 per hour or more? $15 per hour or more?
Is it really possible for people to make a living at poker? Obviously it is, but is this group of players a select talented few? Can the rest of us ever hope to reach this goal, if this is in fact our goal?
All comments are welcome.
Mark Dodd
We discuss this in detail in our book Gambling For a Living.
Nice response!
Is $5 to $10 an hour worth it when jobs are paying at least $10 to $20 with full benefits and with many paying even more?
the key word in your response was 'JOBS'. i would much rather be my own boss, work my own hours, and take time off for whatever reason, than to punch a time clock and have to 'do as im told' for the same $$ or even a little more. and money won is twice as sweet as money earned. i make my living playing POKER.
"money won is twice as sweet as money earned."
Not when they are the same as it is with the life of a pro. The money won is earned. Maybe we can adjust the saying.
"A good hourly rate is twice as sweet as a fair pay check"
MJ
Good point MJChicago (n/m)
Could be tax free which counts for a lot.
tell me about your retirement plan, health benefits, paid holidays and vacation....
tell me about your retirement plan, health benefits, paid holidays and vacation....
the same question could be asked of anyone who is self employed.
there are some differences...usually when you are self employed it is involved in some sort of business that produces or involves a certain product. When you retire, you sell that business or interest. There is also specific health insurance plans for small businesses and the self employed. Also, if you take time off for vacation in a small business, you still have someone there who runs things for you. All of this cannot be siad of the pro poker player...
Not only are you not getting health bennies, but you are "punching in" to an environment that actually harms your health. You'll likely have to pay more for health insurance as a result. So its worse than just not getting health bennies.
While it would be a great way to spend my retirement I don't think I could play cards for a living. I don't think I could escape the feeling of not producing something. I would just feel like I was preying on others' weaknesses and mistakes and not contributing anything to society. I would need a higher purpose. Of course, I'm an attorney, so there has to be a punchline in there somewhere :)
Jon I.
nt
Two words: Free drinks. Three words: For your apartment.
Yeah, yeah, I know, so do most cardrooms, but Microsoft I know for a fact has both Coke and Pepsi products. Not to mention Vitamilk. Mmmm, that's good stuff.
Joe
I don't play poker for a living but I play in a casino almost every Saturday for the last year. On average I win $120/hour. I play stud - 75/150 or 30/60. I found that it is possible to win much more in stud than in hold'em (at least for me). I also play stud on-line (mostly on planet). Since 06/01 I cashed out $8500.
So, I would say, that it is possible to support yourself playing poker.
Hell with those kind of numbers you can support me too! Are you a female looking for a fat sugarless daddy?
vince
If you call playing cards 50-60 hours a week because you are addicted (but justify it because you are a winner overall) being your own boss, then you realy are in a state of denial.
Please.
Gambling for a living is a possibility, but who wants to do it? You have to grind it out day after day and on some occasions you might not even make anything at all. If you enjoy living on the edge and not having a stable life-style then maybe its OK. I'm a student majoring in accounting and I love poker. But playing for a living is just TOO much. The money isn't as good and it's a terribly difficult life. For lovers of the game playing for a living may seem like a great dream, but after thinking about it??? You would get so sick of it after a year. Think about that, playing poker for a year at least 5 days a week. I'd go insane! That's my opinion. For all those Mike McDermant wannabes, think about it, (drop out of school ---> play for the rest of your life) :-( bad idea!
It's a great hobby for most and I enjoy the time that I play. I think it would be hard to find many Poker Pro's that can make $80.00 to 100.00+ per hr over 1,800 hrs per year as most mid level positions do. I don't think very many pro's make that kind of cash.
Keep your day job!!
MJ
"Keep your day job!!" This is the most gutless advice I have ever found in this forum. "Keep your day job!!" equals "Keep kissing your employer's ass!!". In full time professional poker, you get to KICK ASS on the road to individualistic glory not kiss ass the way all 9 to 5 conformist gutless slaves do. There is no dignity in kissing ass, only in kicking ass. Blessed are those brave souls who dare to burn their bridges, burn their ships, and burn their resumes in order to fully engage their minds, bodies, and souls in the passionate pursuit of glory in that most glorious and bloody of arenas, full-time professional poker. And pity to those gutless 9 to 5 slaves who would rather take the sissy route of kissing an employer's ass. God bless.
AMEN BROTHER !!!!!!! i couldnt have said it better myself.
Wow. Yeah. Blindly follow your passions on some testosterone-driven "screw-the-boss-I-ain't-taking-crap-from-no-one" mentality. Bet your future and livelihood (and maybe that of your wives and children) on your perception that you can play poker well enough to make it your full time job. Have no back-up plan. "Blessed are those brave souls who dare to burn their bridges, burn their ships, and burn their resumes in order to fully engage their minds, bodies, and souls in the passionate pursuit of glory in that most glorious and bloody of arenas, full-time professional poker" -- my ass. When kids from the inner city due just this to pursue a long-shot chance for a successful career in the NBA or NFL we shake our heads. Its no different than poker. I admire those who live lives of sacrifice and who shoulder responsibilities. Working a steady job to meet those responsibilities is an admirable thing.
Jon I.
perhaps it's noble in its own way, but its also a rather risk-averse way to live that sacrifices freedom in favor of a questionable security. Granted, not everyone has the desire to make the noble "sacrifices" and "shoulder the responsibilities" of finding work outside the job system, which was set up by people richer than us for their, not our benefit.
The average worker today is going to be changing careers three times in his working life - at the very least. Job security is a delusion my friend. Not even IBM and many Japanese firms have been able to live up to their promise of "life time employment". Corporate loyalty is dead and the concept of "a steady job" has been cremated along with it. Downsizing, reengineering, global competition, fast paced innovation. These change propelling developments are the realities of today's working world. If you still believe in security, you're living in the past - the long gone past of the pre-information/globalization age. I say wake up and play poker, or something entrepreneurial like it. There is no security in life, only opportunity.
Well, not all of us find our life inspiration coming form "The Dukes of Hazard" TV show.
I never watched Duke of Hazard but I did love Kung Fu.
That's garbage. Anyone who is mature enough (which you clearly aren't, veteran or not) can get on fine with their employers without ever having to "kiss ass".
Andy.
You may think you're not kissing ass but your employer, along with God, knows you are.
Very funny indeed--I mean, seriously funny.
And pity to those gutless 9 to 5 slaves who would rather take the sissy route of kissing an employer's ass.
Just remember Poker Veteran you have a job that pays you by the hour also.
And as for the "fully engage their minds, bodies, and souls " most hightech job are just that.
What is your hourly rate????
MJ
MJ is right, Poker Veteran is just full of it. Also, many of us who do work regular jobs are our own bosses. If you're smart enough and with the right attitude you can easily start up a business on your own and have no boss. So this crap about kissing your employer's ass is just a bunch of $#!t. I think that poker veteran just can't handle the heat of a regular job and tries to praise his own lifestyle to make himself feel better.
Heat of a regular job? There's a thousand times more heat in full time pro poker than at any workplace. That's because in poker, your source of discipline has to come from within. In a job, discipline is spoon fed to you from the outside by your company and the policies that it has created to control your life. In the workplace, discipline is fake. At the poker arena, discipline is genuine.
Poker is a not a job. It's an adventure! More than that, it is a passion - a religious spiritual experience of the highest order. I don't expect the typical 9 to 5er to understand this.....ever....
Poker is a not a job. It's an adventure! that pays the bills
$$?
Upper middle limit. 1 and 1/3 big bets per hour. Are you from the IRS?
NO !!! I am not from the IRS (I just play one on TV õ¿õ )
PV
I am just trying to find out what a "Poker Pro" can make in relation to what I can make over time at the regular job thats all.
Thanks,
MJ
Since you don't know my real name and seem sincere and friendly in asking your question, I make close to 80 bucks per hour. If you make ten times this amount, I don't care. I'm even willing to do it free because I love it and I don't get to kiss ass. That's the point!!! And I expect to make more as I move up.
Thanks for the realy number. I get your point and if I had to start all over I may have been sitting right next to ya. The odds seem to be against it for most or is that thinking just wrong??
Best of it in the move to the top limits !!
MJ
I WILL make it to the top limits. It may take some time because I'm too patient and hold capital preservation in high esteem. But I WILL get there. It's what God wants me to do. I can feel it in my gut. Good luck to ya too.
Well, poker veteran if you average $80 per hour playing poker than assuming you play 40 hours a week for 50 weeks per year giving yourself a two week vacation, you must be making about $160,000 per year playing poker. This puts you in probably the top 0.1% of all poker players. I doubt if Roy Cooke, Mason Malmuth, Bob Ciaffone, or even David Sklansky make this much money each year just playing poker. When are you coming out with your book?
It's funny you should ask about my book. I've been writing one on and off for the last 4 years. My goal is to make it a very comprehensive poker book that includes a lot of psychology in addition to strategy. I keep getting writer's block though. But I'm sure I'll finish it eventually. I'm primarily a player not a writer. Regarding my 80 bucks per hour. I'm mature and secure enough to admit that I have been very very lucky - unfairly lucky. I'm realistic enough to realize that I cannot continue to earn this much at the limits that I am currently playing. The "perfect storms" just haven't hit me yet. But if life is fair - and I know it is - those tsunamis will come. I'm ready. Bring them on!!!
Poker is a vacation that's a vocation too. Poker is a vocation that's a vacation too. It's making a living and bungee jumping all rolled into one!!! Yeah!!!
.
..
The point is this. 2+2 has a few suggestions and the key is to know when to listen, they had the bankroll reqs for most table games at various limits. Point is if you need to make a decent living you will need a whole lot of money as a bankroll. Take my word for it as I have tried it there are no shortcuts - if you have the funds to play 30-60 you are rich. Implied that you have 3 months living expense in the bank anyway. To play 6-12 as a pro is insane 10-20 is dubious, 15-30 is bare, skimpy living.
.
I love your attitude. I wish I could quit being a 9-5 brown nose. Maybe someday.....
The earlier you take the plunge, the better. You don't wanna do it when you're old because if you fail, you'll have very little time to make a comeback. Do it now!!! I once read an article about a hospital worker who got the chance to interview a lot of old people who were dying. None of these old people ever regretted anything that they had actually done, even if they had failed at it. What they regretted was wanting to do something and not having the guts to do it. Also, none of them ever wished they had spent more time at the office.
There is no sadder sight in the world than a young pessimist who would rather play it safe by kissing an employer's ass than rise up to the challenge of a full time professional poker adventure. How sad that today's youth, the supposed leaders of the future, no longer embody the spirit of adventure that our forefathers brought through blood, sweat, and tears to this great country. It is very sad indeed.
You sound like me, 30 years ago. Thank God I wasn't listening ! Plan Bs are acceptable.
Plan A: KICK ASS!!! Plan B: Kiss ass!!! Thanks for the splendid advice. You're very inspiring.
PV,
If I can make much more money on plan B (kissing ass) than I can make by plan A (kicking ass), why should I even consider plan A?
Furthermore, how much does medical insurance cost when you're on the plan A career? (Note that, plan B includes this option)
I would consider a career switch to plan A, if I could make at least $200K a year. How much money do you make?
Very sound advice. That's why I've always put my education first (Charter Accountant)and my poker second. I love to play but I have my priorities for a solid future. I know that if I wanted to I could play poker for a living but it would be much harder for me to play poker and make my 6 figures a year. Poker is a great game but for people with sound minds and a good education it should come second.
"Poker is a great game but for people with sound minds and a good education it should come second". Ken Flaton, Steve Badger, David Sklansky, Daniel Negreanu, Huck Seed and countless others. These good people are committed pros who put poker first. Are you implying that they don't have sound minds and are uneducated? I don't agree with you whatsoever.
HILOPRO@WEBTV.NET
I'll email you after I come back from my trip. I lot of players think like we do. They just haven't chosen to make posts about it. That's their prerogative.
Plan B is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you consider it, you will make it come true. Plan B hampers and drags down THE GOAL. By the way, mah, are you and MJChicago from the IRS or somethin'?
All these posters saying that it's sad that the younger generation won't go on poker adventures.
Hell, if I had nothing to lose then sure I'd go. But my family has invested a lot in my education and there's no way in hell that I would throw that away. Professional poker (many, not all) players are usually drop outs who couldn't handle the heat while in college or univerisity and decided to do what they love.
But for those of you who say playing for a living is the good life, you guys haven't seen the good life. Many successful people in the world just have to sit on their asses everyday and make hundreds of thousands. I mean literally, they have secretaries and other help to do everything for them. That's the good life. Sitting in a smoked filled room EVERYDAY for hours on end making at most 30/hr is no where near the good life.
Post deleted at author's request.
A large majority of the people who play poker full-time for a living don't smoke (only a small minority do). Most of the smoke in today's cardrooms come from the 9 to 5 slaves who use both smoking and poker to unwind from the stresses associated with kissing ass all day at work!!!
I know a lot of professional poker players. Want to know a few things that most of them seem to have in common? (Please note that I am not talking about ALL pros - god no. Just a few of them that I know)
1) They look kind of dirty.
2) They seem to age prematurely - might be 50 but look 65.
3) Many of them have done time.
4) Many of them are pretty poor.
5) They seem pretty unhappy a lot of the time.
6) Always seem tired.
This is what my friends with great careers seem to have in common:
1) Generally happy.
2) Clean clothes and good hygene.
3) Great money - plenty to spend on fancy toys.
4) Self respect because they contribute to society and get rewards for a job well done.
5) Most LIKE their jobs and their bosses, if they have them - they don't feel like slaves.
I am not knocking professional poker players or poker in any way. I get enormous enjoyment from it and I can't count the number of great friends I've made and the countless enjoyable hours I've had. But making it a JOB is something altogether different. It isn't brave or adventuresome.
I think being a pro poker player must be something like being a telemarketer. You have to sit in a crummy chair all day. You have to deal with cranky bitchy people that resent you. (At least, if you are playing poker you want them to resent you - that means you're winning their money.)
Most people I know with good jobs LOVE their jobs. And most of them make a lot more than 30 bucks an hour I can assure you! Add in lots of freebies (like healthcare, bonuses, paid vacation, etc etc etc) and it's not so bad.
Please don't misinterpret this posting. But like they say, don't quit your day job! Now as something to do after retirement..... that might be great!
-SmoothB-
I think many of those players that you are talking about are Poker Pro's only because they are A) Compulsive Gamblers or B) Have some other personality flaw that forces them to choose Poker as a non-teamwork related career.
What do you think?
CV
I can't agree with you more. I am sure that is why they do it. And I also know that there are lots of others that do not fit this description. Once again I will emphasize that I was not bashing anyone in that post.
I do think it is kind of harsh for pros to criticize those who do not wish to play poker professionally. Especially by calling them 'slaves' or accusing them of not being 'adventuresome'.
I've played poker in vegas and watched the big games from the rail and it didn't look like a safari or anything like that to me. Although some parts of the Mirage might make you feel like you're on one.
I have a question. Where are the big no limit games played, how much money is on the table at any given time, etc? Now THAT seems exciting. And more skillful.
-SmoothB-
I am a little late to this party but I might as well throw my two cents in as well. The number of poker players who are capable of beating a real game like $15-$30 or above for $30 per hour over many thousands of hours of play is very small. I would offer the following observations:
1. Most poker players keep lousy records on their performance. When asked what there hourly earn is you usually get some ridiculous number like "Well, I won a thousand last week in $4-8 so I earn about $25 per hour". Or, "I won $20,000 in the month of April playing $20-$40 at the Mirage but I don't remember how many hours I played".
2. Poker players, especially regulars, are notorious liars about how well they perform. Their ego will not permit them to look at how well they have done over several thousand hours of play and they tend to forget or omit any long losing sessions. Virtually every player I have ever known claimed to be a winning player.
3. Many so called "poker pros" are not really pros at all but have some other source of income like a pension, a trust fund, an inheritance, etc.
3. People who call themselves poker pros usually live alone or with a roommate in a cheap apartment and drive crummy cars. They are almost always single. Those that are married have a working wife.
4. I played for almost 5 years at the Players Island Casino initially and later at the Isle of Capri in Lake Charles, Louisiana. It was a 12 table room and there was plenty of action. I knew dozens of the regulars. There was only one player who played well enough to make a living on their $10-$20-$40 game and their $20-$40 game. He averaged about $50 per hour over the course of a year and he probably played about 1000-1500 hours annually. But this is one guy out of hundreds that played in that cardroom over the course of a year.
5. I have only been here in Vegas for a few months but of the scores of players I have played against I don't believe there is more than a dozen that can really make any serious money at the game at the $15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60 level (Roy Cooke and Cissy Bottoms come to mind). I cannot speak for the higher limits.
6. To get results at the poker table over the long haul you have to not only play well you have to be lucky. By lucky I mean that your hands have to hold up as often as they should and you don't get sucked out a lot. By lucky, I mean that you don't run bad for 6 months or a year. When I say run bad I don't mean not making enough to cover expenses I mean losing money over a 6 month or 1 year period because of suckouts, holdovers, and an inability to make a decent draw a fair amount of the time.
Jim, I'm surprised at the following point you made:
"6. To get results at the poker table over the long haul you have to not only play well you have to be lucky. By lucky I mean that your hands have to hold up as often as they should and you don't get sucked out a lot. By lucky, I mean that you don't run bad for 6 months or a year. When I say run bad I don't mean not making enough to cover expenses I mean losing money over a 6 month or 1 year period because of suckouts, holdovers, and an inability to make a decent draw a fair amount of the time."
If one is to be a pro, wouldn't one expect to have a long bad run at some point in his career? There is nothing you can do about getting a bad run of cards other than having a bankroll big enough to weather the storm. It's not that uncommon for other businesses to have losing years, but they have enough money in reserve to get them trough and eventually return to profitability.
Is your point that it is rare that anyone trying to become a pro has enough of a bankroll for this?
Steve
Yes, that is exactly my point since a pro is usually living off his bankroll. The other aspect is psychological. Some people have played for awhile and never really had a six month or one year losing streak. They have the psychological strength to handle a losing session, a losing week, and occasionally a losing month. But when they start running bad over an extended period it starts to affect their attitude toward the game, the people they play against, and themselves. They usually end up having to borrow money from friends, relatives, etc. This puts a strain on their personal relationships as well.
When Bob Ciaffone lived here in Vegas for 12 years he knew of players who did well for awhile and were seen frequently in the big card rooms like the Mirage, the Nugget, and the Horseshoe back then (Bellagio was not built when he lived here). These guys were assumed to be professionals and appeared to do well. But then they would suddenly leave town never to be heard from again. What usually happened is that they started borrowing money from everyone a little at a time and when their debt get got so large their only alternative was to leave town. This was/is a common occurrence.
.
Wow, I never expected my post to generate so much interest. Granted, a lot of it was off topic, but still interesting. I'd like to thank all of you for giving this topic some perspective.
I'd now like to give you guys some perspective on my life. I am 22 and will graduate with distinction from the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, with a degree in Electrical Engineering (BTW Jim, if my school would have offered Aeronautical Engineering I would have taken it). I have 4 months of school left, which I will complete in April 2001. I was curious as to how FEASIBLE playing professional poker was. I don't think I have the skills (not yet especially) to do something like this. I only have 100 hours at the tables.
The reason I brought this topic up is that after I graduate I don't want to immediately start working as an engineer. I want to take some time off and consider what I really want to do. I'm thinking of taking like a six month holiday to Europe or something, but I also wouldn't mind getting a crummy job (like McDonald's) and then grinding out a living playing poker. This wouldn't be a career, it would just be a fun way to spend a year of my life. The way I see it is that I'll always have a pretty decent degree to FALL BACK (wink wink) on if I need it.
Really, I was just looking for some perspective, thanks again to everyone for giving it to me. Maybe I'll see you guys at the tables someday in Vegas (where I currently have never played).
Mark Dodd
It is quite interesting that this thread has evoked such a wide range of responses containing strong emotional content.
My personal view is that it is a pipe dream for most who would attempt it, but that there are a relatively small number who are able to do it. Most who attempt it find out rather quickly whether it is really for them or not.
I suggest that it is really a personal decision. The extreme views espoused by Poker Veteran and the responses he has managed to evoke from others are somewhat off-topic and are highly emotionally charged. The question is whether it is possible for more than a select talented few. The answer actually depends upon one's definition of "a few."
Whether it is a desirable lifestyle/career is a question that can only be answered individually on a very personal level. What is right for one is wrong for another. Finding your own niche in life, careerwise (or the best facsimile thereof), is a goal most of us would aspire to. For a relative few this is professional poker, for most it is not. The threads by Poker Veteran and some of the responses seem to be speaking in more absolute terms, without taking into account that it is simply another career choice, and one that most who attempt cannot succeed at for various reasons. This is true of many other fields as well. There is little point to saying, in effect, "my field is better than your field", or the like.
If you would truly like to know if it is for you or not, I would suggest trying it if the calling is strong enough and if you are objectively certain you are a winning player. Since most who try it fail, I would also suggest not burning your bridges at first.
M let me give you another perspecitve. Suppose you are a young man in his late teens with an IQ of about 130 and an aptitude for math. You have talent, have patience, discpline, a good attitude, and a healthy psychological makeup. You have the choice of going to an accredited engineering school for the next four years and getting a degree in say, aerospace engineering. If you follow this path I could almost guarantee you that you will get a high paying job offered to you when you graduate and within 10 years you will be making over $100,000 per year plus a full benefits package (health insurance, paid vacation, retirement plan, stock options, etc.).
Now what do you think the likelihood is that this same guy will be making $100,000 a year playing poker? I would not give him more than one chance in a hundred. He might get lucky and have some extraordinary years where he makes over $100,000 but it is highly unlikely that he will average this year in and year out over the course of a 30 or 40 year playing career.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Glad you mentioned the 4 year engineer thing.
Let's just say 2+2 wrote out a 4 year Degree Program for Gambling (they started it with their "Gambling for a Living"). What do you think the chances of a person completing the course would have making +100000 a year. I think it is good.
By the way, many Engineers I worked with at Micron didn't make over 100000 a year. The people who did the best were upper management.
CV
I think reading 2+2 would give the guy his best shot but I still don't like his chances. The average starting salary for an aerospace engineer just out of college is around $35,000. Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, Honeywell, and the other major engineering firms pay their senior working level engineers over $100,000 per year if they have 10+ years of experience typically unless the guy has really messed up somewhere. When I worked for NASA as a government, civil-service employee at the Johnson Space Center in Houston we had a GS-14 and GS-15 working level engineers who made $100,000 per year. I was making $115,000 per year when I retired. Their counterparts in the private sector usually made a little more.
What's the point? There is no such university. And so what if there are some engineers that make less than 100,000 a year?
Let's take a lineup of 1000 random professional poker players. Take another lineup of 1000 random engineers. Which mean income would be higher? I put my money on the engineers. Care to make a wager? I'll give you 2:1 odds.
-SmoothB-
The Point is that most players end up playing by the seat of their pants. How many top notch Engineers would their be if the only way to become an Engineer was to study on your own with out any teachers, tutors, or Degree Programs to follow?
Most Professional Gamblers are undereducated for the games they play.
That's my take,
CV
And in the end the Aerospace engineer will have built cool airplanes and rockets and stuff, and the poker player will have nothing to remember except a endless collection of rushes and bad beats. Boring.
Jim hit the nail on the head, here. Poker beats the hell out of working at McDonald's for minimum wage, but anyone who can beat poker for enough money to make a living can do a lot better than McDonald's.
You have to consider opportunity cost as well. If you're a young guy starting out, you probably don't have much of a bankroll. So you'll be playing lower limits, making a low salary. Perhaps one day you can get your income up to $100K/yr (although that's very unlikely), but by then you'll have spent a lot of years making very little.
A more reasonable goal for a pro poker player is to make $40K per year. But 40K per year for a person with a high-IQ, good people skills, and an aptitude for math is a very poor salary. Hell, you could go to a tech school for 6 months, get an MCSE, and start somewhere at $45K and be making twice that in five years.
If you're a poker pro, you can also kiss your social life goodbye outside of the tables. If you're married, expect your marriage to suffer immense stress due to all your late nights and the inevitable downswings that the wife can't understand. If you're not married, good luck trying to find someone who understands your lifestyle and is willing to put up with it. Remember, your spouse has to put up with all the bad stuff, without getting any of the benefits. HER life would almost certainly be better if you were working 9-5.
Good luck trying to get a mortgage. Have fun getting credit for any other reason. Expect to have your wife cringe when people ask her what her husband does for a living, and budget for a lot of flowers to make up for all the times she's going to have to put up with a lecture from a 'caring friend' about getting you help for your gambling habit.
And finally, if you're really as bright as you think you are (whoever's reading this and contemplating going pro), expect to get really, really bored. Poker is great fun when you don't have to do it, but like many other things in life it becomes tedious when you are forced to do it to survive. Snowboarding is a lot of fun, but I'm guessing that there are professional snowboarders out there who just hate the sight of the thing. Anything done to excess gets old. A beautiful mansion would be nice to live in, but if someone locks you inside it's a jail, and you'll soon see only the negatives and overlook the benefits.
I have played with computers and written software for yucks all my life. Now I'm a professional software developer, and you know what? It can be boring and tedious. A lot of kids out there hacking code can't imagine that you could get bored with it and hate going to work when you're paid to sit down and solve puzzles and write new software. But you do. Just like poker.
Dan youre so right.Poker is so exciting when its your hobby its hard to imagine how boring it can be when its your job.Sure youre your own boss and all of that but that only gives you the freedom to decide when to work. I play in a big potlimit game and find it hard to pay attention half the time.I know for sure Id rather the MacDonalds alternative than have to serve a life sentence playing limit.However when Im en route to Binions every April I tend to forget what a pain in the ass this wonderful game can be.
The 'Freedom' of professional poker is a myth. I was completely free to pick my own hours to play when I was a pro. Except that to make a living I had to put in my 40 hour weeks just like anyone else. And since the games here have scheduled starts, I was 'on the clock' more rigidly than if I had been working somewhere.
The only thing that buys freedom is wealth. If you want to maintain a certain lifestyle, you have to have the money to do it. Whether you earn that money playing poker or working for IBM, you still have to earn it. That puts hard restrictions on your life. You're certainly free to not play poker this week, as I am free to take a week's vacation from work without pay whenever I feel like it. But I don't, because I need the money.
I never worked more hours in my life than when I was playing poker or self-employed. I'd get to the casino, and be on the waiting list for the 15-30 game. I'd blow three hours just waiting to get into the game (three hours without pay, mind you). Then the game would break early, and I'd go home having booked 3 or 4 hours of play for an 8 hour shift. So the next day I'd have to make sure I got their for game start (so much for freedom to choose my hours), and play 12 hours to make up the time.
Weekends off? hah! The best games are on the weekends, so you go to work. The wife wants to go out tomorrow night? Well, you can't because you need to put in the hours and today's game didn't start. Sick? Well, tough noogies. You get no sick pay. So work through it, or miss the games and do without the income or play twice as much next week. Lotsa fun.
I used to be self-employed. And much the same is said about self employment as poker - you're free, you are your own boss, etc. Except that I never worked harder in my life when I was self-employed, and my customers certainly expected me in the office at 9 AM. And if you're sick, there's no casual staff to replace the boss.
"I have played with computers and written software for yucks all my life. Now I'm a professional software developer, and you know what? It can be boring and tedious. A lot of kids out there hacking code can't imagine that you could get bored with it and hate going to work when you're paid to sit down and solve puzzles and write new software. But you do. Just like poker."
Amen to that. And you make a good point. I wouldn't enjoy playing poker if I _had_ to go and do it 50 hours a week to pay the bills.
Andy.
Very likely true. This is one of the reasons I would suggest that only those for whom "the calling is strong enough" try it, and that they also be objectively certain that they are winning players. If they have a greater calling to another field, or are called to the greater security of another profession, then that should be their pursuit instead. Again, it is a very personal matter, requiring serious introspection and consideration.
Hi, I think (for what it is worth) that any good self employment will fill most wanne pro player dreams with just as much rushs and failure as any game, I have been self employed 24 years and playing poker is easy compare to self employment. ron
Remember this...somebody has to lose at the tables...and the person you beat might have some hungry mouths to feed at home!!!
So, GET A JOB...and gamble with people who have lots of MONEY and could care less about losing!!!Sure, your opportunities might be limited...but, you'll probably have greater peace of mind after beating those suckers (I am assuming you can play the game with some skill and are always looking to improve).
Besides, we all have accountablity in this life...whether we like it or not...what kind of life is that? Pro poker player? The "crazies" and "nit wits" that I have encountered over the years are the most discouraging people I have ever meet. Who the heck can endure that nonsense and fooishnesses 40+ hours a week?
Maybe in the public rooms...but the private games are a different ballgame...the "deadbeats" all come "in top form" They can't spell WORK and have not earned an honest dollar in years...Moreover, these people have very poor moral character...and I dare anyone to challenge me on this (because you will lose that argument...so bring on the argument that poker players have good moral character...we are very few in the poker world).Not that I am claiming to be a good moral character myself!
Nonetheless, I decide to play (and I pick my spots very carefully these days) since my limited skill allows me to beat the "softer" games.
In closing, gambling is B.S. for most people...because 99% of the population hasn't a clue how to gamble or avoid the pitfalls of losing, etc. I have had my problems in the past...and for the past several years am reaping the benefits of my earlier mistakes. However, my experience leads me to believe that gambling for a living is a pipedream and a RTN (ROAD TO NOWHERE)!
P.S. If you plan to gamble...you MUST understand Two Plus Two Gambling Theory and Concepts to have any chance of LASTING success. Moreover, you MUST APPLY it to your gambling style and lifesyle. Read all you want...but if you don't APPLY it...you are a SUCKER who has no shot. How's that for negative?
I was just curious as to what books are being considered or are in production from any of the 2+2 authors next?
thanks,
Arrash
im still thinking, any help?
I would love to see an in-depth book devoted entirely to short-handed play. I think this would help fill a void in poker literature since so little has been written about it.
How about a "Ray Zee Poker Diary/Biography" (better name needed) of sorts. Not necessarily a "how-to" book although that would be nice. You could write about your experiences playing poker, from how you found out about it, when you decided to get good, how you got good, when you decided to turn pro, your experiences as a pro, what you've observed about poker players (of all levels of skill, suckers to very top players), what you've observed about the game in general, what it is like to be a "devastating money winner," etc. Well you get the idea. I imagine that a player with a top reputation like yourself would have a great story to tell.
Sincerely,
sucker
PS i hope several others on the forum will also decide to write books in the future
I agree a book on short-handed play woul be great as would one on pot-limit play,
thanks,
Arrash
Short-Handed play. n/t
ray when you write this tome please work in some off topic stuff like your experiences with bears. that was pretty cool.
a bunch of funny stories. i am still waiting.
scott
Play 500-1000 hands online and publish the hands with your comments. I would love to look over the shoulder of RZ, MM, or DS. Leave in all the boring hands. It would be great to see the theory converted into real world play.
Hey, I'd like to see that one too.
A book on "big-bet" poker should be more popular now than ever before.
over the last 12 months I have made $91,238 playing in tournaments in europe and america.
over the last 3 years I have made $161,006 in tournaments.
Over the last 12 months I have lost $13,438 in side games.
Over the last 3 years I have won $58,146 in side games.
I am on a 12 month losing streak in side games.
I am a pro and it is driving me nuts.
If I didn't have the bankroll it would crush me.
could you handle a 12 month losing streak?
when i was an accountant i didn't have 12 month losing streaks.
i know that i could lose all my money at any time.
i dont beleive i can live long enough to get comfortably into the "long run"
i have never met a well adjusted pro who didn't have a big tournament hit (50k or better) early in his career.
all "pros" do something on the side that they truly enjoy.
"Over the last 12 months I have lost $13,438 in side games"
Tom,
What limit? and How many hours?
And where is Ray Zee to tell you you can't be a winning player if you have been loosing for that long.
If I recall correctly from Mason's essays (read many years ago now), he stated the following four items:
1) That the variance in 7-Stud was about the same as in Lowball Draw
2) That it would be possible for someone to play Lowball at an expert level full-time for two years and still be behind at the end of this time due to variance
3)When a good player runs very badly over a very long period of time, what usually happens is that he goes on tilt and is not a good player anymore
4) That most professionals are probably playing at a level where their bankrolls are in jeopardy
What this all means is that the long-run can be far longer than would intuitively seem possible. I know of a player who is both truly a world-class tourn. champ AND a ring game champ, who ran bad for six months straight once--and yes, went broke in the process. He recovered somehow and has since been a top tourn. and ring game player for many years.
Bottom line: If it's your career choice, be prepared to weather very long losing streaks on occasion. If you lose for a year, that doesn't prove you are expected to lose, although it increases the probability of the accuracy of such a statement.
You can only be dealt perhaps 65,000 hands/year anyway even playing full-time (live poker). That's not a huge sample size, especially when you consider all the other variables as well, such as do you win with that Ace-high flush or lose with it, and do you make Aces-full in a big pot or a little pot, etc.
Bottom line again: Don't expect poker to be fair anymore than the world is fair. We may not live long enough to really see the long run. If you play well enough you should eventually win if you can last long enough. It's not quite as simple as "Cooke's" recurring field because there are far more variables at work in poker than in Blackjack. Plus your opponents play better or worse against you according to how they perceive you are doing, so there is a bit of a snowball effect in Poker.
But as Mike Caro says, you can win eventually even if the cards don't break even. Don't expect them to.
(n/t)
*
he is right here. maybe he wins in tourneys and not in side games. not many players play well in both. i cant imagine a good player being stuck after a year of playing. there is a players picture on my book that looks alot like i used to,that has played for over 30 years and never has had a losing month of poker, never left a world series losing, or a major tournament a loser that he played more than a couple of days.
These statistics are encouraging, but you forgot to add that you are widely considered one of the very best players in the world and most pros might not hope to achieve similar results.
So Ray Zee is the Tiger Woods of poker...how many Tiger Woods are there?
If it was going to be real, it had to include you.
How many hours does your losing year represent?
When I was playing full time, I was putting in about 120-170 hours per month. My longest losing stretch was three months. And I think that represented some truly horrible luck, along with no doubt some degraded play on my part. I did go for a longer stretch where I wasn't winning much, such that I didn't regain my bankroll peak for about 6 months after the initial loss.
I'm one of the cautious types who recommends against playing poker as a sole occupation, but one year of constant losses would indicate to me either that you didn't play many hours in that year, or your expected win rate was very low or negative.
I'm still young in my poker career, but if I start having loosing *weeks* I step down to the lower limit games for a while. Have you tried this?
CV
Why play in side games at all when you do so well in tournaments?
O.K., Ray Zee likes to hang around Montana making the Unibomber look like a big spender. Other posters dramatize the "adventure" of professional poker and complain you need to "kiss ass" in a real job. But they have no problem being cordial to "live ones" at the table.
Mason Malmuth writes few players can exceed $30 per hour. A motivated college graduate can earn this with opportunities for advancement. I think you must have special circumstances or a really strong life-style preference to choose poker. Do pro players tend to have a strong independent anti-authoritarian streak that prevents them from enjoying regular employment? They must have some unusual characteristics.
God brought us into this world as individuals. Our individuality and uniqueness is God's ultimate gift to us. Therefore, the best way to thank God for this great gift is to be as individual as possible. When you work in a large organization, you become a clone not an individual. You have to believe what everyone believes, you have to think like everyone thinks, you have act and behave like everyone else does, you even have to dress like everyone does. In short, you forgo your individuality and in the process deprive yourself of God's great gift. For most people, it's much easier to be a clone than to be an individual. Do you know why? Because there's safety in numbers. In other words, it takes a lot more guts to strike out on your own than to play it safe by being one of the faceless sheeps in the herd. But it's the way to go. Does this mean that if you're a poker pro you have to be mean? Absolutely not!! Do you know why? Because once you come to be comfortable with your own individuality, you start to become respectful of others' individualities too. There are no live ones in poker, only living breathing individuals who are special in their own kiss ass way.
Dear Poker Veteran,
As an experienced player I know you understand that absolutes are absurd, and a deft use of moderation can sometimes be the most forceful means of achieving your objective. So what is with the totalitarian rant trying to encapulate the mentality of all successful poker players
Whatever gave you the false impression that I'm trying to speak for "all" successful poker players? I'm just innocently and humbly expressing my own views, that's all. The number of reasons for turning fulltime pro is as many as the number of people who decide to turn pro themselves. It's an individual thing. But I think that the basic reason is that most pros are just a little bit more individualistic than the average 9 to 5 ass kisser. He has to be. Let's face it, when you're a poker pro you're not exactly "part of the system" and are therefore detached from the "security" that many believe the system provides.
But I think that the basic reason is that most pros are just a little bit more individualistic than the average 9 to 5 ass kisser.
You want to talk about kissing ass. The biggest ass kissers on earth are the "pro poker players" that run around with lipstick on kissing the asses of the wealthy live ones. Talk about a DISGUSTING sight.
A very good point. For a particularly stomach-churning description of American pros sucking up to a rich Arab, check out Michael Konik's very entertaining "The man with the $100,000 breasts and other stories".
As well as having an ass-kissing 9 to 5 job, I sell some software off my website. When responding to a query today it struck me that often I have to be more polite to my potential customers than to my full-time employers. Self-employment in any form isn't always the kick-ass option.
Andy.
Well - it's an interesting thread... I have been 'independent' for about ten years as a contractor but there is some form of social norm and conduct I have to adhere in order to maximize my effort I am a software contract engineer and I invest my corporate surplus in the stock and options market. Obviously a 'player' regardless if he/she is poker player or plays the stockmarket for big bucks has enough freedom AND enough FU $$$$ to be FREE !!! All other self-employed types will have to play by some rules and (occasionaly) kiss some ass. i.e. be nice to idiots and jack-asses. If this is ass kissing, I don't know ???? However I suspect the ones who play the game will have mood swings and will be very social/friendly on good days and hate you when they lose. It's very simple minded to bulk all the poker players as the only free spirited mavericks in society. To put it simply if you need others as customers (poker pleyers DO !!!) better be nice to them, if you only play invisibly i.e no need to customers then you are the freer one not the player in Vegas who makes $30 per hour and hates everyone in the card room. We all at time strive to just have enough to say FU to all and quit work, right?
When you work in a large organization, you become a clone not an individual. You have to believe what everyone believes, you have to think like everyone thinks, you have act and behave like everyone else does, you even have to dress like everyone does.
Pro poker players work in a large casino. They are cloned individuals. They believe what every other poker player believes, and they think like all of the other poker players think. Poker players act and behave like everyone else acts and behaves for the most part. And talk about dressing?! Pro poker players with their portable chairs, mirrored sunglasses and Sony Walkmans are the most ridiculous looking people on the planet.
"Pro poker players with their portable chairs, mirrored sunglasses and Sony Walkmans....." Funny sounding stereotyping and overgeneralizing. Very funny.
What you're saying simply isn't accurate. Either you've never worked in a large corporation, or the one(s) you did work in were of the worst sort.
I feel no pressure to think and act like everyone else at my job. I do need to wear a suit and tie, but my individuality goes way beyond my attire. In fact, the only reason I could care less what I wear is how comfortable it is. The appearance is irrelevant.
Being polite to co-workers is the same as being polite to fellow players at the poker table. Neither one is kissing ass, unless that's what YOU make it. Personally, I enjoy being nice to other people, in any venue. Maybe you want to be snide and nasty, and couldn't do it at work. If so, that doesn't mean the pleasant people were kissing ass, it more likely means that they're simply nicer people than YOU!
Enough with the ass-kissing commentary. All you're doing is showing ignorance. Please give it a rest.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
very well put...
I'll be leaving shortly (I'm going out of town for a few days - I'll be back early next week). So I guess what you call my "ass kissing commentary" will have to be put to rest for a while. Later, All Knowledgable FossilMan. Sorry for exposing you to my "ignorance". See ya next week.
But you were asking for it.
I certainly don't think I'm all-knowing, and always know that I may be wrong on any topic. However, you've been advocating this absolutist viewpoint about every paycheck worker being an ass-kisser and it just seems to me that you have to be wrong. I'd be curious how much experience you've had working for how many different corporations. Even if it's a relatively big number, I still suspect you've had the misfortune to land on the negative extreme of the bell curve on this issue. If it's a small number, then maybe you should learn more before you express such an absolute viewpoint so adamantly.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Maybe it goes like this. One can contribute all they have to corporate success, raising ones family and building a nest egg. One day they realize when middle aged they have been miserable kissing ass and making sacrifices and it is now time to do something they enjoy and excell at.
Just a thought -
Some of you so-called pros better realize something. Assume you're making $30/hour, which Mason says very few players can exceed. If you play 40 hours for 50 weeks, you've made $60,000. Big deal. You're just a working stiff like anyone else who scratches out a living. Any decent "ass-kisser" makes $100,000, most do a lot better. Furthermore, if you pay your taxes, which means you function as a contributing member of society rather than being a useless leech, you're left with about $38,000. Big whoop-de-doo! I'm sensing a real lack of respect from some of you poker pros, but theres little difference between us. Same rats different race!
Quads,
Marc
2 things - you have a strange concept of social responsibility and Mason is not always right.
Thanks for the thought, Rounder. But why wait until middle age before doing what one truly enjoys and excels at? Why not do what one enjoys and excels at while the vibrance of youth is still fully alive and kicking?
family kids college responsibility - some times it takes years to find the right thing to do.
I don't know - when I was a young man I gambled and my family was not the woste for it - they probably were better off as I had some very good years.
People ought to do what they are good at - I was good at making deals and selling services - made a lot of money in my life and had fun most of the time - but corporations suck the life out of you and leave a dead body at the road side - I didn't wait for that. I haven't worked for anyone else for 15 years and you know it is a great feeling.
Poker veteran I think you underestimate the joy of working on a team with a lot of different people in order to achieve a common objective. I was part of a team that helped built the first Space Station and it was very exciting to watch it come together. My father worked on the Apollo moon project in the sixties and it was one of the most satisfying things he had ever done. In the process of working with others to pursue a common goal you develop meaningful, lasting relationships that stay with you for the rest of your life. What meaningful relationships to you develop in the poker world other than to exchange bad beat stories?
Being an individual and maintaining your own independence is critically important but that does not mean that working in a large organizational structure totally compromises this. In a modern age, great things are not done by some guy working alone in his basement but are done by groups of people working together as a team.
"What meaningful relationships do you develop in the poker world other than to exchange bad beat stories?" Hmmmmm...exchange good beat stories!!! I do it all the time, very cheerfully. I've formed many lasting relationships and friendships by doing so - poker is a very social game. I'm an avid collector of good beat stories. And I'm not just refering to good beat stories that come from the poker table. There are good beat stories everywhere. I count my blessings all the time. When I'm walking on the street, the sun, the clouds, plants, pets, and people smile back. At least it seems that way to me.
A great movie requires the contributions of hundreds of talented people acting in concert, but the script which catalyzes this ensemble may be the product of one person's genius. The relationship between one and many, in this instance, is symbiotic. So, sometimes, it's not an either/or proposition.
By the way, I'd bet there are a couple Nietzsches and Prousts and Beethovens and Emily Dickinsons even in this technology-obsessed modern age. Maybe even a Van Gogh.
You are putting way too much into this. Pro poker players are the laziest people on the face of the earth.
People who spend the time at their office pretending to be working are the laziest people on the face of the earth. Not only do these lazy people pretend to work, they hate to work as well. But they're too unresourceful and gutless to find a way to get out. They're trapped in a life of quiet desperation and all they can do is whine about it at the "employee's cafeteria". So they just wallow around waiting for and dreaming about clockout time, the weekend, their next vacation, and retirement. In other words, their attention and consciousness is everywhere but where they are - because they hate where they are and what they're doing! They would rather be somewhere else (like the glorious poker room) and doing something else (like engaging in mortal poker combat). That's their punishment for being too gutless to do what they truly love in life. What a waste of talent and intelligence. What a pitiful sight.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You've got some vision of corporate life that is either a result of a single bad experience you've had, or a collection of stereotypes from dystopian movies and leftist propaganda.
As I write this, I'm sitting in my office on the 27th floor of a high-rise. My computer faces the window, and I've been watching a family of Peregrine Falcons nesting on the building across from me. It's a beautiful sunny day, and I'm in a great mood. I have a coffee going, and my dress today is shorts, a loose-fitting shirt, and a pair of sandals.
My current job task is to build cool applications for our corporate intranet, and to design hooks into the Windows CE operating system to allow files from our industrial computer to be automatically loaded and unloaded from flash cards. The work is challenging and interesting. I had the freedom to lay out the parameters of the task, and the company will spend whatever money it needs to to buy the toys I need to do this, and to train me on the product if I need it.
Today being Friday, we all break early and head down to the staff room for company-supplied beers and foosball playing. Tonight, the company has set up a barbecue for our families at a pro baseball game. Free tickets, meals, and drinks for all.
I make more doing this than I could reasonably expect to make in a 20-40 game, and I make that much 5 days a week.
My hours are flexible. If I'm in a late-night poker game, I can come in at 10:00 the next morning, and work through lunch or something to make up the time. If I put in a late night debugging software or working on an intriguing problem, I can bank the time and take the next Friday off and give myself a long weekend.
I get four weeks of vacation a year, plus I can take as much time as I want as time owing for working overtime or whatever.
Did I mention full health benefits, free membership to a prestigious health club, underground parking, stock purchase options, home computer upgrade bonuses, and a budget for me to pick interesting courses and take them on the company's dime?
This is the reality of modern corporate life, for people who are willing to work hard enough to get a degree or a diploma.
And gee, I haven't had to kiss an ass since I've been here. In fact, since good software developers are very hard to find, the company spends a lot of effort and money kissing mine.
Yeah, so listen, I'm a twenty-something programmer who can do ASP and HTML in his sleep, as well as MFC development and Java. What's your company's name again? :)
General Electric.
Seriously, you should be able to find a great job. I'm in Canada, and we're losing programmers like mad to the U.S. because the working conditions there are even better. And the pay is much higher in the U.S. as well.
I've been on both sides of this fence.I graduated from a good college.Was a good boy and went to work for a major corp. in a respected industry that promised me stability and room to advance.I'm the competitive type and did very well the first decade.The higher you get the more politics and appearances matter.This does'nt fit with my personality,I'm too result oriented.The stable career I chose (financial services)went through major changes,the stability was gone. I walked away and became a professional gambler three years ago. This life isn't for most people,if I had a wife and kids I'd stiil be sitting at my desk waiting for the next paycheck. I respect Old Pro's vehemance in declaring his independance,I know I'd never go back to that three piece suit. But for 99% of the population the safe way is best.
not having a family, wife, kids...dont you think that is quite a big thing to give up so you can play poker?
Hehehe ... maybe some play poker so they don't have to deal with a wife and kids?
The American paradox: democracy is in reality illusory because most of one's energy and time is spent at work and most workplaces are antithetical to the ideals of egalitarianism and individuality. Academia might have been a refuge 40 or 50 years ago, but nowadays most of the departments there are just as bad as corporate venues. Either you toe the ideological line and accomodate the hierarchy, or your every move gets insidiously or overtly sabotaged by the guardians of the status quo. Meanwhile, Jerry Springer has emerged as the new Messiah. What a country!
I can't speak as a pro poker player, and I have no idea how many pros feel this way, but poker differs from academia and industry because in poker you gain from the incompetence of those you meet, while in academia and industry, you often suffer from the incompetence of those you work with (e.g., journal referees, deans, department heads, bosses, subordinates, ...).
Furthermore, in poker if you disagree with someone, the person who is right gains in expectation. In academia and industry, disagreements are typically decided by consensus or fiat, often at the expense of merit.
In poker, if you're incompetent you lose. If you're competent, you win. In work, if you're competent, you get paid. But if you're incompetent, you still get paid. And if you're incompetent for a long time, you're promoted and get paid more in the name of "seniority". This is corruption.
Kim I think poker pros exhibit the following characteristics:
1. Above average intelligence.
2. A desire to be a loner. Poker is a people game but I suspect many of the poker pros are basically loners.
3. Somewhat lazy. They will work at something they happen to be interested in but in general if they are not interested they will not put forth any effort.
4. Lack of responsibility. They don't want to be responsible or held accountable for anything.
5. Self-absorbed. They tend to look at things in terms of how it affects them personally. Many of them could care less about the long term impact of anything.
Ray Zee likes to fish. I like to play chess. J C Pearson likes to play golf. The common thread is it is pleasant to make a living at something that is enjoyable and also allows a lot of time to be put in where it counts...at things you like to do. If all I could make at poker was thirty bucks an hour, I would have grabbed something else a long time ago. Grinding out a living at 20-40 holdem is not my idea of a good job, though it is likely the most common one for poker pros. Betty Carey a long time ago wrote a great article on the subject of making a living at poker, the gist of it being the largest benefit was free time to enjoy the pleasures of life.
I have read the interesting threads regarding poker pros. Poker is a very labor intensive activity. You've got to be there and put in the hours to make the money. In theory I think it would be much better to bankroll players and get a cut of the action. The problems with doing this are of course not many people are trustworthy and of course not that many people play that well. Certainly someone like DS or MM could teach players how to play and bankroll them for a cut. In theory if I could bankroll 5 players and get $10 an hour off of each I would make $50 an hour by just having the capital to bankroll them. I have read a lot of horror stories about people losing a lot of money bankrolling tournament players but I have to think that there might be something to it. Putting up money for the satellites seems like it might be a good way to go as well. I just don't know that many folks I trust that much.
Its not as simple as whether you can trust guys or not.Obviously if you dont trust a guy 100 percent theres no point in even considering bonkrolling him.The most important consideration after this is why the guy needs a backer in the first place.There are two main possibilities.The first is that hes not good enough to beat the game the rake and his living expenses in the long term in which case youre going to lose your money while he gets to live well until you wise up and cut your losses.Youll also have to listen to a load of excuses and stories you dont really need to hear.The second is that the guy is good enough to win consistently but is broke due to drink drugs the pit sports or any of the other things its really nice to do.Youve got a chance if the guy is honest enough to admit why hes in the mess hes in and you trust him not to indulge in his hobbies with your money or while hes gambling with your money.Some guys play better with other peoples money because they respect it more than their own money.Others dont.Good luck in spotting the difference.
I think bankrolling players is a HUGE mistake. If a player is a good poker player than bankroll is no problem. Assuming he can make the mythical "one top bet per hour" than it should not take long to get a bankroll of his own. Suppose a guy can make $60 per hour at $30-$60. Well it is a piece of cake. Within three months assuming he plays 160 hours per month he should have a bankroll of almost $30,000. This is more than enough to get him into some juicy tournaments. You shouldn't have to loan him any money at all just let him stay with you for a short time while he builds up his bankroll.
Now it is argued that these tournament superstars are great poker players they just have a little problem with drugs, alcohol, sports betting, or horse racing. But if banks and corporations who have billions to lend are not willing to loan these great players any money based on their abilities why should you?
I did not argue that all tournament superstars or cash game players were worth bankrolling.What I did say was that some if they have their act together and play fair with you are potentially good investments.Most are not.What banks and corporations are doing with their money is a subject I dont really want to waste my valuable time on this planet thinking about.
What if the guy is a good young player who doesn't have the capital to move up to the high-limits?
it will take him a long time at 2-4 and 3-6 to build a decent BR, but this way you could both be benefiting
Those that NEED to be bankrolled are more likely the ones you don't want to bankroll.
There are just as many horror stories around about bankrolling players in the side games. Only a fool does what you suggest.
Mason,
I'm not sure that I agree with you, totally. I believe in the following: "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" I have followed this philosophy all of my adult life and find it is the best policy. It is doubly true when it comes to gamblers and/or poker players. But backing a player is not quite the same thing. I would consider backing a Mason Malmuth or David Sklansky in a high stakes game if I had the bankroll and Mason didn't (We all know that David is rich, Jaguar and all). Of course I would have to know Mason Malmuth pretty good to consider doing this.
I know that I would like to play higher limits but do not have the bankroll. Another poster states that if a player is good enough that thy can buid their own bankroll and won't need backing. This is not exactly true. I do not like putting in long hours just to build a bankroll. One also has living expenses that come from his/her win. Building a bankroll is not the easiest thing to do. Also once building the bankroll to a position where one can "take a shot" carries with it psychological consequences. Things such as does one want to take a chance on losing a big portion of a hard built bankroll by playing at a level over his comfot level.
Another poster mentioned the trust aspect of backing someone. To me this is probably the biggest draw back to backing someone. Once money is part of the equation, humans have a way of doing some pretty strange things. I consider myself a very honorable and honest person. I am sure that I would be fair in this type of arrangement. I know some others that I ould truat to be honest. My buddy Dangerous Dan is the only poker player that I know personally that I would trust in this type of arrangement.
My point is that there are situations where backing a player in high stakes games would prove beneficial to both the backer and poker player. Although much caution is needed.
Vince
Vince:
There is something that you are missing. I'm not interested in being staked. I would rather play on my own at $30-$60 for instance than have someone put me in a larger game where I get a percentage of the win. In the long run I expect to do as well. (And I have turned down many a staking offer.)
Of course there are exceptions, but I think that you have to be a little suspicious of someone who would rather have it the other way. In my experience, they are almost always not the player that they claim to be.
There is another situation that can occur (not in public games). It can be benificial to both [arties if the backer has a stake in the success of a game. Back when I was involced in running a private game we often backed players that weren't that good because sometimes we would get lucky and they won and if they lost at least the game went longer so we were able to drop more. Also as one can see on another forum I have elected to take a small per centage of Greg Raymer in the TOC. I think there is an overlay here; even though the fees being taken out seem high, I think there will be a lot of dead money in the tournament. Last year there were a lot of players that had trouble reading their hand in the Omaha round, so those players have to have a less than average chance of winning.
Randy Refeld
Taking a percentage of a player and staking a player are two different things. My comments only apply to staking.
That logic can be very dangerous. I know three private cardroom owners, and all three of them had huge receivables. A player would come to them asking to borrow $200 to get back into the game. The house would realize that lending the $200 would keep the game alive through a slow period, and dole out the money. But what would happen is that this player wouldn't be able to pay them back, so they'd stop coming to the cardroom altogether to avoid the unpleasantness. Result: $200 lost, along with a customer. Eventually, these cardrooms would have tens of thousands of dollars in uncollected debts, and a smaller clientele to boot.
That's not backing. That's loaning. If they were backing the player, then there would be no debt.
- Andrew
When I was involved in provate games we would sometimes stake a player (giving hima per centage of his winnings). Not expecting him to win, but just to lose slowly enough for the game to continue.
"There is something you are missing"
Mason,
I'm sure you are right. But I still think that I have put forth a valid point about staking. For instance. My bankroll only allows me to play at the mid limits. Specifically through 20-40. To build a bankroll to play at highr limits I would have to put in a lot of hours or, ugh, get a job. I'm not willing to do either. In fact if I had to have a job to facilitate playing poker I would quit poker. I worked for 35 years and I don't want to do it ever again. Poker is not work to me. But I am a good poker player. Or at least a winning poker player. I have shown a profit over each of the past 7 years, since I began playing Casino poker. Not a big profit but a profit just the same. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not looking for a backer just trying to make a point. There are times that I walk into Bellagio's and spy what I consider very good 30-60 and 60-120, even 80-160 (especially the games David is in) limit Holdem and Stud games. I am disciplined enough now not to jump in because of my bankroll. Now let's just say for instance that a potential backer was knowledgeable enough to evalute my poker skills and determined that If I said that I had a +EV in a game he could count on that being true. Now let's say he didn't want to play himself but was interested in making money. Would it not be in both of our interests for him to back me in the higher limit games? I believe that to be the case.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Your comment about higher yeild (than any other legal activity) is kind of interesting. It actually seems to make quite a bit of sense considering the higher risk that you face as an "investor". I'm sure there are quite a few comparable investments.
I have admit that I kind of think it's amusing to think of poker in an investment manner.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Teams used to work for certain high stakes BJ players didnt they?
surely not all this were based on an equal contribution to the BR
Arrash
Again, Badger is right on here. I have played for a living for two years, made all expenses, and lived pretty well. But I have no BR. I *had* one two months ago (and 4 months before that, and 3mos before that, and etc.) I see breaks in my records that begin with a line such as "got drunk last night, played BJ. . .") A loss of two weeks work in one night leads to one chasing play, perhaps a shot at a $5 96 VP (well, I say, with CB it's even money, etc.)which leads to perhaps one more BJ play (I'm a decent counter, I say, I do have slightly the best of it, I say, and if i just get lucky early, I say, and ect.). Before long I am back on track, grinding away, disgusted, newly resolved and ect. If this last time was not *the* last time I am done playing and back working. I am known in my gamgling community as a decent guy, honest, trustworthy, etc. The few times i have borrowed, my prime directive in life as been to repay the loan, and have, promptly. The few times i have been staked I have played the tightest, most thoughtful game I am capable of -- which is pretty much the optimal game in most of my games. Anyway. . .
God blessit seems you cant decide what wonderful cherry y ou should pîck and still leave that wonderful tree alone .take your idealistic finger out of its nesting place and get on with it tout suite.If you re ally need help God love you.
A better option is to take turns playing with someone whose SKILL you trust and then play out of a joint bankroll in order to play higher stakes games. I've done this a few times in the past, taking turns in different games that fit our individual skills the best, parlaying modest capital into nice scores.
Backing a guy in a tournament is a totally different animal, where the only two things necessary are the knowledge that the player is a TOURNAMENT STAR -- and that you'll get paid. Plenty of guys who can make money in a cash game but can't find the final table with a road map (and vice-versa). As far as the "getting paid" part is concerned, backing a well-known player isn't as risky as backing an unknown.
Backing players in satellites might seem like a safe risk, but the reality there is that you'd better be backing someone who is a SATELLITE expert. If he/she isn't winning 20-30% of their satellites, it's not a good investment, simply because the player -- no matter how skillful they are otherwise -- isn't that good of a satellite player. For example, a player who wins 20% of their hold-em satellites is making a 100% return on money invested (discounting the vigorish). Assuming a 50-50 split, this gives a 50% return on money invested for the backer -- about where the return should lie. Backing someone who wins less than 20% of their satellites should only be done as a one-time "flyer".
It would be nice if there were a system of borrowing and lending available to poker players. Clearly, there are problems with working it out.
Without the system of borrowing and lending generally available to society, many businesses would never come into existence. If you want to open a restaurant you most likely need to borrow most of the start-up money from a bank. Thus the bank stakes your businesses.
But it is easier to decide if you trust someone opening a restaurant than to trust someone's poker skill. Also, poker is not scaleable as other businesses are. What I mean is that a winning 15-30 player can't necessarily beat 100-200 games even if he has a larger bankroll.
Another approach might be to hire players as employees, and work out a compensation system which gives them incentive to always play their best. Then you can take a cut of the winnings, and the players could play in bigger games than they would otherwise. This way the bankroll-to-player ratio would be much lower than it would be for the same set of players playing on their own.
But who would want to do this? If poker player's wanted to be employee's answering to a boss who monitors how many hours they put in they probably would not be poker pros. Also, it would be a major pain to be the manager of such an opperation. You would have to keep track of everyone's hours and results, deal with accusation of your player's colluding (bad pr), deal with turnover -- basically, you are running a small business.
The capital set aside to generate poker profit would be used more efficiently, but it would be a different kind of hard work.
Steve
This is going to sound self-centered, but it may be that one of the best pools of talent to draw upon would be the skillful amateurs such as myself. There are many other posters on this forum who also have full-time jobs but supplement their income with poker winnings.
In a given year, I only get in about 300-500 hours of poker. Especially since I moved to CT, I do not always get to play a game at as high a limit as I would like. What this means is that even though I do well, I am not going to build up a big bankroll, especially since what I do win often gets spent on my family. While I don't presume that I can necessarily beat a real high stakes game (since I've never played higher than 50-100, how could I know?), I feel that the chances are good. If I had plenty of money available for risky ventures, I would be willing to back other players such as Jim Geary in big games. While he's a good player, he also is a part-timer, has a job and family, and I don't believe he's every played 300-600 limit or the like. Yet, I suspect he's a favorite in many of those games.
The hard part is figuring out which of us middle stakes winning amateurs have the skills needed to beat a 150-300 or higher game. Like I said, I think I do, but I might find out I'm wrong. Since guys like me don't have hundreds or thousands of hours of experience in those games, it's pretty much impossible to be sure.
So, if anyone wants to put me into the really big games at the Orleans next week, feel free. I know I would enjoy the heck out of it. However, I do plan on being so busy winning all the tourneys that I won't have time for such things. What with Ray, Randy, et al. backing me, I feel a duty to get plenty of rest. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've seen a lot of these posts about how professional poker players are not getting the best of it because they could make a lot more money working for a corporation ... mainly due to the assumption that if you have the skills to do real well in poker, then you probably have the skills to do real well in the corporate world (remember, not all corporate jobs are the same, I know several types of high paying corporate jobs where one does not require to kowtow or any bulls--- like that).
Anyways, overall, I think this is fairly correct, except for the difference in working for someone versus working for oneself.
Here's my story : I decided to play poker fulltime a few months ago. I've done real well, averaging slightly more than one big bet per hour, playing 20/40, 40/80, 80/160 in live casinos and 10/20 and 20/40 online (Planet Poker, and yes, I won there...but not in Paradise...broke even there). Sure, its only about 2.5 months...and the data is not nearly conclusive...but I'm getting there.
But I'm not doing it for the money. I estimate that I could make at least 4 times more by doing what I was doing before, even after adjusting for taxes. I'm doing it for the challenge. Its a goal of mine to be able to play 80/160 (and possibly higher, although where I live, its tough to even get a 80/160 game going) with a high degree of certainty that I have the best of it to the degree of at least one small bet in the big games, and one big bet in the 40/80 games. Lucky for me, my "bankroll" (I like to call it my net worth) is big enough right now that I could live on it for several years even if I lost heavily at poker...so I don't have the problem that I need to win to feed, cloth & house myself.
So, that's my reason for playing pro poker. Because I think I can, because it is a challenge, because it is too late for me to pick up baseball or football, because I don't need the money....and because I want to test to see if I can make it. And when I know I've made it, hopefully after a year or two, I'll probably quit fulltime and go do something else.
You sound like someone who already has an education and a job-filled resume. You're exactly the kind of guy who SHOULD go 'pro' if that's what his heart desires.
My cautionary tales are aimed at these young 20 year olds who see their future choice as either going to school, spending four years doing hard work for no immediate financial return, vs becoming a poker pro and living the 'good life' RIGHT NOW. Instant gratification.
For these kids, going pro would be an incredibly bad choice. They just aren't old enough to understand the tradeoffs involved, the pressure on a family life, the difficulty gaining acceptance and credit, etc. And if they wipe out of the game, they'll have no skills to fall back on and wind up working minimum wage or driving a cab. I know a fistful of these guys. They drive cab long enough to work up $1000, then start grinding away in the 3-6 and 5-10 games. They never get ahead because their winnings just pay the bills, and because their bankrolls don't grow they eventually bust out and wind up driving cab again.
If you're a middle-limit player, you're probably making at least $30/hr. It's incredibly hard for a young person to get used to making that kind of money, and then later on go back to school and work hard for four years just so they can graduate and make half of that to start. So poker ruins their desire for an education. Bad news.
i can't believe that i am actually contributing to this mess, but here i am.
of course, a formal degree is largely about money. if i didn't already have the requirements for a math major finished i would strongly consider leaving school after four years without a degree. but i do, so that is not a realistic option.
in any case, my education does not end when i leave school. young people are not ignorant fools who follow their whims without worrying about consequences. i'll not speak for others, but i know full well what i am doing when i follow my whims without worrying about consequences.
scott
This is why I love this kid! The exact words I used with my sons: "Education is not about money!" Amen.
Vince.
Scott,
You're getting very Emersonian. Here's the relevant quote from his essay "Self-Reliance":
"I shun father and mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of the door-post, WHIM."
Perhaps you've read this; if not, have at it.
John
i have not read much from 19th cent america. i have so much more to read. hopefully i wont die for a while.
scott
scott -
"education is not about money"
Maybe not for you.
When I was 15 years old my father was taken ill, had a series of operations and spent considerable time in a hospital. We were'nt well to do (lower middle class) before his illness and were financially devastated after it. I started working to help out, and went through a succession of minimum wage jobs. Maybe the worst thing about a minimum wage job is taking orders from the guy (who is over his head with the slightly-better-than-minimum-wage job) who directs what you will do.
"education is not about money"
It sure was for me.
At some point it became clear to me that I could make a whole lot more money with a college degree than without one, that a college degree would be my ticket to upward mobility. And so it was.
"education is not about money"
Perhaps it's not if you are well off enough to not have to worry about money, if you've never had to earn money to support your family. Perhaps it's not if you are clever enough to be able to make a living wage playing poker. It must be difficult to make a living wage playing at the $3-$6-with-kill level. The "pros" I encounter who eke out dingy existances seem, by my standards, financial failures. Yet most of these "pros" seem bright enough to have done something else with their lives. You can't even eke out an existance playing poker unless you're pretty good at it - and if you're pretty good at it, surely you could do something more rewarding with your life, and I don't just mean financially.
"education is not about money"
Maybe not ideally, but for someone considering earning a living by playing poker, getting a college degree probably is a better choice for long term financial gain.
"education is not about money"
And so it isn't. Yet........
Buzz
"more rewarding with your life" is a super point to make. Anyone considering playing poker rather than going into a "regular" occupation should anticipate that some day they will have the thought,"Is this all am doing with my life?". At that point will they be qualified to do something else?
I certainly don't mean to insult anyone who has spent most or all of their adulthood playing poker, but don't we all feel the need to make a valuable contribution to society at least with part of our existence? I suppose you can do that with your non poker hours through volunteer work, writing strictly to share ideas with others,etc. but shouldn't we make the contribution first and then play cards?
"but don't we all feel the need to make a valuable contribution to society at least with part of our existence?"
well, no. i'd rather avoid butchering yet again the ideas of the various poets and philosophers who've phrased my thoughts better than i ever would before i ever could, but there are scores of problems with this.
ignoring the whole problem with defining oneself in relationship to society (which is super hard to do authentically. sartre had an unfinished tome he was working on until his death.), let me just point out that "valuable contribution" is wrought with its own traps.
does society have a goal? if so, what is it? if not, how does one make a contribution? assuming one can contibute, who can judge such actions as valuable? the majority? posterity? god? are they judged by intentions? by results? by reasonably forseeable results? who's reasonable?
and, remember, reason is a beautiful and wonderful thing. but reason only satisfies the rational side of man's nature. and that is but one twentieth the totality of man.
by the way, the thought "is this all i am going to do with my life?" is merely a symptom of bad faith. and no job will solve that problem.
scott
NOW I disagree with you. College Philosophy departments are full of this nihilistic nonsense. Nothing matters, who's to say what good is, society has no goals, etc. Humbug. Put me firmly in the objective reality camp. You can contribute to 'society' by leaving the world a little better off by its having you in it. If you don't want to contribute to something as nebulous as 'society', then think of your family, and yourself. Playing cards as a lifetime goal is really not that fulfilling for most people. That's the real reason why people like Sklansky and Malmuth and Ciaffone and Zee and Caro teach, write books, consult, etc. If you have a mind like theirs, it's just not going to be fulfilled playing cards all day.
"You can contribute to society by leaving the world a little better off by having you in it."
Hi Dan,
I personally agree with scott on this one when he says, "assuming one can contribute, who in the hell is in a position to judge such actions as valuable(I'm paraphrasing)?" You know, I would bet a billion bucks Dennis Prager would respond to scott's question by saying, "Who? Well, society of course." But to me, this response is as incredibly vague as the opening quote in this post.
-Ben
i did not say that nothing matters. i stand by what i actually did say.
even taking something as simple and old fashioned and objective as aggregate happiness as the metric of progress, it is impossible for your or whoever else you would have be your judge to accurately predict the effects of one's actions. it is equally impossible for posterity to understand the causes of the effects that they can see.
the very idea of cause and effect breaks down when we consider willful beings.
and aggregate happiness is a pathetic measure of progress. i am not convinced helping society to whatever goal it has leads anyone to live a fuller life. and i am sure that concieving of fellow humans as part of society deprives them of their humanity.
actaully, the situation in college philosophy departments is far worse than you think. the existential reading of nihilism still allows for value and for worthwhile human lives. but now almost everyone believes in some kind of determinism, where people are just objects.
one brief thing about subjectivity and objectivity. heidegger has the way to avoid the dualism. the idea is that the primary thought is "i see the door." only upon reflection does one seperate "i" as the subject from "door" as the object. to avoid the object/subject dualism just consider the primary thought.
scott
it seems to me that most day to day relationships come about through ones job.
of course if your in school you might overlook that.
brad
That was the main reason I quit playing full time. One day after a reasonably long dry spell, I stopped and said, "Why am I doing this? Is money so important that I'm willing to spend my entire life sitting at a table with a bunch of strangers playing cards for it?"
I went back to work, and my after-tax income was cut in half instantly. But I play part time to make that up. I'm a lot happier now. If I didn't already have the skills and education to go back to work in a field I enjoy, I'd be miserable.
well, i try to avoid such serious dicussions. but, since i already blundered into it, i feel obligated to continue.
your goal was to ease the burden of your family. it was a noble goal and i gather that your admirable effort succeeded. that's wonderful.
but it was not an education that you sought. it was a degree. you needed money and the degree was the key to upward mobility.
i am not going to judge your decisions or priorities. but education has nothing to do with money and not a whole lot more to do with schooling.
scott
scott -
"well, i try to avoid such serious dicussions. but, since i already blundered into it, i feel obligated to continue."
Me too. I also try to avoid such discussions, but since I have blundered into it, I also feel obligated to continue.
"but it was not an education that you sought. it was a degree. you needed money and the degree was the key to upward mobility."
Good point. Once I decided on a career goal, I realized I needed a college degree to get the more satisfying and financially rewarding position. However, I needed an education to get the degree, at least to my way of thinking. The degree might have been the ticket to the job, but the education enabled me to keep the job. And having a good education enabled me to have a better choice as to where I would be working.
i am not going to judge your decisions or priorities.
Thanks. I made some good decisions but also made some bad ones. Let me emphasize that getting an education (or getting a degree if you like) was one of the better decisions I made.
And I don't mean to judge your decisions or priorities either. You seem already to be well educated in the formal sense, and you seem very bright. Perhaps you could make your fortune playing poker and perhaps that would be most satisfying to you.
but education has nothing to do with money and not a whole lot more to do with schooling.
Perhaps not in your case, but in my case getting an education definitely enabled me to earn more money than I would have earned otherwise. I could not have done what I did without an education - and I got my formal education (and my degrees) through "schooling." Even if you use "education" in a broader sense, at least much of my "education" was "schooling." In your case, perhaps you didn't learn much in school, but rather on your own.
but education has nothing to do with money
I was thinking in terms of a formal education gained by attending school. When you state "education has.....not a whole lot more to do with schooling," you clearly are using the word to mean something else. However, even if you want to consider the word in a broader sense, "education" certainly does have to do with money. For example, what you have learned about poker (May we call it your poker education?) has a whole lot to do with money.
Buzz
just a few comments.
i have never stated whether i believe people should get a degree or whether they should try to play poker professionally. i have stated that i will get a degree, but might not have if it was out of my way, so to speak. i try not to speak for anyone besides myself.
obvouisly, i believe that a school is conducive to learning. why else would i be there? i just think it is neither necessary or sufficient.
perhaps i am wrong, but i believe one can easily avoid an education while getting a degree. i think i know several people at columbia who are doing exactly that.
you are completely correct that an education, in any sense, will help you make more money. i don't really deny that. i just think that the financial gain is dwarfed by the other benifits. not so with the degree.
everyone has agreed that poker is not the most efficient way for a bright, articulate youth with a talent for mathematics to make his living. so perhaps my poker education has cost me money. i have my own reasons for taking poker so seriously despite the obvious disadvantages. they have a lot to do with the line in waiting for godot: "one of the thieves was saved. it's a reasonable percentage." they are also similar to bukowski's take on the track.
scott
I agree completely that it's possible to get a degree without getting an education. Furthermore, if your education consists solely of what you learned while getting your degree, then you aren't 'educated'.
But getting a degree teaches other things. One is perserverence. Another is a formal environment that forces you to learn some things you might skip on your own, thus rounding your education. It also teaches you study habits (hopefully), and gives you research skills that you can use to continue your education later.
Finally, a degree can give you the confidence that you are capable of learning. I know a lot of people who won't learn because they don't think they're the 'learning type'.
Scott, I agree with you philosophically. Being 'educated' has little to do with your actual degree - I've known lots of educated people without degrees, and even more complete idiots with degrees.
However, I suspect that you grew up in an upper-middle class world. I don't know if you ever had to work to support yourself through school, but believe me, for a lot of people the prime motivator for going to college is to be able to have a successful, rewarding career afterwards. And for most young people, that means money. Poker can be a very attractive option.
I know what I'm talking about. I grew up poor, and was working from the age of 13 on. I never made more than $8/hr until I was 24 years old. If I had discovered poker when I was 18, it would have screwed me up royally. I was always 'educated' in the sense that I devoured tons of books all the time, but it's hard to convince employers to hire you because you can quote Emerson. I love education, but I'm not sure I could have made myself go back to school at, say, 26 or 27 years of age after being out making $30-$50 per hour playing poker for 10 years. And I know I would have regretted that decision.
I think we should separate "education" from "college education" here. "College education" (earning a degree) is very much about 1) money (increased standing in the job world) and 2) having the "official stamp of approval" on your education (whether for the money or because you don't trust your ability to educate yourself-i was in this camp through undergrad and law school)
You don't need anyone else to take charge of educating you, but you may need a degree (doesn't the oz in _the wizard of oz_ have something like this to say to the scarecrow?)
"I don't want school to get in the way of my education". - Samuel Clemens, or was it Shaw?
"in any case, my education does not end when i leave school". This is a very good attitude towards learning. It was said that at his deathbed, tenth degree black belt and judo founder Jigaro Kano called in his top students and requested to them that he be buried in his white belt. His purpose for this request was to send to his students the message that in the end we are all white belts regardless of how much we know, how good we are, how successful we are, and how greatly respected we are by our peers.
The know-it-alls in this forum (and there seems to be a lot of them, as shown by the "kiss ass/kick ass" threads below) should heed this lesson.
In the end, we are all beginners.
Question: To you out there: I would like an a estimate to how many people in the USA can make/ or do make $30 an hour playing poker -- essentially full time.
Background: I grew up in Columbus, Ohio and came to the LA, CA area in 1958 when I was 24 yrs old. I haved played lots of casino poker in the LA area. I have also met many of the local players who write for poker magazines.
Over all of the years I have met very few people who could make a decent living at playing just poker. Many so-called pros I knew had to revert/resort to proping for some period during their poker careers. And few of these people owned homes unless their spouses had a good steady job.
Over the years I have met many very good part time "night or week-end" players who could make up to 20% of their daytime income on essentially a tax free basis. This is not bad unless the poker playing interfers with other responsibilities (I have met lots of guys whose wifes are poker widows).
Good Economic Times: The present times "era" provide an excellent atmosphere for skillful poker players to make money. I can remember during the early seventies when most people could not or would not play poker; that was a relatively hard time for many local LA poker pros. The present times are great for poker players -- we are experiencing a robust "knock-on-wood" stock market; a hundred times more casinos in the USA; excellent poker information in the poker magazines; and many recreational players who don't seem to mind losing money.
I estimate that somewhere between 200 and 500 players earn $30 per hour or more, playing poker in legal card casinos in the US.
Can you break down the percentages into geographical regions? AC, California, Nevada, Mississippi, other?
Do you make any distinction between stud and hold'em? In my experience, since stud is less game of a chance than a hold'em, it is easier to win more than $30/h. I am very far from a professional player- just play on weekends. I started to record my results about 8 months ago and I have so far logged around 400 hours at 30-60 stud table at Taj. So far I am up about $26000. I think if I really did what books suggest I would win even more.
What is your standard deviation? Let us say your standard deviation is $600 per hour (10 big bets per hour). Then at the end of 400 hours your total standard deviation would be square root of 400 x $600 or $12,000. $12,000 divided by 400 is $30 per hour. Your calculated hourly earn is $26,000/400 hours or $65 per hour. Now 68% of the time your truly hourly earn is somewhere between $35 per hour and $95 per hour. 95% of the time your hourly earn is somewhere between $5 per hour and $125 per hour. 99% of the time your hourly earn is somewhere between -$25 per hour and +$155 per hour.
So what does this mean? Well, in layman's terms we can say with a high degree of statistical confidence that you are a winning player. But can you beat the game for one top bet per hour (i.e.-$60 per hour)? Currently that is what you are doing however there is a very high degree of uncertainty because of the high standard deviation and the small number of hours you have played. Suppose you wanted to know within $10 per hour what your true hourly earn was. How many hours would you have to play? If you played 3600 hours your standard deviation would be square root of 3600 x $600 or $36,000. $36,000 divided by 3600 hour would be $10 per hour. So you need to play about 3600 hours or about a year and a half of full time play before you would know within $10 per hour what your real hourly earn was.
I am not very strong in statistics. Can you explain it to me slowly? I know what a standard deviation is on a chart but how does it apply to winning rates? Where did you take the $600 deviation from? Why not any other number? Please, explain...
Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion. When you take your total results and divide them by your total number of hours of play you get an estimate of your hourly earn. However, there is uncertainity surrounding this estimate when you compare it to what it would be at infinity. If I average $10 per hour over the last 400 hours playing $20-$40, how confident can I be that this represents what I can expect to make in this game in the long run? Computing your hourly standard deviation is a way of answering this question.
I got the $600 per hour estimate for standard deviation by just simplistically assuming it was 10 big bets per hour in a $30-$60 game. This was an assumption I used for computational purposes. Mason Malmuth in his book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" shows you how to compute your own personal standard deviation based on your individual session results. Some $30-$60 players would have standard deviations less than $600 per hour and some would have higher standard deviations.
Personally I believe that standard deviation more than any other single factor is why otherwise competent players get eliminated from the poker tables. They run good over a few hundred hours, which for some might take an entire year to accumulate, and they think that the results they are getting are representative of their long term result when in fact may be statistically insignificant based on the size of the game and their standard deviation which most of them never bother to calculate.
Thanks you for the explanation. I understand your logic but i see 3 weak points. 1. 10 big bets seems like an arbitrary number. I did not read the book you mention yet but i don't understand how can you calculate it precisely. 2. This calculations assume that skills remain constant, while skills improve with many hours of playing. 3. I see no practical application of this. I am more concerned what I made last year of what I will make this year than how I would average over 20 years - too many things could change.
There is less uncertainty in computing your standard deviation than in computing your hourly earn. In a medium sized game you will usually get a reasonable estimate of your standard deviation after about 30 sessions which should represent several hundred hours of play. It will take well over a thousand hours to get a good fix on your hourly earn in a $20-$40 game.
Let me pass on to you a story I heard about a top high limit player named Steve Lott. Steve played $150-$300 and up both stud and mixed games. One year Steve won $150,000. The next year Steve won less than $20,000. Steve did not change from one year to the next and his opponents did not change from one year to the next. So how can a top player like Steve Lott get a 90% pay cut? Answer: Standard deviation. Now suppose Steve had carved out a lifestyle which was predicated on him making $150,000 per year playing high limit poker based on his one year experience of making $150,000. Well, having a full year where he only makes $20,000 could ruin him (theoretically at least).
All kinds of people run good over a few hundred hours, some even a few thousand hours and believe that the results they are getting mean something. Depending upon how big the game is, it may be meaningless.
I think what Jim is trying to say is that Standard Deviation is a measure of the short-term swings in your bankroll. Obviously, you prefer less swings as it is the swings that could actually cause a winning player to go broke. But remember that usually hourly win rate and standard deviation are a give and take situation. It can be difficult to have a high hourly win rate with a low standard deviation. (This is because of value bets basically)
The 10 big bets per hour that Jim is talking about is just an example. You have to record your own data and figure out YOUR standard deviation. It may be more than 10 big bets or less, but regardless you can use his calculations with that value and see the amount of risk your game has.
While it is good to know how much you made last year, you might want to be concerned about how much of it was short-term luck. A year can still have short-term luck involved. If your standard deviation is low, luck is less of a factor.
If there's only 200-500 making that much per hour, it says nothing about how many are trying. It says nothing about how many players play at the necessary levels with a high frequency.
If there are 100,000 people trying to make 30+ an hour and only 500 are doing it, it makes it sound like a tough racket. Is it though? If only 1000 are trying to make it at those limits, and 500 are living off the other 500 plus the tourists, it gives a lot of hope to the person who has studied the game and wants to give it a shot.
Sklansky's statement, true or false, leaves out a major piece of information.
mth.
$30/hr is the magic number. There are lots of guys around who make somewhat less than this, and very, very few who make more. $30/hr is a realistic win rate for a good player playing 15/30 or 20/40. To make more than that, you have to play the higher limits. Unless you live in LA or Vegas, those games are few and far between, and the quality of play is usually much higher.
Read Sklansky's post. I think it is the most realistic and is in stark contrast to what Nolan Dalla wrote a couple of years ago in Cardplayer where he estimated that there were over 3000 professional poker players (not tournament players) making a good living playing in casinos and public cardrooms across the country. Except for the big cardbarns in L.A., the Bellagio in Vegas, and the Taj in Atlantic City there is probably only one or two guys in a typical cardroom who average over $30 per hour after many thousands of hours of play.
Jim,
I do not think there is half a dozen who make a living from Tournaments play. I estimate that the overhead for going to 8 of the top tournaments per year cost over 250K. That is a big nut.
I only know the Atl City bunch. I only personally know 3 Pros who definitely make around 30/hr and make a comfortable living with no other jobs. It is not easy!
a wealthy friend of the family is interested in bankrolling me on a trip to Vegas. I explained that a, I play for a living on the net and in the Pacific NW b, I don't need a bankroll nor do I think Vegas is the best place to 'find a bunch of live ones' and c, how I rely on odds and the 'long run' and how a few days in Vegas would be a poor risk of capital. He doesn't care. He's a frequent visitor to Vegas and has a very low room rate waiting for us @ the Bellagio. SO...I've never been bankrolled and have no idea how it is supposed to work. What terms are normal and how much cash should I tell him to bring for 50-60 hours @ 15-30, or 20-40. txs spitball
ps. If anyone out there thinks this is a VERY BAD idea, please don't keep it to yourself.
Bad Idea. Good way to lose some money and lose a friend at the same time.
Rounder is right. A lot of things could go wrong that you don't even realize.
Short term thinking..
You know the right anwser to the question.
Best of it !!
MJ
PS..Not a good idea at all.
thanks for your answers and your concern. Obviously I should have been much more clear in my original post. This isn't intended to be a serious money-prop for either of us. It's more an entertainment situation, he thinks it would be 'kind of cool' to bankroll a 'real player' in Vegas, if only for a few days. I don't mind, I enjoy his company and could use a vacation (we're golfing buddies). So I ask again, what is normal in a bankrolling situation. How are profits split? Who picks up the tab? etc. Or are these questions just silly given the situation. spitball
For 15-30 or 20-40, probably $3000-$4000. But since this guy is wealthy, why not put up $15,000-$20,000 and play 80-160?
If you don't plan to make up losses, you should take about 1/3 of the profit after expenses.
Brett
thanks for the input, brett. For now mid-limit is my limit. Even playing with monopoly money I think I'd get whiplash watching the pros take turns playing circles around me. Perhaps on our next trip:) spitball
Interestingly, I've come to the same conclusion.
This guy is your friend; do not treat him like someone to exploit. Go for the stakes you have been discussing rather than maximizing your upside and his downside by trying to play for higher stakes than you have been contemplating.
Post deleted at author's request.
I did this for an excellent 1-5 friend of mine encouraging him to play higher. I anted $300, he anted $200 and he played at the 10/20. Since he was in for only 40% he was affectively playing 4/8 with his money and 6/12 with mine. I got 60% of whatever he had left. He won, and I tipped him.
Explain to him that you need to have SOMETHING at risk or you are unlikely to play your best. I suspect this deal may enable you to play what is normally over-your-head. This is kind of poetic since he's risking money for the fun of it, so you might as well have a kind of fun you wouldn't normally have. I suspect he wants to watch and "learn" so what the heck, let him watch, explain the mechanics, let him live the life, and maybe at the end he'd be interested in some actual advice. Let him play a few hands while you are at the john. You may need to "be a tourist" at times in order not to alianate him.
Be sure your buddy trusts you since its so easy for you to scam him. Be sure there is an exact and explicit start and end of the deal.
- Louie
If he has all this extra cash why not just both play 10/20 and have some fun win or lose.
MJ
You have no downside, and have adequately explained the situation as you perceive it, rather than making a sales pitch, so go for it. You need five grand to not feel under-capitalized. Weekend games in Vegas are generally good, weekday ones less so.
Expenses are always taken off the top before profits are split...if you win. I agree with Badger, in that the two most common deals are for 1/3 or 1/2. How expenses are handled if you lose is one factor that affects how profits are to be split. If you are on a "full scholarship," one-third for you seems appropriate to me, since you have been given a complete freeroll.
Ask your friend how much he would be willing to lose and then just laugh about it afterwards. Divide this amount by 150 and that is your upper limit bet size. ($3000/150 = a $10-20 game.)
Now, there will be very little chance of losing everything.
If you win, split all profits 60/40 (or 70/30-give him the option) after expenses. If you win 2/3's or more of your bankroll ($2000+) split 50/50 (or 60/40). This gives you incentive do do better.
If you lose tell him up front this is part of the game and since he has put up an amount he can laugh about, losing 1/3 to 1/2 of the original bankroll should be no big deal. This will leave a good taste in his mouth in case he would like to try again sometime.
Good luck
In this case, I think the friendship is more important than the trip or the money. So... Let him dictate the terms. You're getting a trip to Vegas and a fun weekend. Like the others, I think a 33% take after expenses is reasonable in this case. Note that this means you're not going to make any more money than you could make at your own limits at home, but that's not really what this is all about, right?
Make sure the start and end are clearly defined, and everyone knows exactly what's going on at all times.
I've seen lots of problems with bankrolling, due to inadequate communication. For instance, what happens if you lose his bankroll after two days, then on your last day decide to bankroll yourself to a 10-20 game and post a big win? Will that create hard feelings? Be very explicit about when you are or aren't 'on the clock'. Even better, just refrain from playing at all except under the umbrella of the bankroll agreement. That way there won't be any miscommunication.
I think the responses above are great, and if your friend has internet access, would really help him make a good decision.
Quick story:
A wealthy friend loves home poker, but doesn't have the skill for big casino games. He likes the action though, so he asked me to play big for him one night and let him sweat me.
I said bad idea. First, one night is meaningless. Second, I'm just good enough to beat 10-20, which is no guarantee that I won't be the fish at a big game.
He talked me into it. He insisted that if I wouldn't, he would play anyway, and force me to come watch him lose. So we rolled into AC with about 10k, and found a 100-200 game at the Taj. We quit about 8 hours later, and had a great time.
And hilariously, up $500. Lowest recorded variance night in history. And no, I wasn't mega tight. It was just one of those win one pot, lose two nights, repeat ad nauseum. I dont think we were ever up or down more than 1500.
Anyway, as long as he _really_ knows the risk, I say go for it. He'll have almost as much fun as you will.
zooey
nt
I wanted to know the ;latest on thew Diamond club situation, Anyone out there know, Lucky, Hollywood Mike, Manhattan Mike,Shep, Montana Mike, Hy, etc.
Has anyone seen that video?
Is it worth the price ?
What does it give you more than a book??
theprince
I have "Sklansay the Seminar" if it is the one you are talking about - he is giving a lecture to a bunch of guys waring baseball caps who are hanging on his every word - cuz I am sure they didn't understand every word word.
Just kidding - it is OK - as you can imagine heavy in the math - except for the bizzar part on pot manipulation where he talks about bad players playing correctly ---- whatever I think it is worth the purchas price.
Actually, I'm really talking about Sklansky-The video
As I understand it, they recommend purchasing -the video- before -the seminar- to get more out of -the seminar-.
theprince
The seminar can stand alone.
The video is certainly worth the price. It doesn't offer too much more then the books but I found it to be informative as well as entertaining. Everytime I watch DS tell his story about how he got started playing poker, (and ditching classes) it motivates me to constantly work on my game.
The comment about bad players playing correctly, refers to the fact that with certain pot sizes, players will unwittingly play a certain round about right but will misplay their hands with other pot sizes. So if your decision to check, bet, or raise is close, you should choose the one that results in a pot size that is apt to cause an error on the next round. The concept is explained best in my Razz book , now part of Sklansky On Poker.
Mr. Sklansky,
Do you have plans to ever release(on video)the seminar you gave at Hollywood Park last year?
Thanks, Dan
I have both videos and I think They are both good.
Now,if we could just get Mason to do a video(not counting his cameo in Caro's first video).
Good Luck
Howard
I have both videos and the price is meaningless if you trust the source. You will learn some things from both videos because anything David Sklansky has to offer is of great value.
Simon Says
My question relates to playing on more than one table at the same time online, so sorry if this should have gone in the Internet poker forum but i thought it was just as relevant here.
Anyway if you playing using the same size BR on two holdem tables at once how will this effect your OVERALL variance and Bankroll requirements?
I would imagine that it should help to reduce your overall variance as you are playing more hands (assume twice as many)and are therefore in one hour you should be in a more long-term position, where inequalities in the quality of cards dealt to you should have evened out more. Does however the nature of the games you are playing in have an effect on this however?
Also, would your BR requirements need to be double what they would for a single table?
If your variance is being reduced, could the size of your overall BR could be smaller? - although you would still need enough money to be adeqeutely funded at each table
Thanks in advance people, its just i know that i am no mathematician so i thoguht id better check out to see how flawed my logic is.
Arrash
As long as all hands are played independently of each other (and everything else is equal) you will need the same size bankroll. The number of hands you play per hour has no effect on total bankroll requirement.
Hands per hour is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the events are statistically independant. In this case they are, so you can play two tables of 20-40 with the same risk of ruin as playing one table, using the same size bankroll.
This is a common reason for people to team in blackjack. If there are ten guys, each with a $10,000 bankroll, then if they team up and pool their money into a $100,000 bankroll and play at ten different tables, they can each place bets as if they each had a $100,000 bankroll, with the same risk of ruin.
On the other hand, it's almost certain that your win rate will suffer somewhat by playing two tables at once, since you're not going to be as focused on each game and may miss the small details. Therefore, your bankroll requirement for playing two tables would be somewhat higher.
thanks for the insight its cleared things up in miy mind
Arrash
Can a good player make more money at Omaha than Texas Holdem? I heard that this is true and if it is, why?
I seriously doubt it. Omaha and Holdem are very different games - I would tend to believe that there is more of a luck factor in Omaha than there is at holdem. At least, the fish don't seem to lose their money as quickly in Omaha.
There is an ongoing debate over which games offer the better player the biggest advantage. The discussion seems to center mostly around holdem and stud.
-SmoothB-
One point is that