There are many situations where it is correct to fold the current best hand. In pot-limit Omaha, AsKsTc9c should usually go in the muck against action on a flop of 8h7h6d. In limit Omaha-8, A2KQ rainbow is no g00t in a 4-way unraised flop of 8c6c3c after a bet, raise, and call. In seven-card stud, two dead small pair on fifth street should be folded against a live high pair and several live draws unless the pot is large.
There are many fewer situations where the hand with the highest chance of winning should be folded. Let's say the game is pot-limit 5-card stud with the bug. Also, let's play it the way some people do where you can choose to turn your downcard up and get your next card down. On fourth street, you have As-2c-3s-Ac up, and your opponent shows 9h-Jh-Th-Joker, all face up. Assume the money is very deep. Out of the remaining 45 cards, 22 possible fifth cards for your opponent put him ahead, while 23 don't. So you are the favorite here. But he has the informational advantage. He knows where you stand, but you don't know what he has. You will pay off some of his wins and/or fold incorrectly in times when he actually missed, while you will never get more money on a win unless you call his bluff. If he uses a game theoretic bluffing frequency, he will bluff 11 times, and always bet his 22 wins. Regardless of how often you fold or call, your EV is 12/45 of the pot after fourth street. So even though you are the favorite, you shouldn't call a pot bet on fourth!
Make that As-2c-Ks-Ac against 8h-Th-9h-Joker.
In your limit O8 example, I tend to disagree. How is folding an almost guarenteed 1/4 of a 4 way pot(ie, money back no loss) and possibly 1/2 of a possibly large pot? Folding this would be a mistake. The only way folding would be correct is if you saw A2 in two other players' hands. In an unraised pre-flop O8 game, the chances or someone else with and A2 are probably lower. I think not atleast calling all the way down is a mistake.
Hi,
can anyone give me an idea how can I take private lessons on 7 cs from some of the known poker authorities?
Thanks
David S. gives private lessons. I'm sure there are others.
Zee gives private lessons but he doesn't take cash you have to clean his subterranean outhouse cellar where he grows mushrooms for cranium research. He has a special grant at MIT that I check on every now and then for medicinal purposes only.
ukw
Roy West writes a column for Cardplayer and has written a book on Seven Card Stud. He gives lessons to players up to and including $10-$20 stud. His rates may be reasonable so you should check out his ad in Cardplayer.
I believe Sklansky charges $300 per hour. Bob Ciaffone gives lessons but I am not sure about Seven Card stud but you can call and ask him (1-517-792-0884).
Thanks for the responds. I really appreciate it. Roy's West book is really great, but I want to learn to play at higher stakes.
I would be interested to take lessons from Sklansky or Caro. Anybody knows how to contact them?
Thanks
There's a long haired white haired guy whom I've played stud with about a dozen times or so at the Mirage. He plays excellent. He told me that he gives lessons. I can't remember his name though. Perhaps someone can help me remember. He used to train tigers and I swear I saw his picture in Mike Caro's tells book. He looks like a skeleton.
.
Thanks. His name is indeed Rick Greider. Now that I've just called him a skeleton in public, I hope he doesn't send one of his tigers after me. I'm allergic to cats!!!
Anybody in AC (NJ) area?
I'm not sure whether or not Ciaffone teaches thru the phone but he probably does. And I'm pretty sure he's not from Joyzeee. But he's probably your man. His book is awesome and I assume he can teach well too.
How can I contact them?
I just learned from the Other Topics forum that David Sklansky teaches over the phone too. He's definitely worth it, even at double the price.
Man, that guy charges a lot.
We know Mason Malmuth plays 30/60 hold'em, and David Sklansky plays the 60-120 to 150-300 hold'em/mixed games (or at least that's the perception that they have given us)....Ray - what do you play and do you play often these days? Just curious, that's all.
not too much anymore as im all washed up and over the hill. but when i go to l.a. i like to play in the biggest 7 stud games they have which last time was 80&160. in northern cal. i played in the no limit games. at the tournaments when i go, i play in the bigger or biggest pot limit and no limit holdem and omaha games. or i will usually play any and all comers except a few, headup poker for any amount they can raise, borrow, or steal.
and david and mason do play those games and higher and win most of the time against all the fields they play in.
Do mind if I ask who the players you won't play are?
friends and those whose style make it tough to muscle around(makes for no edge). no one in particular thats too good.
Darn! Now I know I'll never be able to play Ray heads-up. BTW, we're not friends, just cold-blooded businessmen. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
na, were still friends even though you blew all my dough on tips to the girls and keno. when i see you i wont even tell lawyer jokes.
Thank you Ray. Funny thing is, during a break at the TOC, Vince walks up with David S. to introduce us. Before I can even say any of the usual niceties, DS is spouting out a lawyer joke. He then giggled a bit, and walked away.
Also, DS is a lot smaller than I expected. I always got the impression he was tall, for some reason. Not that this means anything, just one of the few observations I was able to make in such a short interaction.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
you probably only heard about how tall David is from people who have only seen him sitting down, as he is tall then because he is sitting on his fat wallet stuffed full of hundreds.
Ever been to AC? If you do go there I'll buy you a pizza and a good beer.
i may go to ac and or foxwoods if they have decent winter tourn. this year as they are non smoking. i been to both and you can buy me pizza at the cal. pizza kit. beer is on me. dont tell vince as he will want to tag along with us like a puppy.
Ray, what game do you think making you the most money, pot-limit, no-limit or limit poker?
regards,
jikun
i think i make the most per hour in no limit, then pot, then limit. but thats because of my style of play which works best at big betting. i think the most skill is at pot, then limit, then no limit with the no limit skill more of a people skill and understanding some fundamentals which are not apparent to most.
"some fundamentals which are not apparent to most". What do you mean specifically be no limit "fundamentals"?
" dont tell vince as he will want to tag along with us like a puppy."
You better believe it! I will be at the Foxwoods tournament, waiting with bated breath for the arrival of the infamous Z(ee) Man!
vince
"not too much anymore as im all washed up and over the hill. "
Praise the lord! The "Z"(ee) man is alive and finally being honest with his following! Praise the lord! All washed up! Anyone that sees that white mass of "goofoo" on your dome already knew that. All washed up, I'll say. Anyone that rely's on a FOSSIL to do his playing for him instead of getting his lazy butt off of the sheep (no I didn't mean sheet) and doing it himself is definitely pasture potential. Thank you again oh lord for letting the supposed king of 7 Card stud bone up to the fact that he is an old cow poke awiting boot hill occupancy! Praise the lord! Zeeman showing his true self. Washed up and now trying to put the TwoPlusTwo onus on David and Mason with the false statement "and david and mason do play those games and higher". Let's ask Mason and David when the last time they played higher than 80-160. Does the word "never" mean anything to you old fallacious washed up one!
Yes praise the lord the Zee man has come semi clean. What does he play these days? Let me spell it out for you. He has joined the ranks of the senior citizens. He has arrived. His game, and from what I hear he has mastered it, is.. Wait, maybe it's better if I sing it to you. Then I'm sure you'll get it. They have a song up in Montana land that they sarcastically yet afectionately sing to Z when it's time to play. The whole senior community comes by the hog farm and choirs to our hero: "B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O and BINGO is his NAME-O" Just like the game he plays.
Vince.
Thanks Ray....anytime you plan to come up to Northern Cal to play in the no-limit games (Lucky Chances is now spreading 2-3 tables on Wednesdays and Fridays - the first game stated at 10am this Friday), please post it, as I would like to be there and just say hi and play at your table (I know that sounds crazy for my own expectancy, but I actually do like to play with the best players, as learning is something important to me).
A short while ago there was a thread comparing games in California with those in Las Vegas. Various factors were cited regarding toughness of games, and cost of playing whether it be rake, time charge or button charge.
Here is my question. If I were to take a short vacation to do nothing but play poker at limits of 10-20 to 30-60, would I better off going to LA, the bay area, or Vegas? Assume that the cost of flying to any of those locations is the same. The differences between them are cost of lodging, local transportation, toughness of games, cost of playing, and cost and quality of food.
I know that I would not have to rent a car in Vegas, which makes local transportation costs low. But the only place that I know where I can take a meal break while playing at Bellagio is at the nearby snackshop. The food is not bad, but there is not much of a selection, and it's no bargain.
I've never playin in CA, so I don't know anything about the toughness of mid-limit games there. Would I have to rent a car even if I played exclusively at one place?
Would the answer change if I took the trip during the week as opposed to the weekend? Lodging is certainly cheaper in Vegas during the week, but are the games tougher? Last time I was in Vegas, I played 15-30 Hold'em. The games were horrible on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday. The games were great on Monday and Tuesday. There were some conventions starting on Sunday, and I wonder if that is what made the difference, or if my experience was a fluke.
Thanks, Steve Fiete
I live and play in So. Cal. I have never played in the Bay area and play in Vegas around 3-4 times per year. The game selection in L.A. is much better and they are easier to beat. However they are more expensive. In L.A. you pretty much need a car. Food is comped. You can get a casino rate on a room for around $50-60 per night. When you are not playing there are a lot of things to do esp. if you have a car. In Vegas you pretty much have the Bellagio and Mirage to choose from. The games can be quite good but there are periods of time when they stink. In Vegas you're stuck in the middle of the dessert. It is 120 degrees everyday and there is very little to do besides poker and other gambling activities. If you want to do something outside you need to be up at the crack of dawn otherwise its too damn hot.
Bruce
Post deleted at author's request.
If you play at Hollwood Park you can get a room for $20 a night $30 on weekend at Crystal Park a 20 minute drive during no rush hour traffic. They even have a shuttle that goes every hour, so in theory you don't need to rent a car.
Crystal Park has no mid-limit games though, so it would be worthless for this guy to go there. When I was there this weekend, I asked a dealer "what's your biggest game, normally?" - he said 6-12.
If in southern cal, I would suggest Bicycle Club. The food is good and free, and it seemed that they usually had a 15-30, 20/40, and/or 40-80. Plus the rake was the lowest there in all of LA (40-80 rake is $7, at Commerce, it is $8 or $9, and Hollywood it is $9)
Do you really mean that the *rake* is $7-$10? or is that a time charge per hour or half-hour? or is it a dead-button drop?
I thought the cost of playing was the highest in the country here in the midwest where we pay 10% with $5 max rake per pot.
.
Badger - I don't know if you missed the thread concerning win rates in the three areas - or maybe I missed your comment.
Basically, my question was : if you can average 1BB/hr in a midlimit game in LV, what does that translate to in LA / Bay Area.
The most concise info (accurate or not, I don't know) came from Abdul, who claims to have played a significant amount of time in all three spots - he said 1BB/hr in Vegas = .5 in LA = .75 in Bay Area.
It seems you disagree with his Vegas/LA comparison - do you (I'm just trying to get another opinion, not trying to stir up a controversy or anything like that)?
Thanks.
Post deleted at author's request.
But isn't game selection everything?
Though Badger's reasoning is often clouded by his dislike for a particular sandnigger, he has a point here. These very different games (Vegas vs. L.A hold'em) require very different skills.
That said, my belief is that for a top player knowledgeable enough to exploit the fish in both flavors of the game, weak-tight ones will be much more profitable (this is the gist of Abdul's writings on Vegas vs. L.A). The fish in L.A. are rocket scientists compared to Vegas fish. The L.A. fish will school and (implicitly) join forces against you, while the Vegas fish are simply fodder to the pros.
On top of that, when the L.A. wannabe-pro makes a mistake against a top player, it's usually a small one (he calls once or twice too many). When the Vegas wannabe-pro makes a mistake against a top player, it's a big one (he folds once or twice too many). His win rate will reflect this very sharply.
BTW, I kinda like you, Steve. We simply must get together sometime for some social hold'em/omaha8 headsup mix.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Mississippi still gets my vote. Although I've never played in CA, after playing Vegas and AC, I'll take Mississippi anytime.
How does that rate compared to SF/LA/LV? It's non-smoking, so that's got to be a plus.
AZ is not non-smoking. One card room went non-smoking for one month, but that is the extent.
the games are soft, a kind of Meca for live play. consistent up to 20-40. spitball
I enjoyed myself there.
Skip Vegas except for the big tourneys. Go to Tunica, Mississippi (fly to Memphis, rent a car and drive the 20-30 miles south to Tunica).
Games are mostly hold-em, from 4-8, 10-20, 15-30, 20-40, to pot-limit. Poker room rate at the Horseshoe is $28/night on weekdays, food is comped, and the games aren't that tough. Make a reservation though, because even on weeknights during the summer, the place stays pretty full (I was there late last Sunday, and the hotel was booked solid).
They do allow smoking (great ventilation though). On the other hand, unlike S. California, you don't have to be concerned so much about the traffic, bad neighborhoods (where all the card clubs seem to be located in LA), getting cheated, or getting mugged.
I'm not sure how many casinos are in Tunica (I think about 12), but most seem to offer poker.
Oh, I'm sure someone will point out that your post belongs on the other forum ;-)
What is the typical rake or time charge in Tunica?
Are most mid-limit games going 7 days a week?
Although you'll only find games above 20-40 on thursday - Sunday, Missippi has by far the easiest to beat mid limit games in the world. And there are plenty of cheap places to stay and lots of public transportation.
If you would like better weather and great beaches, try San Diego. Ocean's 11 has a 20/40 and 30/60 game that can be very hot. Many of the dealers in the area play. There is also a pot limit game that used to be hosted by Mike Carson. If you try it, bring money, lots of money, and your A+ game. Stay away from the lower limits. Too tight to be worth the time. There are two motels are two motels close by. Plan to rent a car.
A low limit game worth checking out is the 8/16 at Viejas in Alpine. The limit generates much more action than you would expect. The Chinese menu is great. Avoid Syquan and the smaller clubs, except for the Village Club in Chula Vista. The action is great, if you can get a seat.
Geez, what happened to O11? The low limit games there used to be super loose, at least as loose as anything in LA. Heck, on my better nights (luckwise) I could win $1,000 in the 4-8 kill HE game. I had seen other people (who played more hands and longer sessions) win over $4,000. And the 9-18 used to always be a good game.
Too bad.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Steve,
I have played all three areas a fair amount in the middle limit games. I like all three.
Vegas is either Bellagio or Mirage. I prefer Bellagio as it has more game selection and the place is great. But, the 30-60HE can be tough and the smoking is a problem. Find Roy Cooke and sit in his game. Watching him play, listening to his coversation and watching his friend Melissa is worth it, just avoid playing in the same hands. The rake is the best deal. Wish CA did the same.
LA has the best game selection with little to no wait. Commerce is the best of the bunch and the games are usually excellent. The Bike and Hollywood Park are good alternates. My overall vote goes to LA.
Little is said about my home venue, the Bay Area. Most talk about Bay 101. It is very nice with pretty good game selection but the best overall game selection today is none other than Lucky Chances just south of SF. I mean multiple and great 20-40HE, some 40-80HE, 80-160HE with No-Limit 10-10-20 blinds two to three times a week. Good luck.
Bob Lewis
Hi folks: Having trouble with Greg's poker client. Getting a "24057 Socket is not connected" Message. Suggestions? I have tried changing the port from 6667 to 6666 to 7666 (on a friends computer and he uses AOL). Help appreciated. Thanks
.
I was wondering if there was anyone out there that could inform me of a fromulae of trick to knowing which card will be delt next or just a way to become good at card counting?
I can't tell you a simple formula for determining which card will come off next, but I can tell you a simple one to determine which will come off last!
Seriously, you need to define in which game you are interested in using this information. Arnold Snyder has covered blackjack counting systems, but they are only going to give you a blackjack oriented *probability* of which card will come off next. Short of memorizing all the cards that come off the deck, you won't have complete information and even then, unless a large number of cards have been dealt, you will still be dealing in a probabilistic prediction.
I was wondering if anyone knew of a simple formulae to help with predicting the next card to be delt. Also i was curious of a way to get good at counting cards.
I can tell you which card will come off the top of a shuffled deck of poker cards (No Joker) one out of 52 times.
I usually count cards one at a time, but sometimes, to impress people, I count them two at a time.
CV
Buy "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book".
It will take your from never having played BJ before to a winning card counter.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Card Counting for Dummies"
a card that has already been dealt has a zero probability of being the next card dealt (modulo the integrity of the dealer).
a card that has not already been dealt has probability (1 / # of cards left) of being dealt next.
given that this isn't very useful, i suggest using a magic 8 ball to conduct a binary search over the space of undealt cards to derive your predictions. you will have to ask at most log_2(n) questions, where n is the number of cards left, to arrive at a prediction. in addition to the obvious speed of this method, i guarantee that in the long run it will succeed at least as often as anything else you might try.
"Also i was curious of a way to get good at counting cards."
Start with 52 and subtract one evertime a card is dealt. When you get to zero there are no more cards left.
Vince.
Counting cards at which game?
I assume you refer to 7 cs. But, here are my handy tricks -
learn a complex blackjack count, if you play that game anyway. This will help.
Learn to play gin, and play a lot. This will help a ton, and be more fun than blackjack.
The only way to get really good at this is practice, practice, practice. On 3rd street, it is difficult, but you just have to keep a list of dead cards. When plaing gin, it is helpful to imagine a 13x4 grid to represent the deck. One might try this for stud. I use this method sometimes.
Eventually, you will be reading hands on 3rd, and guessing opponents hole cards and factoring this into your count.
For starters, try remembering folded 3rd street cards. Then add on any 4th-7th street folders to your list, as they fold. This is especially easy in a loose game, because there often are many players who have not folded. Also, (in loose games) those playing to 4th usually see the river, and the players are slow enough this should NOT be that hard.
Good luck.
Aaron could not ask such a dumb question and at the same time remember that there are two a's in his name. Aaron is putting people on.
I think he's joking too.
I have a simple math question.
If seven squared is forty-nine and eight squared is sixty-four then why isn't 7 1/2 squared equidistant between forty-nine and sixty-four.
The midpoint between forty-nine and sixty-four is fifty-six point five, but 7 1/2 squared is fifty-six point two-five.
What exactly am I missing?
Jeff Pilt
Maybe someone else can give a better explanation, but if you graph it out, any equation with a square in it will have an exponetial curve to it. A hyperbola I believe.
CV
CV has it right. For 7.5 to be the midpoint, the situation has to result in a linear relationship. But, squaring numbers is not a linear function, so you don't get the result you expected.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Actually, it is a linear function, but it isn't graphed along a straight line.
x² is a non-linear function.
The curve generated would be a parabola, not a hyperbola. Take note: a hyperbola is not the same as the hyperbole we sometimes see on this forum.
(7.5)^2
= (7 + .5) * (7 + .5) = (8 - .5) * (8 - .5)
= 7^2 + 2*7*.5 + .5^2 = 8^2 - 2*8*.5 + .5^2
That's just the way it works out. You can't square an average and expect it to stay an average.
Perhaps a more cogent way of explaining it:
Consider 7*7, 7*7.5, and 7*8. Then 7*7.5 is indeed the midpoint. But when you square everything, you're multiplying them all my different numbers, so there is no reason to expect the 7.5 to remain the midpoint.
It doesn't even work with whole numbers. Consider 1^2 and 5^2. The average of 1 and 5 is 3, but the average of 1 and 25 is 13, which is a lot different from 3^2.
Really, the more I look at my explanation, the worse it gets. Maybe someone else will try.
if you thought the other explanations were confusing, just wait till you read this one.
7.5^2 is the midpoint between 7^2 and 8^2. just not with the euclidean metric.
the way we usually measure distances intuitively is with the euclidean metric. the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees and everything is linearly related.
but we can imagine tons of different metrics. and in some of them 225/4 is equidistant from 49 and 56.
i'll tell you one of the coolest metrics. let's say the distance between two points is 0 if they are the same point and 1 if they are different points. it is easy to verify that this is a metric ( d(a,a)=0, d(a,b)>=0, d(a,b)=d(b,a), d(a,b)+d(b,c) >= d(a,c) )
one cool thing about this metric is that the midpoint between any two distinct points is any other distinct point!!
how'd ya like that?
scott
What you are missing is that when you square a number, you're using it twice, rather than once. If you were to cube the numbers, you'd see the discrepancy become even bigger.
The formula for squaring a sum is:
(x + y)² = x² + 2xy + y²
It's that last little bit (the y²) that's causing your question, because it multiplies the difference by itself. Like this:
(7 + ½)² = 7² + (2 * 7 * ½) + ½²
(7 + 1)² = 7² + (2 * 7 * 1) + 1²
The first part doesn't change between the two. The middle part of the first one is half of what the middle part of the second one is, which is what you seem to be expecting. It's the third part that throws you off, since for the first one its ¼, but 1 for the second, which isn't an even halfway. It's .25 lower than halfway, which is why your result is .25 lower than the average.
This can easily be seen if you draw out the squares. Which I can't do here. Just draw a square of 7, 7.5 and 8, where they're right on top of each other, sharing two sides.
Hope this helped!
That's what I wanted to say...
What is 3 squared?
If 2 squared is 4 and,
if 4 squared is 16, and since
4 + 16 = 20 and
20/2 = 10,
then 3 squared should be 10. Right?
Your question is the same as asking,
"Why isn't 3 squared 10?"
Buzz
It is simple algebra. The average of x squared and (x+1) squared is: x squared plus (x squared +2x + 1) all divided by 2. That equals x squared + x + 1/2.
On the other hand (x+ 1/2) squared is x squared + x +1/4.
The reason is that when you make a number bigger and square it, you have a greater imact on the new square than if you make a number smaller and square that. For instance 5 squared is 25. If you increase 5 by 2 and then square it, your new square of 49 is an increase of 24. On the other hand if you decreased 5 by 2 your new square of 9 is a decrease of only 16. That is why the average of 7 squared and 3 squared (29) is greater thn 5 squared. Same principle as your question.
Averaging is a linear function while squaring is a non-linear function.
Aren't you glad you can? (x²+(x+1)²)* ½ = x²+x+ ½ Now why didn't I think of that?
(n/t)
good idea, jim. but then we'd still need a separate forum for whatever this was. it certainly wasn't a math puzzle.
I don't care one way or another about a special forum for math puzzles -- the main thing is how is it in some way related to poker.... The square root & average thing between two consecutive integers doesn't really interest me. (I guess the square root thing evolved because DS mentioned it "uses it" in his discussion of how much "bankroll in reserve" various poker players need.) Has DS presented in this forum a derivation in math form on how he derived the bankroll problem? Maybe he has -- I would like to see it. If not I will attempt to do so.... Another math problem....
Maybe I am repeating myself but, a few months ago while playing OM8, a player mentioned he was curious how often there was a possible low in OM8 resulting from the five board cards. He said, "I think it's about fifty percent." I knew it was higher than that because -- using monte carlo techniques, "if I remember correctly from years ago" there was a low for the OM8 players about 52% of the time if in a nine handed game they all players went to the river.
Using closed form probability techniques, I calculated that there is "in the long run" a 60.2% chance for a possible low in OM8 from the distribution on cards on the board "flop, turn and river". Wilson's Turbo OM8 program predicts a somewhat higher percentage on the average. I used about twenty starter seeds "pseudo random number" program seeds for Wilson's OM8 HiLo program. The program predicts a possible OM8 low about 62% of the time. It essentially never predicted a low less than 60.2% of the time. I always used sufficient number of trials "iterations" in this study. Pseudo ramdom number generators are never perfect -- but there are techniques to improve any generator by introducing more degrees-of-freedom in the technique.
If anybody is interested in my analysis, than please let me know. I will gladly email them a copy of the results and technique that I used to come up with 60.2%. Also if anybody else has done this study in an analytic form, I would be interested in their results.
2 squared is two twos.
3 squared is three threes.
4 squared is four fours.
5 squared is five fives.
...and so on
Make sense?
No duh. The only poster who made any sense is Tom Haley. X squared (X**2) is a non-linear function. Simple. That's it. By definition, a non-linear function does not behave linearly. Another "No duh."
If memory serves, introductory algebra handled this question. We're not talking rocket science here. Jeez, how much math did you people take??
David,
I was told that you are teaching 7 CS lessons.
Can you, please, contact me at lnarod@yahoo.com.
Thanks.
How would top tournament an no limit players like Cloutier and Hellmuth stack up against the top limit players (in a limit game. Or are they the best limit players? Is it safe to say that the WSOP stars are the best poker players in the world?
They are both dead meat playing limit hold-em in a cash game against most of the better players around. It's not even close. Being a top tournament player does not translate into playing ring games well for most tourney players.
Just my 2cents for whatever it's worth.
Bruce
why? what is it about the different skills in tourneys and ring games that make one successful in one and not another?
Playing a tournament translates to playing with (and against) scared money. Loose aggressive tournament champs build their stacks spreading fear with their I-represent-a-top-pair raises. When they try that against my AK and my oversized bankroll in a limit poker cash games, they find their ass raised on the turn a bit too often for their taste.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
From what I have heard, many of the tournament superstars are not superstars in high limit games. Players who do well in tournaments but not as well in ring games include players like Phil Helmuth, Scotty Nyugen, T.J. Cloutier, John Bonetti, Tom McEvoy,etc. to name a few. These players find themselves in fast company when they start playing against Chip Reese, Danny Robison, Doyle Brunson, Berry Johnston, Lenny Martin, and Ron Stanley.
The reason is because tournament poker, big bet poker, and limit poker require different skill sets. The reason that tournament players and frequently pot limit players have trouble beating high limit games is because they cannot move people off a hand as easily. The problem with limit poker is that you have to almost always showdown the best hand to win. You will not win a pot with fancy check-raising or through repeated betting and raising since the betting amounts are usually small compared to the pot size. Imagination, creativity, deception, psychology, etc. are not nearly as important in full tabled limit hold-em as they are in big bet poker or tournament poker. In fact too much imagination in limit poker can get a good player in trouble. Full tabled limit hold-em is very much a card game requiring proper technique and is not nearly as much a "people game" as many believe.
It would seem that good no-limit player would be excellent in trapping players. They probably do this routinely in no-limit, when it is much less profitable and probably a mistake to trap in most limit situations. But, being great players they should be able to adjust, right? They must have moved up through the limit ranks like the rest of us.
they are both great players and would kill any side games they play in if they played in smaller stakes games. tournament players tend to play in large side games and get beat. they are not accustomed to those games that are played in by the best players in the world. in a tournament you arent playing with a table full of champs at all times like in the big cash games. but you can bet all you like that if any(most) of the recognized by me champs at tournaments had to play in smaller side games they would be big winners. good nolimit players get eaten alive in limit games and good limit players get eaten alive in no limit games. just like when micheal jordan went to play baseball. there are precious few that can play both well enough.
Ray, you are known to be world class at both limit and no-limit. What intellectual and emotional adjustments do you make in order to make successful transitions between the two? I have learned to make some successful adjustments myself. For example, when I'm playing limit I'm more relaxed and detached but when I'm playing no limit, I am a lot more into it rather than detached. I also play a lot more aggressively in no limit where I'll constantly raise with 56o for deception and implied odds reasons. I'm starting to get good at both but how can I make a good thing even better?
in both games i just try to make the play that gives me the best results. id stay away from that 56o a little unless you are stealing the blinds. and there is never implied odds for it in normal situations.
I have never played with T.J. but have played limit hold-em with Phil a good half dozen times. Everyone at the table including myself wonders how this guy can possibly win a tournamnent let alone the Big One. Besides being very temperemental to the point of being obnoxious his limit hold-em play leaves quite a bit to be desired. His hand selection is very poor and he frequently overplays his hands to the point where he literally looks like he is the live one at the table. Perhaps these are the necessary skills to be a successful big bet player, because if they are he certainly does possess them.
Bruce
Seems the question has changed to Limit players vs Tournament players.
I was (and still am) under the impression Pot/No limit requires more skill than limit. Maybe some ideas which futhered this notion were No/pot limit games aren't spread anymore bc the fish lost their money all too fast and really didn't stand a chance. While in limit the fish can win and win (and thus come back) and keep the games alive.
Granted the set of skills are different but I stil believe Pot/No limit has more skill.
However I should note I am thinking of Ring games and not tournaments, I think/suspect there is way too much luck in those event.
Comments!?
In my book POKER ESSAYS there are a couple of chapters where I address this issue. My conclusion is that limit hold 'em is strategically more difficult than no-limit hold 'em. But I do agree that no limit hold 'em is psychologically more difficult.
You make a good point that comparing no-limit tournament players to limit ring game players is not the same thing. I have argued that no-limit tournament play is actually a "weak" form of no-limit because many hands are played where someone is all-in after the first (or second) round and thus the later streets do not have to be played well since there is no play to them. In fact, all tournaments, whether limit or no-limit have this characteristic, and thus you can argue that virtually all tournaments, regardless of the type of poker being played, are a form of "weak" no-limit.
As for someone like Phil Helmuth, there is no question that he is very good at this weak form of no-limit. Even though I use the word "weak," there is still substantial skill in it. However, my opinion, and I want to stress that it is my opinion, is that he just happens to have the right style for it. Furthermore, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I predict that he won't do nearly as well in the future as he has done in the past. (This has something to do with regression towards the mean and the fact that other tournament players have learned to adjust to his style and some of the correct plays that he happens to make are not as effective as they use to be.) It is also well known that he has done very poorly in side games, and even though I haven't played with him in years, when I did play some limit hold 'em at his table it was very clear (to me) that he should stick to the tournaments.
I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you. Couldn't agree with you anymore.
Bruce
I suspect (only having played pot limit a few times) that limit games require more skill BUT the punishment for playing poorly is much higher (in the short term) in pot/no limit games.
I say, in the short term, because a poor player might lose a substantial amount quickly and simply stop playing poker.
In a limit game a player may draw upon other resources (such as monthly paychecks) and the losses,over time, may extend much past what they might lose playing pot limit.
There would be exceptions of course such as someone losing their house and/or business by playing in large no limit games.
Just a few random thoughts (I agree with much that's been said already.).:
Specialization has much the same implications in poker as in other fields. Specialists in a certain area will *usually be the best. There have been a small number of players, though (Zee et al), who have done very well across a bunch of different games/structures.
Nevertheless, as Mike Sexton (obviously a major tournament supporter) acknowledged in a column a couple of years ago, the highest levels of poker talent, most of the very best players - if you had to pick between tournament and live game specialists - are found in live games. That's in large part because an excellent player can make more, and, God knows, make it much more consistently, in higher limit games than on the tourney circuit.
Would a player known primarily for unusual tournament success typically do well in the higher limit live games? Aside from the good points others have made, one thing that's clear is that the only players we *know can really beat such games are the ones who have *done so, day in and day out, over a fair number of hours. Many of them are not well known outside the small circles of the games they play in. In recent months in the 80-160 hold'em game in LA, I've had occasion to play against quite a few "name" players, ranging from WSOP champs to players known mainly just in high limit circles. The best two or three players (IMO) I've encountered in that game have names few outside such games would know. They are simply very skilled regulars, among the best in a game through which an amazingly high volume of very good players passes. (As I've said, though, I have little doubt some posters here could succeed in such games - at least after some initial adjustment.)
You asked if the top NL/PL players didn't all come up the limit ranks like others of us. In many cases the answer is actually no. A good number of top big bet players either gravitated into those forms of poker early in their poker careers, or learned poker in areas, and in a time, in which big bet games were much more common. So that was what they learned. I have a friend who is more a NL player than a limit player, and the first time he ever played poker was in a NL home game in Texas. Another point: It's not like these days you work your way up the ranks and at the top, waiting for you, are the NL games. Limit games can be just as "big" or bigger than NL games. What's waiting is just bigger games, regardless of structure.
John Feeney wrote :
... "As I've said, though, I have little doubt some posters here could succeed in such games - at least after some initial adjustment.) "
can you specify exactly what you mean by the "intial adjustment"?
when I played in the 80/160 at the commerce (played for 6 hours), I found no necessary adjustment needed compared to my local 40/80 game...it was pretty much the same typical range of players, good & bad, tight & loose, aggressive & passive. of course, it was only 6 hours on a monday afternoon, so it may not have been a typical table makeup
"when I played in the 80/160 at the commerce (played for 6 hours), I found no necessary adjustment needed compared to my local 40/80 game..."
Well, only a few posters here have the chance to play much higher than about 20-40 on a regular basis. What I said could apply to the jump up from, say, 20-40 to somewhat higher, tougher limits like 40-80. Around SoCal you do often see a real change when you get up to about 40-80. (Though sometimes - like lately - some of those games can be surprisingly good, as Bruce can attest.) There's some adjustment needed to deal with a tighter, more aggressive game. (e.g., more emphasis on blind stealing situations, more intelligent "moves" being made, a bit more time spent playing short-handed…) But the Commerce 80-160 does sometimes play fairly similarly to the 40-80 games there, with some cross-over of players as well. However, on average, it's a bit tighter, with somewhat fewer mistakes being made overall. Also, the best players in the 80 game tend to be noticeably better than the best in the 40 games. So you just have to deal with a somewhat higher level of play on the whole. Still, it's certainly beatable. With a little game selection I suspect a lot of players who might think it's too tough for them would find they could do pretty well in it. Certainly a number of posters here could beat it.
Thank you, all the responses were excellent.
"Furthermore, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I predict that he won't do nearly as well in the future as he has done in the past. (This has something to do with regression towards the mean and the fact that other tournament players have learned to adjust to his style and some of the correct plays that he happens to make are not as effective as they use to be.)"
I found it interesting that Mason seems to think Phil Hellmuth will be less successful in the future. Mason, you wrote that you didn't want to get into the details, but I was wondering if there was anyway to loosen your lip? I know that you don't want to scrutinize someone's style or analyze someone's play on a public form, but I think it would be instructive to know about these plays that he makes. There seems to be little talk about tournament plays at this site, and I was wondering if you could give us an example?
Someone also mentioned that players don't work their way up anymore. I am a college student who is twenty and have moved my way from 3-6 to 10-20. I was just curious if you knew why this was the case?
"Someone also mentioned that players don't work their way up anymore."
You may be misunderstanding something I said. What I meant is that there are quite a few good no-limit/pot-limit players who did not work their way up through limit games into big bet games. This is partly because a no-limit game is not necessarily bigger than a limit game. It just depends on the size of the blinds. Some of those players simply worked their way up from smaller no-limit games to bigger ones. (And of course a few who had the resources just jumped into bigger games from the start.) Anyone can afford to play no-limit if they use small enough blinds.
More generally, I was saying that NL/PL games do not define the top of the "food chain", so to speak. Bigger games do. Those can be limit or NL/PL. Limit games are of course much more common.
John Feeney wrote :
"Limit games can be just as "big" or bigger than NL games. What's waiting is just bigger games, regardless of structure. "
I agree. The no-limit games in Northern California have a $1000 buy-in, and it plays less volatile than the 40/80 games. I think one reason for this is that people are sometimes afraid to bet, as they are afraid to get raised. And also, it stops the random calling preflop and postflop by many of the very poor players as the bets are sometimes too big for the poor players to just throw their money in. For example, if an A flops, and someone has AK, they will typically make a pot-sized bet (ranging from 100-300), which is just too much for a no-pair to call (which, believe it or not, some of these guys would call without a second thought in the limit games)
Also, it's just a matter of the size of the blinds in NL or PL.
well, I take that back, I just figured out that the tournaments forum had the tournament plays! When I graduate college these tricky concepts should be easier for me.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: ex-newbie
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:13 a.m.
Disclaimer: This post is not for those interested in learning anything about poker or anything else for that matter. In fact it is long and may not be of any interest at all to anyone but me.
Vince.
Day One.
I awoke, as usual, sometime in the afternoon. The sun, as usual, was brightly shining. After all I was in Las Vegas. What else would you expect. I ate something. I wanted to say I had breakfast but somehow eating in the afternoon just doesn' seem to fit with "breakfast". Being a blue collar person all of my life I still associate breakfast with early a.m. eating.
After a little lounging and t.v. surfing I left my Warrior Inn room and headed over to the place I was planning on spending the next few hours. When I got there everything was in order. Lots of people were mulling around. Some familiar some I had never seen before. Nothing was differnt. Even the unfamiliar faces were the same. I sat down with a bunch of folks and soon was deeply involved and having a fine time. Although the few hours I spent with these, mostly strangers, were not relaxing and in fact down right energy draining the time passed quickly and was very enjoyable. Not to mention profitable. When I was tired I got up. I stopped at a video rental place on the way back to my room and picked up "The Green Mile". Wow, I'm in Vegas and renting movies. I know that sounds depressing but I wanted to chill out and a movie felt right. I watched the film. Eh..It was o.k., then went to sleep.
Day 2
Got up around the same time. Went through the same rituals. Shower shave, mostly the top of my head, ate, lounged while surfing the channels and left my room. Today though I went to a differnt place. There was an event going on there and I wanted to participate. Got there to late. the party had already started and I was unable to get in. Oh well, a little disappointed but not terribly upset I decided to return to my favorite place where I was the day before. I had such a pleasant experience I was hoping to repeat it. When I got there nothing had changed. The same familiar and unfamiliar faces were there. I even got my same chair with the same unknown others that I interacted with the night before. It seemed as if I had never left. It wasn't long though before I became uncomfortable. Things were not the same, at least not from my perspective. An it just kept getting worse and worse. Soon I was besides myself, I felt out of control. I hadn't had this feeling for a long long time and I became increasingly worried. I was very close to just hanging it up and running out of the place when I caught a hold of my emotions and settled down. I decided I would stay longer than I had originally planned and just ry and regain control of my composure. I did settle down and things got better but I never really go to a point where I felt in control. After a lot longer than I should have stayed and being very tired and worn out I fianlly left. I was totally spent and headed straight for my bed and was out for the count before my head hit the pillow.
Day 3
When I woke this time it was dark out side. I was well rested physically but somewhat emotionally distressed. I began to think about the events that occurred the night before and yelled "NO". I was not going to dwell on negatives. No. So I forced myself to not think of what happened other than to try to keep it from occurring again. I decided to use it as a lesson. I would take a positve view of a negative event. I turned on the T.V. and surfed for a while. I looked at the clock, it was 7:30 p.m. I rembered that there was an event that I wanted to attend that began at 8:30. I hurried to the shower and rushed out of my room and scurried over to the place where they were holding the event. I arrived at 8:40 and was again too late to participate. I left. I got in my car and began to think of things to do. I did not want another experience like the one I had last night. I was reluctant to return to that place and face those same unfamiliar faces. That's when I decided that I had to go back. I was not going to let fear rule my life. Come hell or high water I was going back. When I got there I could not get over it. Everything was the same. I really don't know what I expected but I should have known that nothing was going to change. Same unfamiliar and familiar folks. One thing was different though. I ran into an old buddy. Well not really an old buddy who I had a lot of respect for. Actually a fairly new aquaintance that I had had some discussions with in the past. He was with his lady friend waiting to join the group just like I was. We talked for a little while. It was great. I became completely comfortable here again. Any trace of anxiety I had was gone. I sat in with the group and it was as if yesterday was a distant memory. It was day one all over and it stayed like that until I left. Another enjoyable experience. Not only enjoyable because it was profitable but because I felt in control of myself. I wouldn't have mattered what the outcome was I was satisfied with my self. I left early because I wanted to keep that feeling and got another movie. "The Talented Mr. Ripley" Weird but interesting. Then I went to sleep.
For those of you interested.
Place 1: Bellagio's
Place 2: Stratosphere
Events at Bellagios: 15-30 Holdem games
Events at stratospher: Daily tournaments.
Day 1: Won $850 in 5 hours
Day 2: lost $1050 in 15 hours. Was stuck $2700 after five hours of play. In seven years of playing 15-30 poker had never been stuck more than $1500 before. One half hour before I stopped I had come to within $450 of quitting even. Once I got stuck this bad I could never ocus completely on what was important. I only wanted to get unstuck. It was very stressful. No way to play poker.
Day 3: Won $1050 in 4 hours of play. Completely relaxed and in control for entire session.
Oh yeah, buddy at Bellagios: Mason Malmuth.
What's the point: None
Vince.
a bit warped. The funny thing (and somewhat scary) is that I understood exactly what you wrote. Oh, by the way, I owe yoy a dollar. Been playing 5/10 HE; not bad.
Welcome home, old buddy. Well, not really THAT old and I don't know you at all but, heh, this is cyberspace and you can't hit me.
Better reread "Threshold of Pain". You were a favorite on day two to have such a disaster there would be no day 3. You got LUCKY to get reasonably unstuck with the state of mind you apparently were in.
Never been stuck $1500 in a 15/30? What, you regularly bring only $1400?
- Louie
What's "Threshold of Pain?"
This is the way I first heard the term, and I'm pretty sure that this is what Louie is referring to. Either terminology is the same.
Mike Caro explained this theory to us at BARGE about 5 or so years ago. When you're playing poker, in the long run, every dollar you win (or every dollar you save) is the same. It doesn't matter whether the dollar came at the end of an otherwise losing session, or at the beginning of a winning session. So, it always matters that you play your best. However, when you're having a terrible session, whether due to bad luck or bad playing, the misery you feel from your loss can become so great that you've reached your threshold. That is, even if you lose thousands more from this point forward, your misery will not increase. People who have reached their threshold and continue to play are HIGHLY likely to lose every dollar they have on them or can obtain. They will often play like total maniacs or some other very bad player-type, in their attempt to win back enough money to reduce their misery.
His point was simply to be aware of this phenomenon so that you can avoid living it out. If you reach your threshold, and don't recognize it, it will likely have a severe negative impact on your bankroll. While losing that last $3,000 might not have increased your misery that night, it certainly will increase your misery the next day and thereafter, as you must live with the consequences of the total loss.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"You were a favorite on day two to have such a disaster there would be no day 3. You got LUCKY "
Louie,
Some things just always stay the same. Your (valuable) opinion is right on the money, as usual! I was just trying to relate the swings I experienced during this three day period. I thought they might be of interest. Your perceptive response may just be the most important point to learn from my experience. Something I had considered as I kept buying more chips but had not intended to point out in my post. Thanks for reminding me and putting it into words.
Vince.
Very good.
What makes your post good is that you write from the heart and not the head.
His head is squished by his "Bulls" cap he has to speak thru his heart.
paul
When's the last time you got laid? I'd rather here about that...although I have a feeling it may have been a while ago....
Al asked: When was the last time you got, well had sex!
Al,
It's been oh
s-o-o-oo
l
o
n
g
ago.
| can't seem to remember the feeling. By the way if you are proposing I'm sorry unless you are a female I wouldn't consider it.
Vince
Let me get this straight, Vince. You were in AC, LV and LA within the space of 2 months. You are certainly a decent looking chap (chicks like beards). You had a pocket full of money, a teriffic attitude, no excess baggage (as in the human type of mental baggage), no bad habits and you did not partake in any of the wonderful ladies available? (I am not making a judgement her as to legal or illegal activities).
You must rethink of how to use some of your free (or pay per use) time. Man does not live by bread and poker alone.
But ratso, poker lasts much looooooooonger.
Poker lasts longer NOW (It didn't whenI was 25). I think we all need a physical and mental break from poker once in a while, and while fishing for trout is nice (i.e Ray Zee), I think the other alternative to which I alluded might be better.
agreed
..as a mid-limit hold 'em player should read this. This is what it's like, every day. Sound fun?
Go to engineering school. Trust me.
Props to you, Vince. At least you never went to a sportsbook.
At least a poker pro doesn't have to kiss an employer's ass like all 9 to 5 working people do.
nt
The real idiot is the 9 to 5 person who kisses his boss's ass all day long seven days a week for most of his life, and is too damned egotistical, defensive, and insecure to admit it to his friends, family, and especially to himself. That's the real idiot!!!!!! And if you're him you oughta be ashamed to show your face in front of your children. You are a gutless bad example and are not worth looking up to. On the other hand, anyone who has enough independence and guts to leave the rat race and tell his employer to "Take this job and shove it up your ass!!" in pursuit of a full time poker career should be commended. The more you ingore these facts (as BetTheDraw suggests you should), the more you deny yourself of the truth that you know to be true deep down inside your conscience.
Well, the main problem with this point of view is that it does, by necessity, condemn most of the world. There can only be so many bosses, and so many independents, in the world. Thus, most of us will work for somebody else for most or all of our lives.
If you believe PV's position, then 90 odd percent of the world is doomed to a life of ass-kissing and humility in front of their families. I don't buy it.
Based upon how often he brings this up, it is my opinion that PV uses this line of thinking to boost his ego, and make himself think that he's better than most of the world. Even if he's right, and he is better than most of us, it's not because he plays pro poker.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't need to boost my ego because I don't have one. I'm just a humble little poker player discretely and patiently trying to speak his mind. And I never condemn people. I believe everyone is equal in the eyes of God. But not all philosophies about how to view and live life are equal.
Vince
Although I am not a pro, and only play lower limits most of the time, I can relate to your story.
When I lived on the east coast I often played three to six times a week. Probably averaged 30 hours a week in AC. Swings like the ones you described here were all too commonplace. Both $$ and emotional swings were common. Some days / weeks I could do no wrong, sometimes I could do no right. Sometimes the cards beat me over the head in every game, in all positions. Other times I couldn't lose a pot even if I folded BTF. Stayed 36 hours one time trying to get unstuck and wound up leaving AC dead tired and 50$ down. Those extra 25 hours made up the 500$ I was down though!!! Was it worth it... That's another story.
I think your post gives everyone who doesn't really know what it is like a glimpse into the reality of being a serious poker player. Especially you new players, take this to heart. You will be feeling it too, soon enough.
Dave in Cali
I've finally figured out how David Sklansky wins so much money playing poker. He simply outthinks everybody. While we're hopin our hand stands up he is figuring out all of the possibilities that could occur and is comparing that to what his reactions will be to those different possible outcomes. When we get a big pair we are thinking about how the cards are finally starting to break even and he is thinking about what everyone else could have and the most likely way they would play each of those particular holdings. When we flop a draw we are thinking that it is about time we finally make a flush and David is thinking about the best way to play the hand for maximum profit if he does make it and minimum loss if he doesn't. Not to mention all of the different bluffing scenarios that might develop.
I have started thinking a lot more deeply at the poker table lately. My results have improved. I watch every hand from beginning to end no matter how boring. Wow, that guy opened raised with Ace-ten off, hmmm, I better file that away. This other guy called a raise in the fourth seat with the Queen-eight of spades, better put that in the memory bank. She called a double bet on the button from an early raiser with nine-eight suited. The list goes on.
Once I started doing this I found myself playing much more...cautiously...not my normal style but it had the effect of keeping my losses smaller. I like that. It also earns me more respect at the table, if that is possible, and I can pick up a pot here and there that wouldn't have been possible previously.
I've played a lot with David and Mason, and I've played some with Ray. I never cared for the way they played. Just a couple more nits dragin down the game. I know what they're doin. They are trying to create an image. They don't take any reckless chances and then they wait for the right situations. Then they pounce.
I remember a hand David played many years ago in a twenty-forty game. He had just sat down and raised around toward the back, first one in, with the King-seven of spades. One other player called. David flopped a flush draw and bet all the way till the river when his flush card came and then he checked. The other guy bet and David got a check-raise in which the guy paid off.
I wouldn't have gone for the check-raise there fearing that the guy wouldn't bet but would almost certainly call a bet. So, I would have gone for the sure bet. But David was thinking much more deeply than the rest of us that were analyzing this play after David had left the table.
First of all, most of the players in the game couldn't believe that he would come in for a raise with King-seven suited. That didn't surprise me but the check-raise on the river sure did. How did he know the guy would bet and then almost certainly call a raise? He would have to know the guy would not only bet over 50% of the time but also most likely call his raise, otherwise the correct play would be to come out betting and almost certainly get paid off. Maybe he just knew the guy. Well, David wasn't there any longer so we couldn't ask him but I'm sure that he was pretty certain that the guy would swing at the pot and he did.
It just goes to show you that the deeper you think about the game the more profitable it becomes. What we all did notice though was the silly looking grin he had on his face when he checked his hand on the river. In retrospect -- what an acting job! It sure must have fooled his opponent because he came right out firing.
Where did you learn to think like that David? Is everything just logical analysis with you?
" How did he know the guy would bet and then almost certainly call a raise?"
He didn't. He knew that if the guy didn't have a hand he wouldn't call a bet. So he tried to induce a bluff and it worked. In fact it worked better than he figured because the guy called his raise. He must have had a hand or knew David was capable of a bluff raise. Of course if I am correct, and I would lay 5-1 that I am, it just emphasizes your point about David's "Deep Thinking". David is a math whiz. His kind have this thing about logic.
As far as who you are? Hmmm ... I will guess that you have never posted on this forum before and therefore I have no idea whom you might be. Correct? Vince.
First one in in late position with a K7s? He was obviously trying to steal the blinds. At worst, it would make a good image play if it didn't work. An image play with maximized benefits since it was done at the beginning of the session. Also, don't forget the fact that since he had just sat down, he probably had to post a big blind in late position and was therefore already in the pot for one bet. "While we're hopin our hands stand up he is figuring out all of the possibilities that could occur.....". Hope is a four letter word that David obviously does not believe in. "When we flop a draw we are thinking that it is about time we finally make a flush and David is thinking about the best way to play the hand....". Praying is a four letter word too. This is the moral lesson of your post: "Don't worry about what the cards are gonna do, focus on what you are going to do in response to the cards".
How come every time a "star" makes a marginal decision, i.e K-7 spades people instantly come to his defense suggesting that it must be an advanced play to develop his image. I may be a cynic, but they are human. Everything they do isn't calculated and analyzed fourteen levels.
If he made that K7s play based on at least all of the reasons that I mentioned (plus other reasons that I may not be aware of because I'm not deep enough of a thinker), it was definitely an advanced play.
If that was his thinking, he played the hand very well.
"Once I started doing this I found myself playing much more...cautiously...not my normal style but it had the effect of keeping my losses smaller. I like that. It also earns me more respect at the table, if that is possible, and I can pick up a pot here and there that wouldn't have been possible previously."
The other side of the coin is playing very aggressively when you have the edge. Sometimes you'll get burned, but if you are correct more times than not, and if you play the odds, you will come out a winner overall.
It can also be correct to call or fold to induce action from your opponent. For example, on the river if your partner bets, it may be correct to fold the best hand if you are very sure your partner has the third player beat, in order to induce a call from that person.
For the question in the example, it might be correct to call with even a small chance of winning, if the majority of the times you lose your partner will pick up the pot anyway. For example, your partner has top pair, you have a gutshot to the nuts, and you suspect the third player is on a straight draw. Your gutshot makes a higher straight than the open-ended straight draws on the board. By calling for the gutshot, you reduce the opponent's outs from 8 to 4.
Sorry about that. I'll put this under the right thread.
" I remember a hand David played many years ago in a twenty-forty game. He had just sat down and raised around toward the back, first one in, with the King-seven of spades. One other player called. David flopped a flush draw and bet all the way till the river when his flush card came and then he checked. The other guy bet and David got a check-raise in which the guy paid off.
I wouldn't have gone for the check-raise there fearing that the guy wouldn't bet but would almost certainly call a bet. So, I would have gone for the sure bet. But David was thinking much more deeply than the rest of us that were analyzing this play after David had left the table."
I'll bet David's thinking is even deeper than you realize: I'll lay odds that after the guy paid off the check raise, David had a nagging doubt that maybe betting out on the river instead of checking would have netted him three bets. Genius has its drawbacks.
Tom Weideman
Fourth St. Limit Holdem. Payer A bets. Player B calls. You are considering calling. To keep it simple we will say there is no fifth st bet. Normally you would call here if your chances of winning are better than your pot odds. However suppose you are partners with player B (or A for that matter). Now this is no longer the correct criteria. It might be right to fold a hand with better than a 50% chance of winning or to call with a hand that has only a 5% chance (even when the pot is small). So what exactly is the correct criteria under these circumstances?
clearly it matters whether the increased chances of the team winning the pot is worth the pot odds.
say you are against a Q high flush draw. your teamate has KK, an overpair to the board. and you have AA. you should fold even though you have the best hand.
similarly, it may be right to call with a gutshot getting very bad pot odds if the cards that would allow the opponent to beat your teamate would make your straight.
this is a pretty easy question.
scott
I don't tink it's that simple since you (i assume) do not know what your partner actually has.
It doesn't make any difference what you do if your partner is going to win if you fold. So you only care about the times the target is going to beat your partner if you fold. Of these times that the target has a good enough hand to beat your partner, its a "good" call if the chances against you beating the target compare favorably to the pot odds.
So if partner has an Ace flush, you have a full, and the target has a one-card straight flush draw, you should fold even though you are a 43:1 favorite since if target outdraws partner, you cannot win.
Conversely, if partner has Aces-up top two pair and both you and target have the same bottom pair, you should call if your kicker will tie or beat target even though you have only a one-card out: if target outdraws partner then YOU beat (or tie) target 100% of the time; even though you are a 43:1 dog.
No time to double check. Bye
- Louie
If the order of action is Player A--Player B--you: If you are colluding with Player A then the correct action would be to raise regardless of your hand. Now, Player A will do one of two things; if he is on a "monster" then he will flat call to keep B in. If he would rather drive B out of the pot then he will reraise to put maximun presssure on B, who will have to call a double bet AND face the threat of a reraise from you. If you are colluding with B then you should not raise as the threat of a reraise from B (after A presumably calls) would not be credible (B originally only called). If B had the "monster" he would not raise for fear of your misinterpreting his motive, and reraising to drive A out (which is what B would NOT want). Similarly, if B were on a bluff and wanted to drive A out then B would raise to allow you to participate in the pressure tactic, as above. Therefore B simply has a playable hand, such as a draw, and your raising would simply reduce his pot odds. Therefore he would rather you just called if your hand justified it (presumably your funds are pooled so he wouldn't care if you rather than he won the pot).
Summing up: raise without looking at your hand if you are partnering the initial bettor (A). Play your hand normally, but tend to avoid a marginal raise, if you are partnering the caller, B.
You should raise unless you just call in which case your partner will raise and you can then re-raise.
If you partner checks you can bet and then he will raise in which case you can re-raise if you still have someone left in the pot to beat.
If your partner bets and the other guy calls you can raise and partner can re-raise but if the other guy has the nuts you will lose more money and he will think you're nuts.
I would call when I have the best hand and fold with the worst hand when my partner has a better hand but can't call.
The best play of all may be to wait for a better hand and a get a different partner if things don't work out too well. It depends on how well you get along.
The strength of the various strategies available to a team that has isolated an opponent two-on-one should convince anyone with a brain that Internet poker is tantamount to monetary suicide (unless, that is, you intend to form a lil' ol' team yourself).
I think he's looking for a pot odds type criterion not some kind of strategy in a particular situation.
EG if the pots is laying you better odds than your chances to improve you can profitably call in a heads up situation. This is the criterion one uses if he doesnt' have one colluding w/him.
One should note this criterion should hinge on the probability that player C (who is colluding w/A) improves to beat B when A doesn't.
this may be the wrong forum for this, BUT; i have been playing 3-6 hold'em on the net ( always the same site; probably better i don't give the name ) for over a year - on avg. 8-10 hours per week. 80-90% of the players at this level are absolutely clueless. it's very difficult to calculate an hourly earn due to the tremendous differences in the pace of the game; i prefer to base my results on $$/100 hands. having played slightly in excess of 12,000 hands, i am ahead a little over $6,500. i am almost certain that cheating does occur ( i am not sure that it is more prevalent on the net than in live play ) but do you really believe it to be a major concern at this level ? i don't. i just find it hard to believe that there are enough parasites out there willing to put forth the time and effort to cheat at a game of this size. i consider myself to be a very good player although i am aware that it is the horren- dous play of my opponents that has allowed for most of this profit. at these stakes i find the game to be an excellent way to kill some time, and pick up a little extra walking around $$$. most of the opponents i encounter seem to view it as a good way to get rid of $$$ that they obviously do not want soiling their pockets. so far, we all seem to be getting what we want. would i consider moving to higher stakes ? I THINK NOT, but i do plan to continue to play, at least until i see evidence to suggest that things are not on he level. driving two hours to play three or four hours of 3-6 is insane - not to mention that the best player in the world could never win enough to cover his expenses, let alone show a profit. when i want to play for red chips i go to AC or CONN. when i want to play for green chips, i have my doctor adjust the dosage of my medication ( just kidding ). online poker is a wonderful thing when played at the right level; it's russian roulette when there is serious money involved. as Dennis Miller would say - " but that's just my oppinion; i could be wrong". regards to all ...
You have to consider the marginal effect on the probability of the team winning relative to the cost of calling and pot size. When you are playing alone, then the probability of winning if you call is the same as the marginal impact of calling vs. folding.
In other words you need to count the probability of your hand being better than the opponents hand AND the opponents hand beating your partner's hand. Use this as the basis to compare to the pot odds.
For example, if you were drawing to a K high flush and your partner were drawing to an A high flush, and you needed the flush to beat the opponent, then you should always fold no matter how big the pot is.
Steve Fiete
It can also be correct to call or fold to induce action from your opponent. For example, on the river if your partner bets, it may be correct to fold the best hand if you are very sure your partner has the third player beat, in order to induce a call from that person.
For the question in the example, it might be correct to call with even a small chance of winning, if the majority of the times you lose your partner will pick up the pot anyway. For example, your partner has top pair, you have a gutshot to the nuts, and you suspect the third player is on a straight draw. Your gutshot makes a higher straight than the open-ended straight draws on the board. By calling for the gutshot, you reduce the opponent's outs from 8 to 4.
To draw a parallel between collusion poker and bridge, pinochle etc., how big a problem is voice or hand signs to indicate what type of hand one might have as to be able to signal a partner? Would it not be nice if I could relay info to my partner that I had AA or a hifh flush draw? Is this even an issue?
Taking the question at its simplest:
By betting you will increase the partnership’s chances of winning, but will decrease the partnership’s pot odds. The increase to the partnership’s chances by the inclusion of your hand in play must be greater than its corresponding decrease in pot odds.
There are 4 bets in the pot at the beginning of the round. Your partner, A, has a 1:4 (.20) shot and bets. B calls. If you call, the partnership will have bet 2 to win 5 (.29). You need a better than 1: 10 (.9) to call. If you raise and get two calls, the partnership will have bet 4 to make 6 and so needs better than a .4 chance to win. You would need better than a 1:4 (.2) shot to raise, etc.
Example of what I mean: Reagan's threat of building the "Star Wars" missile defense system scared the Russians into bankruptcy and ultimately led to the Soviet empire's collapse. They believed him, and tried to match the US military buildup that was being fueled by deficit spending and a strong US economy. As we know now, the threat was bogus: even now we are years, even decades, away from deploying a functional missile-defense system. Reagan was akin to a seven-stud player showing a board of QJ109 of clubs, but holding a pair of red threes in the hole. The nagging question for the Russians was: is he bluffing? And even if he IS, he could catch lucky on the river (the US could develop the technology in the future anyway, as opposed to possessing it right then, which is what Reagan implied). The action of calling would have been to accept Reagan's offer to share the Star Wars technology and to dismantle all offensive weapons once the system was in place (which never would have been done, thus the bluff would have been exposed). But the Russians folded.
Can anyone come up with similar examples in world history?
I think the greatest example of an historical semi-bluff was the Cuban Missle Crisis. Absolutely brilliantly played hand, with the fate of the entire world at stake. The USSR bet, JFK addressed the nation and basically raised "all-in". Talk about moments of pure terror. In fact, even comparing it to a poker game is making light of the cold war's "moment of truth".
This was not a bluff. Kennedy would have attempted to sink the soviet fleet. Failing that, Kennedy was planning for and would have invaded Cuba to keep the missles out.
Fecal matter hit the fan in October 1962, not November. FYI: the current Newsweek has an excerpt on the Cuban crisis from a new biography of Robert Kennedy, claiming that he played a pivotal role in the eventually successful outcome.
And JFK's play WAS a semi-bluff: he hoped to "win" the hand right there, but he didn't have a hard plan if Khrushchev didn't fold. Options, yes.
The way I see it:
Starting hands....JFK clearly has a better hand, as the US is stronger than the USSR, has position, etc.
Russians catch a scare card; the U-2 does its reconnaisance amd takes pictures of the missile sites. This is a Russian show of aggression--a bet which may or may not be a semibluff. That's what Kennedy's got to figure out. In his address, Kennedy states: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small." In other words, you're not stealing this pot. Semi-bluff raise. Kennedy: "I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations." Obviously he doesn't really expect Khrushchev to fold up and say, "okay, we're outta here boys". But he expects him to think about it, and as we know, the opponent doesn't have to fold this time to make it worthwhile as a semibluff.
Khruschev: "I propose: we, for our part, will declare that our ships bound for Cuba are not carrying any armaments. You will declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its troops and will not support any other forces which might intend to invade Cuba." Nikita calls.
The next street is even more interesting. Khrushchev issues the statement that if JFK wants the Soviets out of Cuba, the USA has to get out of Turkey. It semi-bluff bets out after just calling on the previous street. JFK's in a tough spot now. He can't muck it, the pot's too big, and there's still a really good chance he has the best hand (he does). His semibluff re-raise gets Khruschev to muck it; the Russian Premier's had enough.
The real question...if Khruschev had 3-bet and then lead out on the next street, would JFK have folded, or would Khruschev have just lost more..?
Reagan's threat was not responsible for the Soviet system's bankruptcy nor for their collapse. That country had been going bankrupt for a very long time, and the end result was inevitable. Reagan's threat may possibly have accelerated the process slightly. In addition, their much feared military was already in decline due to economic difficulties and maintenance problems. They were far more of a paper tiger than the U.S. was.
The Russians didn't fold by choice; they just had more pressing internal problems to deal with. Star Wars really didn't do all that much except point up the growing impotence and problems the Soviets were facing. They couldn't have kept up with Star Wars anyway and they knew it; hence all the bluster. Once they ran out of countries to expand into, their economic base was like that of a third world economy (selling natural resources to the rest of the world) as their only means of generating hard currency (plus arms sales). In the whole history of the USSR they never managed to produce any consumer goods that the rest of the world wanted to buy. Add in their incredibly inefficient mega-bureaucracy, and they had to fall down eventually. It finally became a choice of guns or butter. They are still piqued at not being a superpower anymore. But they always have been superb negotiators. They finally met another man they couldn't bluff.
You seem to have a very limited understanding of the Soviet Union. The bankrupcy of the USSR is a common american misconception, due in part to propaganda. Soviet Union had not very advanced but very stable economy. It was never oriented to production of consumer goods but rather to production of "means to productions" (instruments, machines, etc). All 5-years plans stressed that point. The USSR exported some consumer goods: cars "Lada", for example, were quite popular in Canada. Mostly, they exported technology. Soviet technologies and machines for oil retreiving and refining still cover about 80% of word oil industry. Soviet optics are still considered the best by all experts. Naturally, they also sold their oil and gas. The collapse of the Soviet Union had only political reasons, not economical.
I thought high level optics were best found in west germany.
Certainly my knowledge of the USSR is quite limited and possibly inaccurate.
However, the political collapse was just the surface; the economic collapse was the long-term root cause. Their economic system was destined for collapse, it just took decades for it to actually occur. Their economy became a basket case and still is.
If you think this is propaganda I have over 400,000 in old Soviet rubles I will be happy to trade you for a good steak dinner. You don't get the Czarist 10 ruble gold piece, though.
You misunderstand the power of fear in controlling people. So what if their economy was in shambles? The Soviet people had a culture of hardship. They were PROUD of it. Since the Bolsheviks took power all they had ever known was scarcity, fear, and tedium.
You can't apply western-style thinking to those people and assume that they were on the verge of revolt. They weren't. The economy could have collapsed so hard that people were dying by the millions, and the Soviet government could have held power.
Stalin murdered over 40 million people, with nary a peep from the public.
The biggest contribution Reagan made was to put the Soviet Union on trial. He called them an 'evil empire'. He put pressure on the client states, who started to get restless. He stopped Soviet terrorism and expansionism, and basically made their life tough. The Soviet response opened a Pandora's box - they tried to stem the tide of world opinion by putting a moderate in power. And once Reagan had a guy in the Kremlin that he could actually talk to, he hammered on him relentlessly. Remember, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!". Gorbachev responded by instituting reforms ("Perestroika") and loosening state controls ("Glasnost").
SDI was just the finishing coup de grace. And contrary to what many people think, it actually WAS a success technically. If it could shoot down even 100 missiles it was success, and mere point defenses could manage that (like the Vulcan gatling guns on Aegis missile cruisers).
If Reagan had not been elected the Soviet Union would still have collapsed, but it might have taken fifty years or longer. And they might have taken us with them.
I agree. Reagan rules! Bush-Cheney 2000!!!
I agree that fear is good at controlling masses. I am not saying the people were not afraid. I am saying that the USSR's economic troubles were intensifying to the point that it was affecting even the military, and that this process would have continued. I did state that Star Wars may have hastened the process slightly. I doubt it would have taken 50 more years.
Remember when they couldn't even pay a lot of their soldiers their monthly salaries? I don't remember just when this was and I think it was later than the period we are talking about, but how long can you expect to maintain an army if you can't even pay them? It was inevitable.
One Russian genius, Garry Kasparov, forecast in an interview in Playboy in, I believe, 1979 or 1980, that the Soviet Union would collapse economically and fall apart politically and ethnically, and that it had to. I have not read the interview again since then so please excuse me if my memory is a little off after 20 years. If I recall, he actually said the great USSR would cease to exist as we knew it, and would inevitably become a group of separate states. This was long before glasnost or any other apparently noteworthy developments, and back when the "old guard" was still in supreme power.
Star Wars was what hammered the message home and was sort of the climactic thing that tied it all together, but it would have happened anyway and probably not too much later. If you can't even pay your soldiers and the stores are virtually empty and people have to wait in long lines...even the soldiers get fed up. There are economic limits to terror and repression. It cannot continue to exist indefinitely without economic support. If Saddam didn't have the oil he wouldn't have had such a military. The Russians, not being able to maintain their military colossus, were slowly but surely losing their power both externally and internally. People can be oppressed through military force but only so long as the military can be supported economically.
I read in the newspaper several years ago that Russia's current forces were less than a shadow of their former selves. Literally most of their subs and ships had rusted out and were useless, etc., etc.
The only danger they still pose is the enormous stockpile of nuclear arms.
Sure it might have taken 50 more years, but I would bet even money that it would have taken at most 5 more years even without Star Wars.
If you read the history of the Soviet Union, you'll find that the people were actually better off in the 1980's than at any time since the revolution. The Soviet economy was a mess, but it had ALWAYS been a mess. I agree that it would have eventually collapsed, but it could have easily taken decades, and a lot of blood could have been spilled in the process.
Again, you underestimate the effect of terror. The soldiers will put up with no paychecks and no food, if the alternative is a bullet in the head. The Soviet Army experienced defections in WWII, but only after the Soviet Commander's brutal policies left them pretty much no outs other than death. Whole battalions were sacrified by Soviet Generals, the armies froze to death in the field, and in general were treated like fodder. And still, morale was high and they fought bravely and well.
You really should read a bit about the Soviet people. I recommend "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith. He was the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union under Carter, and lived there for a long time. His description of the people is sad and chilling. Public opinion could be turned on and off like a light switch. If the government made a friendly overture to the west, the next day American tourists would be greeted on the streets with smiles, invititations to supper, you name it. Incredible hospitality. The next day the Soviet government would issue a proclamation criticising the west, and average citizens wouldn't even make eye contact. The people were completely under the thumb of the ruling class. There was NO dissention.
It is one thing to rally the people and the army against an outside force in wartime. Then great hardships can be borne far more easily. In peacetime an army can oppress their own people, but in peacetime this cannot continue indefinitely without the army getting paid their salaries.
>> In peacetime an army can oppress their own people, but in peacetime this cannot continue indefinitely without the army getting paid their salaries.
It is a minor point but between 1945 and 1985 Soviet Army was never used against Soviet citizens, nor could it.
.
I think you are mistaken. 1.Soviet soldiers were NEVER paid. They received 7R a months for things like soap, toohpaste, etc. 7R was like $20 in the US. Officers were paid, usually twice as much as ordinary civillians. Salary delays occured well AFTER beginning of collapse, which has started in 1985 with XXVII Party Congress in which gorbachev started "perestroika".
Gary Kasparov was about 20y.o. in 1980 and not very famous. I doubt that he gave an interview to Playboy but even if he did he couldn't have a big understanding about the situation. He didn't even lived in Moscow. He lived in Baku and spent 99% of his time playing chess.
*
I said I thought the period when they were having trouble getting paid came later.
You mentioned that Russia exported the Lada to Canada. My impression is that the Lada is a step down from the Yugo. I find it hard to imagine that either would be highly popular in Canada.
Kasparov did indeed understand the house of cards that was the Soviet Union, and that it was destined for collapse. I read the interview and years later was amazed. As I said, it was a long time ago and I may have a few details wrong. Perhaps it was not even 1980. But it was before Gorbachev's time.
he would have known more about the Armenia Azjerbaijan (SIC) conflict. Karpov was a party member.
Dan,
Great post. However, although there is such a thing as the Vulcan Gatling Gun, the weapon you are thinking of is probably the Phalanx, which fired depleted uranium (later tungsten) bullets under computer control and could shoot down a cruise missile at close range. Here is a link to a page describing the weapon.
Regards,
Rick
I thought it used to be called the "Vulcan Phalanx", and it is a Gatling gun. Perhaps the early versions used the Vulcan, then they upgraded them? The original Vulcans fired 20mm depleted uranium rounds, as I recall.
C/!
Having worked with a Russian scientist that got out of the Ukrain about 17 years ago. He rec'd two PHD's in the Soviet Union -- had all A's except one B in communism. He know teaches at UCLA(artifical intelligence, knowledge based systems, cybers, and search routines) and works in aerospace.
He mentioned that most Russian lab equipment was World War II German vintage.
Star Wars was the coup d' grace blow that toppled the evil Soviet Empire, thus making it possibly the greatest semi-bluff in world history.
I can't find Saddam's quotes from the days leading up to the Gulf War, but "mother of all battles" and "American streets will run red with the blood of American children" are paraphrases. Also his scud missiles were more of a scare tactic than an effective weapon, and the chemical/biological warfare threat was largely a bluff. Hey, most semi-bluffs fail. He keeps trying.
-Abdul
i am sorry, there is a difference between an effective semi bluff, and saddams pathetic attempts. if saddam played poker he would be the maniac at the 3-6 table, trying to convince people he could beat doyle brunson.
The real semibluff of the Gulf War was made by the Allies. They bluffed amphibious landings thru the Persian Gulf when all along all they really wanted to do was to attack by land from Saudi Arabia. And it worked!!! Saddam actually deployed most of his forces on the beach facing the Persian Gulf leaving his right flank open to a purely ground based attack from the Saudi Arabian dessert. Once the Allies finally struck, the Iraqi front over at Kuwait, facing the Gulf, were isolated from the base in Baghdad. It was a de ja vu of the "Inchon Landings" of 1950. Simple but brilliant!
*
Any feint is a bluff. And if that feint is congruent and believable enough (because enough resources were deployed to back it) to be misinterpreted by the defender as a real attack, it is a semibluff.
A semibluff is NOT something such as you describe. A semibluff is an aggressive action that has a chance of winning right then by causing the opponent to fold, and if not, has redraw chances.
A feint causing misdirection of the enemy's resources or attention for the purpose of taking advantage of such misdirection is a ruse. "Ruse" = a wily subterfuge, a trick.
How about getting Japan to surrender at the end of WWII? We had two working atomic bombs at that time. One was dropped on Hiroshima, the other on Nagasaki. It would have taken us many, many months to refine more weapon-grade plutonium and build more bombs, but we told Japan we had more than they could shake a stick at, and it worked.
At that point we had Japan out of oil resources and mostly beaten anyway, but it was still a semi-bluff, since we didn't have any more bombs, but could also win by invasion, or creating more before they could retaliate.
The Japanese tried to steal our blinds by going all-in with a pair of Jacks.
Luckily, we had a pair of Pocket Rockets to fire back at them to eliminate Japan before they even knew what hit them.
The real semi bluffs occured in the years that preceded the dropping of the bomb. This semibluff was called "island hopping" or "leap frogging". Instead of attacking the Japanese's Pacific bases directly, the American Forces bypassed them instead. This had three effects: 1) it physically cut off the Japanese strongholds' line of communications and supplies from each other , 2) it mentally deprived the Japanese soldiers of the chance to live up to Bushido code of honor of dying for their country(they were left to "wither in the vine" instead and were dishonorably killed with malaria and starvation rather than with the infinitely more honorable bombs, bullets, and bayonets). 3) By using the bypass method, the Japanese just had no way of knowing where the next attacks would take place - and it usually was some place undefended.
Anonymous Coward,
Most people don’t realize that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) was not the same one tested in the New Mexico desert (the Trinity test). It was a simpler U235 weapon never tested in the field.
The Trinity test was of the more powerful “Fat Man” Plutonium implosion type that was later dropped on Nagasaki. The Nagasaki attack did less damage because it was dropped quite a bit off target and a hill deflected much of the blast. The plane almost didn’t make it back to the base.
My father was on the Destroyer Walke (DD-723) that had performed “picket duty” during the battle of Okinawa. His ship was used as bait to lure Kamikaze attacks away from the beachhead. He had no doubt Japan would have fought to the last man.
Note that on March 10, 1945, a conventional attack of B-29’s on Tokyo killed over 100,000 civilians. The total tonnage of explosives was about the same as the atomic bombs. It was one of many conventional attacks of similar magnitude. The Hiroshima attack killed about 140,000 and the Nagasaki attack about 70,000. Some historians estimate that an attack of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in ten million civilian casualties, one million Japanese military casualties, and 300,000 American military casualties. How would you have liked to have been in Truman’s shoes?
Those were tough times with leaders who could make tough decisions. I think it was the right one. In the peace that followed Japan became a democracy and an economic superpower. When General Macarthur left for Korea in 1950, the Japanese people gave him a hero’s farewell. And there hasn’t been a world war since.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Excellent post. Truman's decision had to be wrenching. I do wonder if our perception of Japan and their people may have entered into the equation. Would we have dropped the bomb on Hitler? No one knows for sure.
Japan's power and threat is a question. After Admiral Nagumo lost his entire fleet at Midway, including four carriers, Yamamoto's prediction came true. Japan would have their way early on the seas but the US would rebound and eventually defeat Japan in that venue. Then, supremacy of the seas was so important. It also allowed you to carry your fighters/bombers to other areas to control the air. Post Midway, Japan could only build another six carriers versus our twenty-three. They were no match to our industrial power.
So I come back to, "Did we have to drop the bomb on Japan and would we have done the same to Germany?"
One last note, I believe shortly after we dropped the first, perhaps both bombs, Russia declared war on Japan. Russia and US versus Japan? Talk about a dominated hand! Thanks Rick.
Bob Lewis
Bob,
Of course we did not have to drop the bomb on Japan. Yet, we have somwhow convinced ourselves that no other decision was possible. One historian attributes the dropping of the bomb to inertia. Once the process was set in motion, it was impossible to stop.
We claim that had we not dropped the bomb, we would most certainly lose one million men in an invasion. Think about this: what sane commanders would allow an invasion with two bombs waiting to be dropped? Certainly alternatives existed, but we refused to explore any, and instead dropped two bombs on cities with zero military significance, killing and injurying thousands of civilians as a result.
You might also be interested in the novel Black Rain which looks at this event from the Japanese point of view.
John
Killing civilians was a routine part of war by that time. The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden killed more people than the bombing of Nagasaki.
We're looking at history through a pretty biased filter here. In Truman's time, the bomb was just a bigger weapon. There were 70,000 casualties in the invasion of Okinawa. Truman was given an option of being able to end the war in one blow. It was probably a no-brainer at the time.
BTW, it's not correct to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of no military importance. They were military targets in their own right. I seem to recall the rationale behind the second bomb was partly to make sure a significant chunk of critical industrial output was damaged, just in case the Japanese didn't surrender. This is why the U.S. didn't drop the bomb on some uninhabited Atoll as a demonstration before dropping it on Japan - they only had two bombs, so they had to make sure that if Japan didn't surrender the bombs were used to seriously hurt their war-making capability.
ACBob,
The Battle of Midway (June 3-7, 1942) was a turning point but the Japanese fleet still had a lot of fight left. The Battle of Leyte Gulf (October 1944) was the final great naval battle of the war. The Japanese fleet was finished after that.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Before deciding to drop the bomb, Truman read Hamlet, perhaps the greatest work in all of literature about the troubles of making decisions. He underlined the words "unspeakable acts and unnatural practices."
John
John,
We disagree here. Last night I poked around the web and found some incredible web sites. One had recently declassified transcripts of conversations between Openhiemer, Groves, and others concerning the best spots to drop the bomb and so on. Scary stuff indeed.
Regards,
Rick
"We haven't had a world war since". Unfortunately this statement doesn't mean anything. If there had been one (or if there is one), there would be no-one here now to write about it.
Andy.
Andy,
Good point. I believe the nuclear threat is greater now than it was during the height of the Cold War. At least then the Soviet Union had a strong command and control system and a military and scientists that were getting paid. “MAD” may have been madness but it kept things in check.
The fact that their ICBM's are not being "targeted" at us (nor ours at them) can be changed with software in about a minute. Note that we can't even shoot one down when we know it is coming. Meanwhile, the threat from Korea, China, Iran, etc. will continue to grow.
Of course, who needs an ICBM? Rent an office near the top of the World Trade Center, and sneak in one bomb bought from Russia's corrupt military. It might take a team of top scientists to figure out how to trigger it, but it could be done. Then say good-bye to everybody up to about Central Park. I put the chances of something like this happening in a major city in my lifetime at about 50/50.
Regards,
Rick
Anyone who is interested should definitely read Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth and The Abolition. Available from Amazon as a "2 in 1" book. We can still save ourselves if we try hard enough.
Andy.
If you could turn back time.....
Truman's decision to drop the bombs is usually justified by the assertion that it was the quickest way to end the war, but it more likely extended it by several days. History shows that when presented with an unstoppable force the Japanese quickly yield to reason: when Perry sailed into a japanese harbour in 1853 with overwhelming weaponry he won the argument about opening Japan to trade without firing a shot. Similarly, an airburst twenty miles off tokyo would have caused no casualties and guaranteed a japanese surrender within hours because it would have confronted presented the leadership with the imminent prospect of destruction of themselves and their families - in effect the same choice which Perry presented in 1853. I think Truman would have understood this and acted differently if he had witnessed one of the tests himself: one battle hardened general who did so was reduced to tears of fear.
To actually drop the bomb on a city was a huge mistake and totally unnecessary: to drop a second within a few days was an act of war-induced madness. Consider the moral stature America would have gained by showing mercy to a helpless opponent, and the moral stature it lost forever by not doing so. Imagine a world where the bomb had never been used against humans.....
Truman's acts were based on two premises: one, that use of the weapon on civilians was the quickest way to end the war, and two, that saving one american life was worth killing tens of thousands of japanese civilians for. Neither premise is valid.
David,
The bomb saved American military lives, even more Japanese military lives, and far more Japanese civilian lives by shortening the war. When facing a seemingly invincible weapon, the Japanese leadership could surrender with honor. The Japanese would have put up tremendous resistance to an invasion of their home island. Most historians extrapolate the casualty figures in the battle for Okinawa to provide the estimates in my post above.
With our massive force of B-29’s and bases close enough to make it to most of the mainland, we had been leveling cities in Japan for many months preceding the dropping of the atomic bomb using conventional weapons. In some cases, there were as many casualties in one day as there were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the thought that one bomber and one bomb could do that was finally enough to get the Japanese to accept an almost unconditional surrender along with the Russian declaration of war. Even then, the emperor had to cast the deciding vote in the war cabinet.
In the end we helped rebuild Japan and set up a peaceful post war society that prospers to this day. When our ships entered Tokyo Bay, there was a standing order that any American soldier or sailor raping a Japanese woman would be shot. And to the best of my knowledge, there was little or none (according to my Dad who was there).
A testimony to America’s greatness was our generosity and conduct after the end of the war. The Marshall Plan helped restore Europe and Macarthur was a benevolent ruler in post war Japan. Both returned to prosperity and a lasting peace and are our allies today.
Regards,
Rick
of course for a candybar you could have a young japanese girl right there on the sidewalk... ahh free enterprise bringing civility to the godless savages ...
brad
You're using an example from 1853 to prove that Japan would have surrendered without a shot had they simply been shown the bomb? That's ridiculous. If you want to drag historical examples, we could look at the lack of success Kubilai Khan had in attempting to invade Japan. The hurricane that aided the Japanese was the kamikaze or 'divine wind', and that word regained significance in WWII and was indicative of the Japanese mindset. The repelling of the Mongols in 1271 led the Japanese to believe that they were favored by the Gods, and therefore had divine rights and protection. This made them somewhat fanatical in their defense of their homeland. Aside from purely military and political reasons to defend their homeland, an invasion of the Japanese mainland carried very severe spiritual significance to the Japanese people. A lot of military analysts felt that the only way Japan would surrender was to actually hit them hard and make it clear that they no longer had such divine rights.
Dan: well, we'll never know for sure, but I don't think your argument re the kamikazes holds water: the fanatical defense of the homeland did not extend to preffering total destruction to surrender. That would be insane, whereas suicidal missions are quite logical if they are for the greater good: there were plenty of virtual suicide missions on the allied side too, if it's looked at squarely. My point is that actual use of the bomb was not necessary, since demonstration of it's effects would almost certainly have had the same result, just as Perry didn't actually need to use his guns, he only had to show them. The long term loss of prestige and moral standing which use of the bombs brought on the US, and the effect it had on world politics and the cold war is underestimated, and should be compared with how much stature it would have gained through the more intelligent, humane and historically proven technique of presenting the threat before actually using it. It was a no-loss/large-gain option which was not used.
If the US had an inventory of more than two bombs, I'd fully agree that a demonstration would have been prudent. However, the reality is that the bombs were tools for destroying an enemy's warmaking capability, and the U.S. only had two of them. IF the Japanese didn't surrender, it was important to use those bombs to damage Japan's industry.
But anyway, I really think you're forgetting the mindset of total war which the people of the time had (on both sides). By the end of the war, it was a routine exercise to order the carbetbombing of civilian populations on a daily basis. I believe 200,000 civilians died in the firestorm resulting from the carpetbombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and there was no handwringing over that. When it was clear that Germany could no longer win the war, did the Allies halt bombing? No. The allies ESCALATED the bombing, because they had air superiority, and therefore could bomb without much risk to allied airmen. And that was the main factor. The cost in civilian lives was only a tertiary consideration.
So here you are, a supreme commander who has given orders for years that resulted in the deaths of millions, facing a brutal enemy that has been shown to commit heinous war crimes, who just finished ordering an invasion of a tiny island (Okinawa) which resulted in 70,000 casualties. Your commanders are busy planning the invasion of Japan, and the prospects are horrific: 1 million allied casulties, 4 million Japanese casualties. Then, a scientist comes into the room and says, "we have finished a miracle weapon that can end the war tomorrow, but we can only build two of them."
Is your first thought going to be, "Hmmn... How can we minimize the loss of life to Japanese civilians?" Not a chance. You're going to take whichever action has the greatest possibility for ending the war with the lowest cost in ALLIED lives. Especially when the projections are that only about 20-40,000 civilians will be killed, and you've ordered dozens of missions in the last year which had the prospects of killing that many WITHOUT ending the war, but merely for strategic gain in an ongoing conflict.
It was a no-brainer. In my opinion, any handwringing evident in Truman's memoirs was merely for posterity's sake - he wanted history to look on him as kind and thoughtful. I don't think there was a chance in hell that Truman would have done anything else, and if he would have suggested that the bomb be dropped on an uninhabited island it would have been seen as cowardly or even treasonous to squander a great advantage in wartime.
Dan, I can understand the mindset, and you make some valid points. Many or perhaps even most people would have made the same decision as Truman - including perhaps myself, if like him I hadn't seen the bomb actually working. But then most people don't have the qualities which make a great leader. I wonder if Roosevelt would have done it: it's certainly possible that he might not, as he was a very different man to Truman.
David Zanetti.
David,
I agree; and as many historians point out, our refusal to consider alternatives only highlights the inertia inherent in the bomb's development.
Once the Emperor renounced his Godhead, we did, however, via the Marshall Plan, act with extraordinary compassion and humanity. As someone pointed out, that we possessed the bomb--rather than say Hitler--is highly ironic.
John
I believe that Truman did the right thing. I'm biased.My father was in the Pacific forces.
Capitalism needs markets. Communism was a real threat. The Marshall plan was done out of self-interest.
(n/t)
q
Jim,
Lately, given the tenor of Rick's responses, a Rick Nebiolo Dumps on Jim Brier Forum might be necessary.
John
John,
No, I like Jim Brier! A few of us just think he should open up his game a bit. Besides, I've already mentioned I think he probably had the coolest career of anyone on the forum working for NASA (as his father did before him).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. small caps scott is much harder on Jim.
i just think he should open his game a lot.
scott
Rick,
That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek; I hope you didn't think I was serious.
John
During WW2 we made only 3 atomic bombs. The first was tested over New Mexico and the LAST two demonstrated over Japan. It would have been some months before we could have made another.
Japan surrendered to our bluff of destroying their cities one-by-one.
- Louie
There was no bluff attempted here. Even if we could not make another bomb for months we certainly didn't have to engage the enemy until we did. The Japanese could not mount a threatening offensive in the interim so the threat of another bombing was real, it simply was not immediate.
We could not have destroyed ALL Japanese cities. Unless they surrendered we would have had to invade (1920's and 1930's Aerial Bombardment doctrine proved wrong: No aerial campaign has ever been so catestrophic that it has ended hostilities). Such an invasion would have involved catastrophic losses on all sides.
We thus represented a hand stronger than it was and this is why I suggested it was a semi-bluff.
- Louie
The only point we're debating here is the analogy to the semi-bluff. I understand you to be saying that we raised the pot by bombing Nagasaki only 3 days after hiroshima giving the impression that we would drop a bomb every three days until japan surrendered. I get that. My point is that it didn't matter whether or not we had more bombs to drop or not. All there had to be was the promise of more bombs being dropped whenever they were ready. There was no bluff here at all. We would continue to drop bombs until japan surrendered. There was no rush, japan was not going to be mounting an offensive. We could withdraw all allied forces from the theater and demand unconditional surrender and if we didn't receive it we'd just build another bomb and this time hit Tokyo. No invasion required,no japan left to invade, eventually.
as for aerial bombardment never winning a war . . . well there are no parallels to nuclear bombardment, but I think in this case it would have done the trick.
Louie,
I didn't see your post before I wrote mine on the same subject. Sorry about that.
Regards,
Rick
At the outset of WW2 Japan invaded Malaysia and proceeded to march south towards Singapore. Their superior jungle-fighting techniques pushed the British defenders back. But the closer to Singapore they got the longer were their supply lines and less effective were their forces. At the gates they demanded surrender and the numerically superior British with vastly superior supplies in a supperior defensive position surrendered to a force with no amunition nor food and was too weary even to retreat.
It was kind of like folding a full house on the river when the opponent has no pair on board, just because he'd been betting the whole way. Go figure.
- Louie
At the Battle of Issus, Alexander the Great ordered his top general, Parmenio, to hold the Persian's right wing and center. He (Alexander) then personally led a fake encirclement attack on the flank of Darius's left wing. This compelled Darius to detach his left wing from the center in order to meet the feint, thus leaving a gap between his left wing and center. Alexander then went on to attack this gap. A gap at which he knew that the Persians traditionally situated their commander in chief (in this case Darius himself). Once he nailed it, Darius had to flee - resulting in total demoralization of the entire Persian army. Note that in this battle, Darius had an army of 500,000 men to Alexander's 60,000 or so.
You forgot to mention small details like Greek armor and the phalanx, when giving the pot odds.
After factoring in the Greek's weaponry superiority over the Persians, I agree that they wouldn't be as much of an underdog as the number of troops would indicate. But they would still be underdogs. The fact is that Alexander won thru superior generalship. At the point of engagement, he was concentrated while Darius was dispersed, and he was able to do so because of an effective "image play". During the hand when they put a lot of money into the pot, Alexander's hand dominated Darius's hand.
I remember a phrase in red storm rising where the SAC says the moral equivalent of "I bet western europe on a pair of 5s". Ever since then, me and my friend always refer to poker fives in holdem as "western europe".
-Hamster
Actually JFK offered Krushchev a split pot at the river and he accepted (e.g. guarantee that we would not invade and would restrain the Cuban exiles).
Does anyone know if you can get the poker digest articles online somewhere?
Try favorite links.
www.pokerdigest.com
Poker digest (a very good publication) might not have the entire issue on line.
can't be perfect all the time
Greetings,
Here are 2 hands where I tried to get cute and slow play though I was in worse trouble than I thought.
1) 2 limpers in mid position I call w/KQs to try and get some more players in. 1 calls as does the BB.
The flop comes K T 4 rainbow. Much to my surprise the BB bets 1 calls, I just call intending to raise on 4th and just call next player folds.
The turn is a J, and now I'm also openended. But they all check to me. I bet BB checkraises next player folds I just call. (I suspect now he has two pair, a straight, or trips).
The river is a 9 and he bets, (inreasing the suspicion that he has at least a Q also), I just call. (weak?) He had JJ.
2) 1 early limper, i raise in the cutoff seat w/ KJo. (I suspect this will not get the seal of approval but I can play heads up w/someone who just limped and is pbly weak, and eliminate the blinds, and have position. (comments!?) BB calls as does the limper.
FLop comes K J 8. BB checks limper bets, I call intending to raise on 4th BB calls.
The turn is a T. BB bets and limper raises. Unsure of where I was (did someone make a straight?, does someone have a set!?) I just call, BB calls.
The river is the 9.
BB bets, limper calls, and I fold. (there is no way I can beat BOTH of them). BB shows Q 8s (he had a backdoor straight and flush draw on the flop), limper shows JJ. Limper had me totally confused the way he was playing all night, though he was quite weak.
ALl comments welcome.
suspicious I think you should have put this on the hold-em forum. Nevertheless, on the first hand you are not slow playing pre-flop with King-Queen suited by just limping in behind others. It is not a raising hand but a good drawing hand so your goal is not to drive out players. On the flop, you should raise immediately and not plan on waiting until the turn. You have top pair/excellent kicker but your hand is still vulnerable and not strong enough to slow play. Who knows what the turn will bring and whether or not anyone will bet for you to raise? The rest of your play is fine and a river raise is out of the question since AQ is quite possible given the check-raise on the turn by the big blind.
On the second hand, I don't like your pre-flop raise with King-Jack offsuit against an early limper. I don't think your hand is strong enough and you can still be dominated by other limping hands like King-Queen. On the flop, you should raise with the top two and not slow play given that board and all the possible straight draws. On the turn when it is bet and raised to you all you can do is call. Good fold at the river.
I think it is foolish to slow play anything but a monster hand - you had really marginal hands - you ought to learn to tell the difference it is costing you money.
Now don't get me wrong I also think it is wrong to play every hand the same way - so checking a good hand when the board is not to coordinated if OK but I would consider it deceptive rather than slow playing or trapping.
I'm not a big favorite of "narrowing the field" (over-all I'd rather they called my double bets then folded to them) but if I were I would argure that flat calling with top pair good kicker after a few callers is SOUND stratetgy, since it will usually allow you to raise the turn and will often allow you to raise someone on your RIGHT who bets, forcing opponents to fold to a double bet.
However, you MUST make this sort of call fairly often in order to support the times you just call with a weak hand, and try to "steal" the turn when everybody checks to you. Thus, your calling INCREASES the power of your position on other hands.
You can take a lot more liberties slow-playing in LATE position than in early since if the slow-play fails you still get to BET the turn.
- Louie
isnt it possible to win a lot of money at omaha 8 or better on internett poker if you only call having ace 2 -3 where the ace is suited with another card?? or other really good starting hands??
win ? YES ; alot ? NO
This hand doesn't come up often enough, and when it does, it doesn't always win and sometimes gets quartered for low. So the blinds will eat you alive if this is the only hand you play.
I will be playing in a 'dealer's choice' home game in a few weeks and wanted some quick and dirty guidelines for where I should sit with respect to the other players. I am probably one of the better if not best player there. Where do I want the maniacs and calling stations and rocks to sit? Thanks in advance.
Super maniac who raises every single time can be on your left so you can check raise him and trap the field.
Maniacs on your right are also good because you can reraise to isolate.
Calling stations should be on your right so that you don't raise them out.
Weak-tight players are good anywhere. On your right, you know to get out when they raise. On your left, they make it easier to steal blinds.
Wow, Niels and I are in 100% agreement here. One added thing is I like to have person with the large stack of money (chips) to my right. Remember to keep the game fun; people do not mind loosing too much if they are having a good time.
Put predictable people on your left where they won't surprise you after you act. Put loose and unpreditable people in front.
Total maniacs belong behind you since you know they will bet or raise. Not so predictable maniacs belong in front. Real tight players go behind especially in fixed position games like holdem so you get last action often.
- Louie
Good points. in addition read Mike caros books. they cover position very thoroughly..
I play tight and agressive. I assess my opponents, my position, my image, my mind set. I have patience. I've read the books, I understand many of the concepts and I'm working hard on the rest. And then I wait, I wait to get lucky.
I wait to flop a set and hope to get lucky that there are a few people chasing draws that won't get there. I wait for AA, KK, QQ and when I get them I play them tough against those hoping to suck out. I just hope I get lucky on the river and the board pairs so the guy who flopped two pair playing 96o gets a taste of premium hands. I raise my AKs and hope to get lucky in that the flop isn't 678 of a different suit. I fold JTo, QJo, KJs, KTs, QJs, to a raise in early position when I know the raiser has a legitimate hand.
I wait, I wait and hope to get lucky. I see my stack dwindling 2 and 3 chips at a time as I enter pots and don't get a lucky flop.
And then it hits. KK in late position with 6 limpers. 9 see the raised pot flop of K A 6. All check to me I bet and all fold but one who folds the turn. I didn't get lucky. I have to wait some more.
I look at 97s in late position. UTG raises, guy to my right reraises, I fold. 5 see the flop of A 8 6. All see a raise and the turn of a 5. I didn't get lucky again. I might have limped in but I wouldn't play these cards for a raise. Those guys were lucky they raised.
So, what am I waiting for? I'm waiting to get a legitimate starting hand with a few limpers, a flop where I have the best of it and callers who are unknowingly drawing dead and calling raises. I am waiting to hit my draw and have someone hit theirs as well, too bad for them. After all, I've been waiting, patiently for all these events to come together. I've not just won the pot, hell, I've earned it.
What's your point? I certainly can't argue with your approach and your playing style. If this is how you play you should be showing a profit over a longer period of time. By your overall tone I suspect you may be playing too tightly. Are you? Tight and aggressive is arguably the best style of play, but there are times when you need to mix it up. If your opponents are routinely folding on the flop whenever you have a monster you may be playing in too predictable a manner or you may be too easy too read. Perhaps you need to find a better game to play in.
Bruce
I think something you have to learn is to adapt to the personality of the table you are at. To beat these bozos you just have to play cards marginaly better than they play.
When you see some guy playing J7o UTG to a cap - you know you don't need AK to call him - In a game like you describe you are probably playing to tight. Go ahead and play some suited coupled or one gapped cards in late position to a raise. You also need to play some crap like 53 and make sure to advertise it - your table image is to tight so you won't be getting action when you need it.
Trick is to be flexable but smart.
Rounder,
Is this "Rounder Light" talking or are we finally getting through to you ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Got to go with the flow - I am still the tightest guy at most tables I just adjust to the conditions.
:-)
Bartholemew: I fold JTo, QJo, KJs, KTs, QJs, to a raise in early position when I know the raiser has a legitimate hand.
This could be part of your problem. These hands, especially the suited ones, go way up in value in a loose game where lots of players see the flop, not because they win more often, but because the bigger pots mean you can afford to take more draws on the flop and river. In a loose game, you shouldn't be afraid to call a raise or two with these, especially in late position.
Bartholemew,
You're a rock. I don't play hold-em, but I know from my experience, after having read the books, etc . . ., that the lines between being tight-agressive, being a rock, and being a maniac are thin. You seem to be playing only "lock" hands. You're going to have to figure out the differences.
Here are some working definitions:
Tight-agressive simply means playing super agressive whenever you think you have the best hand, and only playing drawing hands when you have enough players in the game to pay you off and a good chance of making the hand. Notice, having the best hand depends on what you think the other players are playing.
Rock means only playing when you have a lock hand. A rock takes very few risks and never plays unless he has a super strong hand. The problem with being a rock is that everyone knows what your doing, so they only play strong hands against a rock. It's pretty easy to figure out what a rock has; and players tend to drawout on a rock.
A Maniac bets crazily and plays almost any hand with potential regardless of the odds. The maniac hopes that he ends up with the best hand or can bluff the other players out.
I know these definitions are non exhaustive. I hope, however, they prove helpful. Comments welcome.
I wasn't really looking for a critique of my play, but I do appreciate the thoughtful input.
My point is that unless you catch cards all the correct play in the world will not make you a winner. The studying, math, patience and imagination will ensure that you put your money at risk with the best chance of winning, and then you wait to get lucky.
I'm sorry I do not buy the whole notion of having won money whether or not you actually win the pot. It seems like voodoo economics to me when someone says that for every dollar player A puts in the pot 63 cents is player b's and 37 cents is player c's. Whoever wins the pot gets all the money and all the equity in the world that you built up is never tangible.
So, my present outlook is that strong play, tight posture, agressive attitude and good game selection will keep you from losing too much, and that's good, because then your bankroll will last longer and still be there so you can afford to wait until you get lucky.
.
The jury isn't out yet for me on this issue. However, If you are just trying to keep from losing too much, you will lose. If you play agressively when you think you have the edge, and are right more times than not, you should be a winner. Though you will lose some big pots, you will win more than you lose. Just a thought.
B wrote: >My point is that unless you catch cards all the >correct play in the world will not make you a winner.
So?
You cannot influence what cards you catch, or those that your opponents catch. But, barring some paranormal explanation, after enough time has passed, the cards you catch will be relatively close to average. I'm sure you know this, and it is this regression to the mean that insures those making the smart plays eventually win, and vice versa.
Hell, I got my butt kicked on Sunday in the HE game at Foxwoods. My wife was disappointed, but not me. I know I played smart, winning poker. I just didn't catch cards that session. Some other time, I'll probably catch more than my fair share. In a few years, I won't even notice that session in my stats, it'll just be a blip on my gradual, upward earnings curve.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"You cannot influence what cards you catch, or those that your opponents catch. But, barring some paranormal explanation, after enough time has passed, the cards you catch will be relatively close to average. I'm sure you know this, and it is this regression to the mean that insures those making the smart plays eventually win, and vice versa"
The cards you catch are random, independent events. By their definition, they will never regress toward the mean.
doesn't understand what regression towards the mean really means. I hope it's not me. Would some third parties care to chime in?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
It has been about 10 years since I had my statistics courses, but here goes.
The cards we receive are independant random events, like flipping a coin. Even if the last 10 times we flipped the coin it came out heads, we have no better prediction than 50/50. And even after many trials, we may never make up the 10 flips. However, after enough trials, the 10 flips will become insignificant, hence the law of averages. Likewise, if we receive AA, our probability of receiving the same hand on the next deal is exactly the same. This works the same way with our poor hands. That is, even if we receive 1 straight hour of poor hands, we can not be assured of receiving 1 hr of good hands to make up for it. Independant random events are said to follow a 'random walk' because we can not have a greater chance of predicting the outcome.
'Regression toward the mean' is used in predictive models. Say we have 1000 people with a coin in their hand. 500 of them have it heads up and 500 have it tails up. The odds of specific person (without knowing what the others have) having a heads is 50%; however, if the first 10 people have a heads, the next person has a greater than 50% chance of having a tails. We are now have 'regression toward the mean' for our sample population.
That being said, it makes no difference to a poker player. The law of averages ensures that we will get our fair share of cards over a long period of time.
I understand independent events. I think one of us (i.e., you) doesn't understand what regression towards the mean really means. Of course it doesn't mean that just because I flip 10 heads in a row that the next flip is more likely to be tails. It does mean that as we flip the fair coin more and more, the average of heads and tails will come closer and closer to 50:50.
#flips #heads #tails ratio 10 10 0 infinite 20 16 4 4:1 40 27 13 ~2:1 100 60 40 3:2 1000 540 460 ~7:6
We are regressing towards the mean. Yet, you'll notice, that the absolute difference between heads and tails is rising for each sample. 10 more heads at point 1, 12 more at point 2, 14 more at point 3, etc. But, the ratio is getting closer and closer to 50:50. This is my example of regression to the mean.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I am in error, and I apoligize. I was thinking 'mean reversion'
There certainly is 'regression to the mean' as we can always give a prediction toward any hand over a # of deals. That is if we flip a coin 10 times and get 7 heads, on the next 10 flips our best estimate as to the number of heads is still 5.
the mean is the ultimate reality
Greg,
I'm sure you will continue to win more than your fair share and you will do so because you're a good, smart solid player and you're also lucky. A great combination.
Boy, I sure don't feel lucky. In fact, I feel that I'm a very good player whose results would be even better if my luck were just average. But, you can't really keep track of enough information to really determine if you've been lucky or unlucky over a given stretch of time. And, I've heard it said (or maybe it was written in Card Player) that most winning players consider themselves to be unlucky. Of course, the better you play, the higher your personal ratio of getting sucked out on vs. sucking out will be.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sklansky has said that you can play absolutely perfect poker and there is no guarantee that you will ever win one hand. Therefore, there must be some other factor involved other than skill or knowledge that determnines whether you will win or lose. I call that factor LUCK. So, those winning players who consider themselves unlucky are only copmparing themselves to those who are perhaps more lucky. But, if unlucky can be defined as an absolute lack of luck, winning even one hand in a lifetime makes a person lucky. After that, it's just a matter of degree. A winner who is unlucky is a contadiction in terms.
i beg to differ, but a lucky loser is a contradiction of terms, not an unlucky winner.
brad
nope, plenty of lucky losers. They wouldn't let Jack Johnson on the Titanic.
d
Why wait? Play more hands and look for opportunities after the flop to outplay your opponents. Better yet, play some fast-action tourneys as practice and ramp up your game to hyper-speed, then come back to cash and try out some new tricks.
Now that I am virtually unemployed (the joys of PTO), I've been playing a lot of poker in northern california cardrooms (mostly Bay101 and Lucky Chances, a little GC but without the restaurant why bother...)
I've been keeping very detailed notes on all my games over the last few weeks, and I've played about 45 hours worth of poker. 27 hours of that is 6-12, at which I'm averaging about $40/hour. In the previous 50 or so hours (played sporatically) This hourly rate seems to be fairly consistent regardless of location (Bay101 vs. LC, I've done a little worse at GC) or time of day. This seems really high to me (based on what's in the Gambling for a living pook). At other games I do well (I've won a few omaha tournaments and I make ~15/hour at 4-8 stud).
However, I'm a consistent loser at 9-18. In about 10 hours, I've lost ~80/hour! There have been some terrifically bad beats, and I've made a few big mistakes (with A6s on the BB I called pre-flop with one Tight-Passive raiser and one loose caller, flop comes K96, turn is a 6, and I stupidly called the whole way losing to KK).
But I'm the kind of player that loves to make a good laydown (I'm tight-extremely aggressive), but often I find that my mistakes cost me a great deal more in chips and my good hands don't get paid off as much. At 6-12 I'm complete hollywood, but at 9-18 I feel I'm transparent.
6-12 and 9-18 don't appear that different in terms of complexion. What has been different is that 9-18 games generally appear before a tournament, so there is a "stopping point" for the action. So maybe the people there are better (although I've seen way too many raises called with J8o for me to believe that). Or the table selection is so limited.
I have a very large bankroll (though the stock options are pretty much worthless now), and I feel I need to upgrade limits in order to improve. But my experience at 9-18 makes me very apprehensive.
So my questions are these:
-Hamster
I won't be the last to tell you that your sample size (hours played) isn't large enough to draw any conclusions.
Based on your limited hours of play you can't reach any statistically significant conclusions. You need to play anywhere from 500 to 1000 hours before you have a large enough sample size.
Bruce
You need 4000 hours or more.
Assuming you play reasonably well, your win rate should be in line with what you read in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING. Your results are too short term to be meaningful.
By the way, I don't mean this as a criticism, but I suspect that you are not very experienced. The reason I say this is your pronouncement of playing "extremely tight aggressive." In my experience, when I meet someone who is relatively new to poker and they tell me this, they usually are too loose and too aggressive. That might help to explain your large short term swings. Of course I could be wrong, but it's something you may want to look at.
So what these posts have been telling me is that I need to play 6-12 months at 20 hrs/week before I know what my true rate is? More to the point, the tables in GFAL list only an average and no std. deviation (or variance/hr for the different games.
Based on the "computing your std dev" article on this site, I've infered that I need at least 30 observations (with an approximate 4.5 hours per datum). That would mean 6 weeks at 20 hrs/week before I have a statistically valid dev. rate and dev. Combined with the recent article in poker player (i think) which is a reprint from GFAL also, it would make that later figure more appropriate for providing enough of a statistical sample to overcome the variance.
So which is it?
More to the point, how many observations should I use to compare outside factors, like use of headphones, and the like.
-Hamster
BTW, It wasn't a pronouncement, just a comparison to the other 6-12 players. I am relatively (I consider myself very) inexperienced as I've only been playing in card rooms for 3 years. But I've put in probably around 300 hours in the last year.
Hamster:
I'm sorry, but you need to do some reading. I would suggest you take a look at some of the material in my Gamblin Theory book and in my book Poker Essays, Volume II there is an essay called "Moving Up" that you should find helpful.
For 55 hours of play, the 95% confidence interval --asssuming you have a reasonable standard deviation of about 20 small bets per hour.. which is reasonable for tight agressive player (actually a little low)--is plus or minus (hold onto your seat) 5.3 small bets per hour!
So basically, not to rub it in, your results are meaningless so far. From your results so far, you can't even tell if you're a winnign player or not!
Here is a quick table that shows the amount of hours you need (with 95% confidence) so that your estimate is within N small bets per hour from your true expectation
Hours | plus/minus small bets --------------------------------------- 50 5.5 100 4 200 2.8 500 1.8 1000 1.2 2000 0.9 5000 0.6 10000 0.3 100,000 0.1
Chris
Darn the table didn't work.. i have to redo it with line breaks
Hrs.| plus/minus small bets
--------------------------------
50 | 5.5
100 | 4
200 | 2.8
500 | 1.8
1000| 1.2
2000| 0.9
5000| 0.6
1e4 | 0.3
1e5 | 0.1
Chris
Here is a simple psychological ploy I use at the poker table against poor players.
1) When they draw out and win a pot where they did not have the odds, I compliment them on their play. I say something like "That was a nice catch" or "Good Call."
2) When I win a pot in which they were making a long shot draw, I tell them how lucky I was that they didn't hit their draw.
This reinforces their bad play by making them think they are winning because of their "skillful" decisions. When they lose they tend to believe they are just unlucky.
For me, it helps ease the pain of those bad beats. I know I am still getting the best of it. I am training those players to come back and give their money to me.
This ploy tends to make their poker experience more enjoyable. No one likes being berated for winning a pot (no matter the circumstances). It is also no fun to play at a table with a bunch of quiet sour faces.
Anybody else have tricks to keep the fish swimming back?
All comments welcome.
Jay,
Sometimes it is what you don't say. In my experience, when someone says "nice hand" (or something similar) to a fish that drew out on them or got lucky, they reveal sarcasm in subtle ways and end up offending the fish. Many poker fish are sharks outside of poker and play poor poker poorly for reasons of their own. They can detect that they are being mocked and eventually swim away.
Sometimes there are things you can safely say without being sarcastic. Lets pretend you are in a hand with a nut flush draw and there is a lot of multi-way action. The river is checked around and the fish next to you shows or tells you that he missed his flush with trash hand suited in your suit. Many players couldn’t resist telling the fish that he was drawing dead. The thing to do is note what a big pot they would have won if the suited card got there. Since you both lost the hand (and YOU know that you were a dog to make the flush), you would have to be William Shatner to overact in that spot.
Here is one last one although I think I wrote about this one a long time back. Let’s say a previously unknown fish has been getting lucky and is making indications that he is about to leave the game with his mountain of chips. Sometimes I’ll indicate to the dealer that I want that lucky seat as soon as it opens up. The fish may have second thoughts about leaving the seat and blow off leaving on time (what is a personal commitment when you are gambling?). Watching the fish stay another hour or two and transfer his chips to you is very satisfying (I am pure evil down deep).
Regards,
Rick
I did that the other night online. Some fish said he would leave when he hit some magic profit number and I just kept telling him that I wished I had his seat.
So he stuck around and sucked out another $200 from me.
Your assuming they know there is anything but LUCK in volved. Most (make that all) of the fish I know think it is pure luck and any 2 cards can win. Actually they look at someone playing 15% of the hands as a loser who doesn't understand who to play the game.
That is play any 2 cards from any position.
So long as the 2 cards strech to make a straight or are suited.
Excellent post by Rick.
I prefer to say (all with playful humor): "I guess you realized I was trying to get you OUT" or "I just can't seem to get you out of my pots" or "Stay out of my pots" or "I knew you were going to win that's why I tried to get you out" or "I don't blame you, that's MY favorite hand".
- Louie
I hesitate to tell people I was trying to get them out of the pot. Many fish don't understand that making people fold out is a strategy. Some, however, may stay in whenever you bet just to keep you from getting them out, which can be good in the long run.
making them stay on bad draws is what its all about
Rick is correct about the danger of appearing sarcastic. Some loose-aggressive fish understand that their play is far from optimal, but they enjoy the thrill (and attention) of gambling it up. With these types, you can sometimes joke with them about their daring play...but don't say "nice hand" when they suck out on you with 72!
What is most important is to be a gracious loser when fish give you a bad beat. There is little to be gained by acting like an asshole (and in those rare situations in which rude behavior may be profitable, it is certainly not worth the psychological costs IMO.) Practice good sportsmanship.
The other day I’m in a 15/30 game that was very good and I was winning quite a bit. I had the tight, aggressive, confident image that Mason advocates for holdem.
I’m in the big blind. A weak player with loads of tells limps in two to my left. A somewhat tight and not too tricky player calls on the button. The small blind folds (note that this is unusual in 15/30 holdem with a $10 small blind). I check my 32 offsuit. This was the smallest pot of the evening.
The flop comes an ace-queen-jack rainbow. I do my standard just under two second pause when the flop hits and check (after all, I need to cover for the times I need to think). The early limper gives a genuine look of disinterest and checks along with the player on the button, who really doesn’t have any tells I can see.
Before the turn comes down I’m already thinking two things. First, watch the limper for tells when the turn hits. Second, this pot probably didn’t hit the button since he would bet most hands that would hit him (except the king ten nut) AND raise most high card hands against one limper before the flop. My guess is that he had a middle pair that he didn’t want to bet against three overcards.
The turn comes an offsuit four. As it hits I glance at the limper and once again he shows genuine disinterest. I wait for one second (my standard pause when the turn hits) and bet $30 into this $55 pot. Both opponents quickly muck.
Now $55 was by far the smallest pot of the night but it was worth thinking about and taking a stab at. In my estimation, I was going to win that pot about 60% of the time NO MATTER WHAT I HELD. And that is money in the bank.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I don’t expect much comment on this except maybe some of you have better examples of small pots you can win with nothing. I wrote it to bore myself back to sleep after getting up in the middle of the night again. Sorry if I put any of you guys to sleep ;-).
no text
Greg Raymer (FossilMan) wrote: "You cannot influence what cards you catch, or those that your opponents catch. But, barring some paranormal explanation, after enough time has passed, the cards you catch will be relatively close to average. I'm sure you know this, and it is this regression to the mean that insures those making the smart plays eventually win, and vice versa"
dba replied: "The cards you catch are random, independent events. By their definition, they will never regress toward the mean."
We disagree about the meaning of "regression to the mean", but the thread is somewhat buried. Will a few third parties chime in and tell us what you think?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Country X sells lottery tickets once a week for $100 each. There is a limit of one ticket per citizen. Country X only pays out 80% of what they take in. Now I have a crazy friend who buys a ticket every week but then he sells it to me for only $50. So I now have his lottery ticket and if I win I get to keep everything. I have very much "the best of it" and I am in a "positive EV" situation each week. But I still have to get lucky to win. I could spend an entire year buying a ticket from him each week and never win. In fact, I could spent my whole life doing this and never win while losing thousands of dollars in the process.
A person can play a solid game of full tabled limit hold-em and consistently make better decisions than his opponents. By doing this he gives himself the best chance of winning. But he still has to get his fair share of good cards and he still has to have his hands hold-up a fair percentage of the time in order to win. The underlying assumption that many of you are always making is that this somehow all evens out in the long run for every individual but it reality this simply is not true. The difference between someone who can average $40 per hour in a $20-$40 game versus someone else who only averages $20 per hour in the same game is frequently reflecting a difference in luck not skill.
It is a fact that historically some have been luckier than others. It is also a fact that in the future some will be luckier than others. There is no mathematical reason to assume that there will be any "carryover" effect from the past to the future, or that the same people will continue to be the "lucky ones"; however, in poker, confidence, table image, etc. all do have an effect. So there may actually be a "carryover effect" although it is not mathematically based. In poker winning actually begets winning to a certain extent, as losing begets losing somewhat. This is true largely for psychological reasons, both concerning the player and his opponents. Many factors may potentially contribute to a person's appearance of long-term luck.
Rewgaring Greg's question, while it is true that the longer we play, the more we can expect our results to approach expected value, if we are considerably off at some point in our results this must always be considered as a new starting point for predicting future results.
"Luck evens out" in poker is both true and false. I believe we simply don't get to play enough hands for it to completely even out. Play full-time and you may get dealt in perhaps 60,000 hands per year or thereabouts. This is not a really large sample size. You would need close to 20 years to play a million hands. There are a great many variables in poker as well. How your big hands stack up against other big hands is critical. Whether you make your big hands in large or small pots is also critical. You and a heads-up opponent could each be dealt a wide range of identical hands. Yet you could win or lose almost every matchup if that's how the hands stacked up against each other. In a ring game this effect is more likely to be observed in a more subtle manner, but it is also more likely to occur in a ring game. More opponents and more variables make for more possible outcomes. The multitude of factors make poker less predictable than Blackjack. Poker is also slower than Blackjack. If you play well enough in good games which are not overrraked your edge can be greater than at Blackjack.
Mike Caro pointed out that two breakeven $75-$150 players could have results apart by $300,000(if memory serves)over one full year. One could be ahead by 150K while the other was losing 150K, solely due to fluctuation or luck. Those who underestimate the potential luck factor over what seems to be the long-term may do so at their peril. I believe Mason (again if memory serves) wrote long ago that an expert Lowball player could still be losing after 2 years of expert play.
Add in the advantages of running good, feeling good, playing at your best, playing higher if the games look good, etc. versus running bad, going broke slowly, feeling bad, making a few more mistakes, worrying about playing in that higher attractive game, opponents taking shots at you. It is easy to see why, when you combine all this with being towards one end of the bell curve re. fluctuation for a "long time", some do exceptionally well indeed and others constantly seem to struggle. Others' results may be off considerably from expected value for a very long time. It is much more common for a person's results to be diminished or exceeded by 1/4 or 1/2 BB per hour for a long time than for a winner to lose for very long, but that too is possible. It is even possible, though still yet less likely, for a loser to win for a long time.
The difference between someone who can average $40 per hour in a $20-$40 game versus someone else who only averages $20 per hour in the same game is frequently reflecting a difference in luck not skill.
I certainly take issue with this.
Without going into tremendous detail, if I am able to make five lay downs in a night that you cannot and if I am also able to bet (or) raise five times per night (on average) with hands you would not, then I am going to average making more money per hour than you. Frequently, this is my experience in the games that I play. In other words; I make more money per hour than many of my opponents because I play better. Even though they are much luckier than me.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.
I think you are misunderstanding my post. If you had 1000 players all capable of beating a $20-$40 game for $40 per hour, there will always be some players who fail to actually average this over a finite of number of hours because of the luck factor present in this game. Agreed that as the number of hours increases the number of players who fail to achieve their expectation may diminish but even after the 6400 hours mentioned in Sklansky's post there would still be some who were only averaging $20 per hour. That is what I mean when I say that the difference between one player averaging $40 per hour versus another player only averaging $20 per hour can be sometimes attributable to luck.
What I am taking to task with you guys is this idea that "the luck evens out" and that "the better player always wins and the poorer player always loses". There is no guarantee that a good player will win over any reasonable length of time (say 1000 hours which is over 6 months of full time play). Furthermore, I have seen bad players win a substantial amount of money in $20-$40 hold-em over several hundred hours of play. I know of one player in particular who played almost a thousand hours at the Horseshoe in Shreveport Louisiana and won over $50,000 before they closed their card room last January. No one thinks he is a good player and he was not a winning player before they opened their card room in February 1998 and he has not been winning since they closed their cardroom in January 2000.
The neat thing about poker is that when we win we attribute it to our great skill and when we see the other guy lose we think it is because he plays badly.
Jim,
I think I see the source of the confusion. In your first post in the thread you wrote: ”The difference between someone who can average $40 per hour in a $20-$40 game versus someone else who only averages $20 per hour in the same game is frequently reflecting a difference in luck not skill.”
In the post above you wrote: ”That is what I mean when I say that the difference between one player averaging $40 per hour versus another player only averaging $20 per hour can be sometimes attributable to luck.”
There is a big difference between “frequently” and “sometimes”. In your post immediately above you are crystal clear and I believe most of us will see your point.
Regards,
Rick
Rick you are correct and I should have chosen my words more carefully.
In Bartholemew's original post he outlines just what he goes through and what has to transpire before he finally wins a meaningful pot.
He has to be dealt good starting hands, which take into account his position and price. For example he gets dealt 22 UTG and folds correctly. 6 people play for 2 bets and the flop is AQ2r. The pot is huge, missed draws and top two pair all over the place and he had to fold because he was unfortunate enough to be UTG. Give him the same 22 on the button with 5 limpers and the BB raises with the same flop and it's a different story. The only difference was in the second example he was lucky enough to get the cards and the flop at a time when he could play his hand. What else besides luck can you attribute this to?
His skill and knowledge told him it was proper to fold UTG, his skill and knowledge told him it was correct to call the raise on the button.
I believe this is the difference between people of equal talent, some winning big, some winning small, some losing small and some losing big.
Of course you have those who believe in luck to the point that they play for it and on the average they lose big and they lose it fast, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon and for the rest of their lives. (I just watched Casablanca).
1. In a true deck of cards, assuming the 52 cards are shuffled completely after each round, the cards delt in the next round are independent of those previous rounds. We all agree on that, although you might think that there must be some influence if you are the one having to bring-in a few times in a row with the low card.
2. If we could deal an infinite number of random hands to an infinite number of individuals, and if we could assign an "value" to these different hands (like a royal flush = 1000; a king high st flush = 995 etc. to a 6 high with no straight or flush being = 1), then everyone's score would approach a limit, and that limit should be statistically the same for all (i.e. the only difference would be due to chance).
3. The term regression implies some predictability or correlation, which in this instance in not the case, and I do not think FossilMan meant it this way.
4. I think what FM means is that in the end we will all get some great cards and some shitty cards and of course stuff in between, but overall, the only thing that will matter is how we play them. So it is really skill that will dictate how much we win over the long haul. I believe we all have the same amount of luck (which I think is synonomus with "chance"). I would love to be proved wrong, so if some extra lucky person can convince me, I'll take you to the the Meadowlands and let you pick'em for me.
No, ratso we do not all have the same amount of luck in the short run or the long run. Some people are luckier than others. Playing well means we give ourselves the best chance of getting a good result but it does not mean we will all get a good result.
Jim, I thought you were a scientist. How can luck (chance) be different from person to person? I wish you could convince me, because I would love to see an example that proves me wrong because that would be something very unique; worthy of at least a letter to Nature or Science. That would get me a nice promotion, God knows I can use one.
Do you really think "something (a force of sorts)" can influence what cards we are dealt? What is your guess? (This is getting interesting).
To ask why some people might be luckier than others is to ask an unanswerable question. Why is there gravity? I don't know there just is. As a "scientific" type I can only witness events and observe results. When you get thousands of people doing something that contains a significant element of chance, not everyone will get the same result. Suppose you have one million blackjack card counters play one million hands of blackjack all using the same betting spread and assume they had a 0.5% edge over the house? Some of them would be losers over the one million hands.
Not very many of the blackjack players will lose.
Also with the lottery example, the odds of winning are extremely low even if the EV is positive. With poker and blackjack you have a different situation, the +ev players are very likely to win
It is only the outlier cases that are way off the expected results after many hours of play.
I think there are psychological reasons for feeling the situation is how Jim describes. To me it is that a relatively modest losing streak of a few hundred hours seems horendous. But it should be expected and after a thousand more hours will probably be forgotten. The majority of players can't handle a really bad session and it is hard for the good players to handle a 200 hour losing streak.
D.
See:
http://www.tiltboys.com/trip-reports/six-sigmas-out/
for an entertaining explanation of the concept that "luck" is randomly distributed.
The luck involved shrinks as time go by in a precise way. Jim mentions that equal players could have results that differ by $20 per hour. But as time goes by this is less and less likely. For instance if the standard deviation in the difference of their results for one hour is $500 (about typical for 20-40), than after 1600 hours the standard deviation per hour is 500/40 or $12.50. There is still a small chance they would differ by as much as 20. However after 6400 hours a difference of $20 would be rare indeed.
AS to Greg's question, regression to the mean is talking about percentages, not absolutes. If my first 10 coin flips are 80% heads and my next 90 coin flips are, as expected 50% heads, I still regressed to 53% heads.
Jim's point, I guess, is that there is always some finite chance that you'll be horribly unlucky and lose for the next 40 years.
That's true, but no more so than the chance that the air pressure will suddenly drop to zero and asphyxiate me where I'm sitting because all the molecules around me just happened to move away from me at once.
When statistical systems get large enough, you can treat them as fixed laws for all practical purposes. All of our formulas for gas laws, many laws of thermodynamics, and other real-world effects that we use in engineering every day are nothing more than the result of statistical averages. Molecules in a gas move randomly, and the pressure on the wall of a vessel is determined by the impact of those molecules. But there are so many of them that the resultant force stays absolutely constant within measurable limits.
Obviously, the number of hands you get in poker over the rest of your life are not nearly enough to make your results this deterministic, but it's still not very accurate to claim that luck plays a major factor in your lifetime results. It doesn't, except for cases where people occasionally step up to much higher limits or play large tournaments. WSOP contestants will have their lifetime tournament winnings largely determined by luck, but not people who play ring games 8 hours a day for 40 years.
"...regression to the mean is talking about percentages, not absolutes..."
And therein lies the answer. Simple arithmetic. Remember means are normalized values.
If I lose 10 coin tosses in a row. My EV for the next ten is still 50%. If I do breakeven for the second ten then my mean will be 25%. for the third ten tosses, ev is still 50% but the mean for 30 flips will now be 33% if I hit half of the next 10 flips.
You are regressing to the mean of 50% even though you are NOT getting any luckier. And by chance if you kept winning half of all the rest of the flips, you will asymptotically reach 50%.. regression to the mean.
Bottom line, you don't need to get better or worse cards to regress to the mean. Just keep playing and simple math will take you there.
I'm already at my mean...
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
David:
When you say "after 6400 hours a difference of $20 [between two equally skilled 20-40 players] would be rare indeed," I take it that you're saying that the probability of two equally skilled 20-40 players experiencing this difference between them is low, say 5% or less. However, if we consider a pool of a dozen or 20 equally skilled players over 6,400 hours, it seems to me that we would almost certainly see a $20 variation between at least two of them. (I'm just thinking of a bell curve here). If I'm right, it would be correct to say that luck or coincidence plays a significant role in the comparative results of a large pool of equally skilled players over 6,400 hours even if it probably won't play a large role in the results of any two. Right?
Chris that is exactly the point I was making. If you get a few hundred equally skilled $20-$40 players all of whom are theoretically capable of beating the game for $40 per hour, even after 6400 hours (about 4 years of full time play) you will still have some players who don't even average $20 per hour.
Greg,
I am in error, and I apoligize. I was thinking 'mean reversion'
There certainly is 'regression to the mean' as we can always give a prediction toward any hand over a # of deals. That is if we flip a coin 10 times and get 7 heads, on the next 10 flips our best estimate as to the number of heads is still 5.
Regression to the Mean is a way of saying that, no matter what has happened in the past, the results of my future gambles will tend to converge on my expectation.
Some people think it means that if you have lost a lot in the past through bad luck, then some mysterious force will cause you to have good luck in the future. But this is not the case.
Consider a person who is flipping a coin for $100 a flip. The expectation is zero. However, after the first 1000 flips he finds himself down $10,000. His expectation from that point on is still zero, but his LIFETIME expectation from coin flipping, including his past results, is now -$10,000. But since the number of trials increases, the expectation as a percentage of action regresses back to the mean.
So, regression to the mean is useless when deciding whether or not to continue playing a certain game. What is IS useful for is determining the likely future outcome of previously unlikely events. A good example of this (I think it's in one of Mason or David's books) is the so-called 'sophomore slump', in which a player with a great rookie year rarely performs as well in his next year. The reason for this is because that the rookie who really stands out probably does so partly because he's been extraordinarily lucky. So if you were going to bet on his performance in the next year, you'd want to bet that it would go down. Remember, for every 1000 rookies entering a league, 25 of them are going to be 2 standard deviations above where they should be.
Of course, a rookie might have a great year simply because his expectation is to have a great year due to skill, in which case regression to the mean plays no part in this.
Dan,
Great post. I think the same principle applies to mutual fund managers who were hot last year.
Rick
Absolutely, and it's a better example than the one I posted. If mutual fund performance is typically random or close to it, then you can expect the worst performing funds to do better next year, and the best performing funds to do worse.
But again, that doesn't mean that you should buy a fund that performed terribly last year or shun one that did great. If they all perform about the same, then past results are irrelevant. Choose the fund that has the right balance of risk vs reward, long-term growth vs short-term speculation, whatever.
It might still be fair to say that the best performing funds taken as a group were better managed than the worst performing funds, but you still expect them all to regress to their own mean.
Greg,
The thread might be buried but you nailed it in the post below:
As for independent events, "Well duh!" Posted By: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) I think "Getting the Best Of It" has a good essay on this but I can't find my copy. It may be under the title "The Law of Averages and Other Fallacies" if memory serves me.
Regards,
Rick
This can be seen as a comparison of mean vs. standard deviation. Your mean (average) win per hour is a measure of your skill. The standard deviation is luck. Your expected mean win, hour after hour, does not change (ignoring learning here), so after 10 hours, your expected win is 10*your average. The standard deviation, hour after hour, is independant--that is, having (good or bad) luck in one hour tells you nothing about what luck you will get in the next hour. Using basic statistics, this means that the standard deviation of playing 10 hours is = Square Root (10) * standard deviation of playing one hour. This tells us that the longer you play, the greater the ratio of mean to standard deviation. So, if you play long enough, your average hourly win will come arbitrarily close to the expected, your skill. This has nothing to do with whether good luck follows bad--it just means that, from here on out, if you play long enough you can expect to do as well as you should on average. In the long run, your average results will = mean.
Jim from NYC is very close, but the average win/hr should get better as the skill increases. The Std.Dev. is independent of sample size, but what you usually calculate is not the population SD, but the person's SD, so it might not be independent. In any event luck or chance as Ratso puts it is independent as far as anyone knows and should be randomly distributed.
I agree with your point re: skill--to make things simple, I assumed no learning. But, certainly, as you play more your expected win goes up (one hopes, at least).
I disagree with your point regarding standard deviation. Each person's luck, hand after hand, is independant, simply a function of the cards they get and the cards their opponents get. Getting a good hand does not imply that the next will be good or bad (I am ignoring rushes here, as I think they are more an issue of how you and your opponents play than the cards you get). This is consistent with Ratso's opinion.
So, looking to the future, the longer you play the greater the ratio of aveage skill/average luck. This tells you that if you just won a hand, you are not going to lose more in the future, or win more. You can expect your average expected future winnings to be equal to your skill.
Unfortunately in poker, the mean and std.dev. are not independent variables as they should be if we want to analyze this as a standard normal distribution...
A player's skill factor into both his expected value and his standard deviation. Look at the weak tight player - he loses money at a very steady rate, without much variance. Look at the maniac, he loses money at maybe a slightly larger rate, but with a huge variance.
There are many components of skill that reduce or increase your variance by a much greater level than they move your expected value: tight preflop play lowers variance significantly, while check-raise bluffs increase variance. Most components of skill affect both expected value and variance in a very clear way: raising for a free card increases EV and decreases SD. Stealing blinds increases EV and increases SD.
Every action you make has effects on both components of the distribution. Thus, the distribution of gambling profit is not extremely straightforward to analyze, especially when pertaining to poker.
(I've only taken 4 weeks of sophomore statistics, so if I'm speaking out of my ass, somebody please correct me)
~DjTj
Posted by: JimfromNYC (jstoker@owc.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Newton Matter
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: JimfromNYC (jstoker@owc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 7:34 a.m.
First, I would like to appoligize to Greg Raymer, for my error regarding 'Regression toward the mean.' Any thing with the element of chance will have Regression toward the mean. The point I was trying to make, is that random, independent events do not have 'Mean Reversion', that is they follow a 'random walk'.
Quite often we read about a player having a long streak of poor cards. Some people, incorrectly, assume that at some point that player will receive better than average cards to make up the difference. This implies that there is 'Mean Reversion', which does not occur for random, independent events. At no time can we predict better or worse than average cards. Our best prediction is always the average.
I thought I understood things, and am glad I did. As is true for most disagreements between thoughtful people (as to things that have a clearcut answer, not opinions on music and movies), it often comes down to a matter of the English language. Being a lawyer, and being married, it is amazing our disagreements in life result from 2 people using the same word yet assigning 2 different meanings to that word.
Like, when you tell your wife "I won't be playing cards too late". She thinks you'll be home before your normal bedtime, and you think that if you're back by 3 in the morning, that'll be enough sleep to get you through the day. You didn't lie, or break your promise, when you got home at 3, you both just thought different things about the term "too late".
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sounds like a real life example to me!!
I'll save this post for my wife.
Ken
Just a reminder about mississippi 7cs, the 21st c. version of 7cs, which readers here and elsewhere seem remarkably slow in appreciating, a fact I can only presume is because they aren't taking the trouble to try it out. M7 is 7cs with the fourth and fifth cards dealt together instead of separately, and the last card face up, and its the one and only no-limit championship version of the game. It also kicks arse at limit, half-pot and Pl. (You can leave the last card down for limit betting if you prefer.)
Try it out head to head, whatever. It's the most significant variation to appear since omaha, if not holdem. (yeah I know, hard to believe, but what can I say? Its the simple truth.)
I'm curious: is no one at all interested in 7cs making it as an NL tourmanent game?
Check out www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven for stats etc on the game. (It's a non-commercial site BTW,WFM)
My favorite place to play around Chicago just closed and now I'm going to have to play my 1-5 7CS with a 25c ante. I haven't had much experience with any ante game and wonder if I need any changes to my play. That is, should I be concerned about "stealing" and should I be inclined to play more hands at least to 4th street. If MJChicago is reading this, this pertains to the Hollywood game as opposed to the Empress game. Any info on decent LL 7CS say within a 90 min. drive?
If you have to start putting up an ante for $1-$5 stud, it becomes more important to start raising on third street when you think you have the best hand and you should raise the maximum of $5. The introduction of an ante dramatically changes this game and makes it look more like a real stud game.
Harrahs still has alot of games and I think they are good. I'm not sure whjere you live but I would be surprised if it is more than 45 mins away.
I heard some strange things about the stud games in hollywood. Namely that is your raises get no respect and it is hard to thin the field. This would frustrate me to no end....
Antes make it more profitable to try to win the pot on 3rd and 4th street. But they also make it somewhat harder to win, because with more money in the pot, some hands that would have to fold to a raise in a no-ante game would be right to call.
That's the theory, anyway. The reality of low limit stud is that people don't fold when they should. That's fine. You should raise aggressively anyway on third street when you may have the best or second-best hand. So get money in the pot early. If you miss on 4th street, fold. If you catch and have a genuine shot at winning, now they will chase you down to the river and you'll haul down a big pot. But make sure you are the chasee and not the chaser in these situations, or you'll be making the same expensive mistakes your opponents are. Learn to fold.
I sit in a dealer's choice home game sometimes where the antes are, to my mind, suicidally high in relation to the maximum bet. The dealer calls the antes and limits as well as the game, and the structures are generally $2 ante/$4 max, $2 ante/$5 max, $2 ante/$7 max, and sometimes a more reasonable $2/$10 (though actual $10 bets are rare). The most popular are the $2/$5 and the $2/$7. All limits are spread limits, and under-raising is allowed.
Is this crazy, or is it me? How the heck do you play a game with antes like that? It seems to me the relatively small pots will never pay for the huge outlay in antes (and, in fact, for me, they never have--I have yet to walk away with any money, though the competition is weak).
I'm a rock, generally, and I understand that I need to shift gears bigtime in this game, but I'm not sure how much, or if it's worth it.
I could give more info on the individual players' styles, if it will help. There are a couple of consistent winners there.
Thanks.
Since the thread I started on semibluffs in world politics generated such lively discussion, I thought I'd post another historical thought for your consideration:
In the period 1933-1939 civilization enjoyed several incredibly lucky breaks, without which we there would be a new Dark Age today, or possibly the end of the world (at the very least Hitler's and Goering's faces would have replaced the King and Queen on every deck of cards---too horrible to contemplate):
1. Einstein was Jewish. The sub-group that Hitler chose to persecute just happened to be the Jews. If it had been, for example, Bulgarians, or Eskimos, or left-handed people, etc. (the actual identity of the persecuted group was irrelevant; Hitler simply needed a scapegoat for all of Germany's problems, and the Jews were handy), then Einstein would have had no reason to flee Germany, and would have instead of providing the inspiration for the Manhattan project, would have wound up working for Hitler's scientific establishment.
2. Hitler was goaded into a move that resulted in an actual war (the invasion of Poland) simply because the incredible weakness of the Western allies up to that point in failing to oppose any of his territorial moves convinced him that he could grab Poland also without a fight. Hitler's generals did NOT want a war (yet). They pleaded with Hitler to allow them 2-3 more years to prepare. Imagine if the Allies had shown some resolve in 1938---and then Germany waited to start the war until say, 1942. They would have been immensely stronger, and the Allies would have simply sat on their butts. France would have gone in about the same length of time, England would be destroyed (not necessarily succesfully invaded, just bombed and starved out), and Russia would have been taken out in six weeks. That's nearly what happened anyway.
3. Hitler's misgeneralship cost him victories on all fronts. In the hands of professionals, the German army obliterated all opponents. It was only after Hitler took the wheel that things began to fall apart.
4. The British commando raid at the Telemark heavy-water plant had a one-in-twenty chance of succeding---and it succeded. This alone set the German A-bomb effort back a year, maybe more.
5. If Hitler had not destroyed his military strength invading Russia it is very doubtful he could have been dislodged from Europe. He could have taken out Britain almost at leisure and then started developing his ballistic missiles, long-range bombers, jet aircraft, and atomic weapons to take on the US.
Imagine if any one of these events had turned out differently, and a modern Germany taking on the world with immense technological superiority: the only combatant with advanced tanks, jet fighters and bombers, ground-to-air missiles, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons. It would be like the US Cavalry vs. the Sioux (and yes, I know the Sioux won---once). It would have been a slaughter that would have made the actual WWII look like a tea party. Even if we had somehow managed to stop Hitler anyway my guess is a billion or more people would have died in the process.
And remember, as Hunter S. Thompson said, "Circus Circus is what all Western civilization would be doing on Saturday night if Hitler had won the war."
Hitler didn't know what the writers of the Bell Curve know. Jews are the most intelligent people on earth. The stupidest are the blacks and the hispanics.
You are a fucking idiot!
he is correct if 'IQ' and 'intelligence' can be used interchangably. (i might have misspelled that, boy would that be funny.) however, that in no way negates the fact that im sure to within 3 SD that he is indeed a f***ing idiot.
(alternatively) -- why do nerds get beat up in high school? (and who does the beating?)
brad
p.s. please dont ban me from the forum, i was just following (orders?,no) bruce's lead.
Had any nachos with salsa lately Mister bean eating man?
Actually, I believe Liberman is wrong about what Hitler thought. My impression is that Hitler actually believed the Jews to be highly intelligent and therefore the more potentially dangerous.
However, it does not follow from this that Liberman himself should necessarily be considered highly intelligent.
Thats about as racist as you can get.
(I'm a little late with this response, but....) In Response To: Posted By: Liberman Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000, at 6:35 p.m. In Response To: Civilization wins a parlay (Kevin L)
"Hitler didn't know what the writers of the Bell Curve know. Jews are the most intelligent people on earth. The stupidest are the blacks and the hispanics. "
I just wanted to know if you " Mr. Liberman " with this response: (1) are you bluffing; or (2) are you semi-bluffing; or (3) do you think this play "of words" is a solid bet?
------ The book '"The BELL CURVE -- Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life", R.J. Herrnstein, Chs Murray, Free Press, 1994' is in my opinion an honest attempt and accurate work on the subject. Some minorities "mostly namely one" take exception to the subject matter in this book. I regret this because if they "the exceptioners" really understood IQ a little better, they would realize that people with average or slightly better than average IQ levels are capable of great things if they really try in life and become an individual "that is don't follow the crowd." They can and do become great poker players.
CarlWilliamJames said above:
"I regret this because if they "the exceptioners" really understood IQ a little better, they would realize that people with average or slightly better than average IQ levels are capable of great things if they really try in life and become an individual "that is don't follow the crowd." They can and do become great poker players."
I agree that people with average or slightly higher IQs are capable of great things in life. I think "great things in life" depends primarily on a large combination of personal factors, as well as sometimes external factors. IQ is only one of these factors and not necessarily even one of the most important ones when it comes to great personal achievements.
However, I doubt if people with average or only slightly higher IQs can become "great" poker players. Good, yes, even quite good. Professional? Yes. But great? I doubt it because to be a great player you must be able to truly outthink your opponents at very high levels, very quickly. I think a high IQ is necessary for truly becoming a "great" poker player.
Much knowledge and discipline can take one a long way in poker. But when one meets someone who possess equivalent knowledge but who can also think faster and at higher levels, it can again become a mismatch.
Of course, this does not mean that those with high IQs are, on average, necessarily even better than the average player. Poker requires much more than just intelligence to play well. A friend of mine tells of playing poker with an International Grandmaster at chess who was truly clueless at poker. Who knows why.
I play with the U.S. Chessplayer of the year, a grandmaster. He raised me with 3-4o and took my set of aces down by going runner runner to the gut shot wheel. My sister plays better cards. But he is god's gift to chess.
Yes...this Grandmaster would call any and all raises with pocket 33's all the way to the bitter end, my friend says.
Some minorities "mostly namely one" take exception to the subject matter in this book.
A lot of people take exception to the Bell Curve in part because it inspires comments like this. Given the widespread controversy in all sorts of circles over it, how can one consider a statement like this anything but racist?
I'm under the impression that The Bell Curve is considered a joke among academics. It's interesting that works like this are usually cited by those arguing against giving socially disadvantaged groups a leg up. If the work and it's audience weren't basically racist one would think that it would be used to support the opposite view, at least sometimes.
I haven't read The Bell Curve or any reviews. In any case, even if there were some genetic predisposition in certain areas, I think the value of individual merit would still far outweigh the value of group averages. This is why I strongly believe that everyone should be looked at as an individual whenever possible.
Interestingly, in Poker, one sometimes has to make snap judgments about likelihoods and likely proclivities. In this respect Bob Ciaffone was right in a prior post when he said that those who consider all people the same in Poker are not destined for a bright poker future-- the young, the old; men, women; the Occidental and the Oriental (is it really bad p.c to say "Oriental"-I always thought Asia was a land mass including Siberia and Moscow as well as China, etc., and I don't understand the p.c.-ness of it, although I do now use "Asian" in conversation).
Let's say I go to Atlantic City, where I have only once spent a weekend playing poker before. I sit down at a table of strangers and before I have time to get a line on anyone's play, the fast action starts. I would bear in mind that in my experience, Greeks tend to raise and bet with a macho style, more so than WASPs. I would also be a bit more leery of being check-raised by Asians. And I would, so help me, value bet Blacks a little more than I might others (if I knew nothing else about my opponent). I would also value bet young players more , and be more leery of bets from old folks.
I related a story to John Cole over dinner last night at Foxwoods. I was, last winter, telling a poker story to an acquaintance of mine. It was a hand story. I described the action and referred to a player I did not know as Chinese. My acquaintance became somewhat ruffled and asked why. I said it was descriptive in an overall sense of the story, a more complete picture, if you will, and he still thought I was wrong. I then mentioned some of what I wrote above. He grew more upset. Now he happens to be Jewish. So I said, well, I'll tell you one thing you can probably count on if you ever sit down in a strange game and there is a Jewish person there. He said "what's that" in a very edged tone. I said, "he probably won't be the dumbest player in the game." He just looked at me but maybe softened a bit. I said, it's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing--Jewish people tend to be quite educated. It's just in the culture." And that was the end of it.
Sorry if I bored any of you or ruffled any feathers--I don't think I said anything inaccurate or in poor p.c. I also get a little tired of how the whole p.c. thing in general has gotten somewhat out of hand. Not that it isn't important, but just like sexual harassment--not that that isn't important too, but a good friend of mine actually got called on the carpet at work by his boss because he merely, very nicely, asked a co-worker if she would to go out for dinner sometime. Really, that's all he said or did. She had always been friendly to him and the next thing he knew his boss was all over him because she had complained that it was sexual harassment. By the way, he is terrible at poker and he quit poker after reading TOP and I quizzed him on it and then he tried it out. He lost at 1-3 limit and quit forever. Not much of a gambler--he has a degree in engineering and actually studied TOP for 3 weeks before his first and only loss.
M(ark),
I beleive Yale established a sexual harrassment policy that uses the "five second rule." No one should look at someone of the opposite sex (or same sex?) for any longer than five seconds. So, if my gaze were to linger six seconds, I could be accused of sexual harrassment. I also believe that other institutions have adopted this rule. Time to get out the stopwatches ladies and gentlemen.
Believe it or not, this policy may spring from postmodern film theory which takes the "gaze" under consideration, particulary in terms of psychoanalytic feminist film theory. Anyone interested can read Laura Mulvey's seminal essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," which argues that narrative film is structured and oraganized for the active male gaze. Fun stuff.
John
*
Five second rule? More paranoia over PC. Bet you a $100 it doesn't exist. (You have 1 min. from reading this to take me up. I'll take your word for it.)
(Ever notice how the anti-PC crowd is rarely bothered by compelling children to "pledge allegiance" to, among other abstractions, a "nation under god" and other acts of near-compulsory patriotism, or by the constant (as if mandatory) references to our "noble ideals" in foreign policy reportage?)
Chris,
I'm not kidding. I read about it in The New Yorker, I believe.
John
So you admit that you hold racial stereotypes and tend towards a belief that blacks are inferior. At least you (so help me) feel a little guilt about it. Maybe someday you will change.You are on the right track in treating individuals as just that:individuals.
I was merely saying that in a POKER context, against UNKNOWN opponents, any information you can glean is valuable and may help one on a marginal decision. In my experience in Poker, on average, Asians tend to check-raise and play a bit trickier than most others, Greeks often seem to be raising more than others with a macho flair, and perhaps Blacks have seemed to pay off a bit more. Young people tend to play less conservatively than old folks too. If you have absolutely nothing else to go on, using such scant infdormation on in a very borderline situation is NOT being racist. This is not a racial issue. It is merely an assessment of average stylistic differences within the Poker culture, in my limited experience.
It is not a racial statement to say that Asians and Greeks have more gambling in their cultures than do many other ethnic groups. It is a cultural observation.
Just because I think that on average I have perhaps seen Blacks pay off a bit more does not mean that I regard Blacks as inferior. Actually, I think it may have to do with average amount of poker experience and possibly average socioeconomic status. I think Blacks on average may perhaps have not played as much serious poker over many years as others. For a long time top-level poker in the U.S. was almost entirely a White man's game. This has been changing for a while now, but I would still bet that on average the average Black Player may have less experience. In addition there may be some correlation between average socioeconomic status and average relative poker skills. Maybe not, but I would bet that the average engineer would play a better game than the average bricklayer.
In summary, I am just saying that certain cultural attributes may have an effect on the average style or level of play in poker, and in many other fields as well.
There is a big difference between racial stereotypes and cultural differences. Trying to use any and all observations about your opponent in a live Poker game when you have absolutely nothing else to go on is just good poker.
:)
My premise, which was perhaps more obvious in a post I made a few days ago, was that world politics, particularly in the context of diplomacy and war, has strikingly similar dynamics to poker. Europe in 1938 can be easily compared to a giant pot-limit poker game.
You are underestimating the power of the U.S. Once the United States became involved, there was no way that Hitler could win, regardless of any decisions he made.
At the end of the war, the U.S. production of military weapons was awesome. In 1942 alone, the U.S. built more tanks than the entire German production of tanks in the previous 30 years. Even so, the U.S. was only committing half as much of its GDP to wartime production as were the Germans, and a lot of that spending went into building more infrastructure (as opposed to just building weapons in existing factories). That means the U.S. production capacity was still growing, while Germany's had levelled off by 1942, and began to decline heavily as allied bombing took its toll. If the war had continued another two years, the U.S. arsenal would have been ten times that of the Germans.
Germany's heavy-water project really wasn't very close to any kind of success, and even if it had been, they didn't have a rocket capable of crossing the ocean, meaning U.S. industrial output would have continued to grow.
As for the effect of Einstein, that's just pure speculation. He may have left anyway, or the U.S. might have proceeded with the Manhattan project anyway, etc. Einstein was not a big force in actual military research at the time, so he wouldn't have helped the German war effort in any measurable way. Hitler wasn't about to take the advice of a Jew scientist in any event.
The only way Germany and Japan could have 'won' would have been to cease expanding, sue for peace, and then try to negotiate to hold on to their conquered territories. Neither of them had a hope in hell of winning a total war against the Allies.
Now, what would have happened if the Nazis had managed to hold on to power in Germany? I have no idea, but do you think they were really much worse than Stalin's Communists? Perhaps the Germans would have defeated Russia, then we would have defeated them and wound up with a world similar to what we did have, except the Soviets would have lost control of Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and a host of other territories they managed to grab in the last days of the war. The world might have been a better place.
The Jews would have been exterminated altogether. No assurance exists that We would have defeated the Germans. The Russians had stopped the Nazis at Stalingrad prior to US intervention in Europe.
I note the way you refer to Einstein as a Jew scientist. It should be Jewish scientist. you need to take care in thei thread not to come off anti-semitic.
By the way, The Nazis were financed in the 1920's by Chase Manhattan, Hearst, and Brown-Brother's-Harriman (President: Prescott Bush, Legal Counel: John Foster Dulles). The Nazi's finaciers were American. Hitler became untrollable somewhat like a Noriega did in the eighties. If you wish to assign blame for the Nazis, a lot of it should be directed at US capitalists.
To say that the Nazis were better than the communists is a fascist statement that Goebbels might have made.
Sorry, I didn't use the politically correct term there. I'm not anti-Semitic, and have never understood anti-Semitic sentiment. It completely baffles me. Coming from Canada, perhaps I'm missing something that the rest of you absorb in the culture. Anti-Semitism is almost unknown in Canada.
I didn't say Nazis were better than Communists. I said there wasn't much difference. And there wasn't. Both states were totalitarian, both had no respect for individual rights, and both were guilty of mass atrocities for the 'good' of the state. Stalin's body count was several times higher than Hitler's. The only real difference was that Hitler's atrocities were targeted at one visible minority, while Stalin killed anyone who got in the way of 'progress'.
Both philosophies are the result of one fundamental political principle - that the good of the state overrides the rights of the individual.
If you think that Fascism and Communism are fundamentally different, please tell me why. The 'textbook' difference is that under Communism the state owns and controls the means of production, while under Fascism the means of production remains in private hands, while control over it is exercised by the state. Nazi Germany as a prototypical Fascist state also had other distinguishing characteristics such as a fanatical militarism and devotion to a leader, but other Fascist states did not. Italy, for example, did not exhibit many of the characteristics of Nazism.
You know, this whole thread really belongs in 'other topics', so if you want to continue this exchange why not respond there?
I agree with most of your analysis here. Stalin killed about as much as Hitler. I don't think Hitler would have come to power without industrialists financing them. That responsibility lies with the capitalists as much as the Nazis. Soviet society transformed in time. Fascist Germany I don't believe would have. Enough said.
You say that Anti Semitism is practically unknown in Canada. Unknown to whom? How's this for a bit of irony. When Norman Jewison was growing up in Canada he was called kike and jewboy and other niceties by his classmates. Problem was Norman Jewison isn't jewish. He's Irish methodist. Maybe in Edmonton you don't hear of it much. Try Toronto and Montreal. The US has no monopoly on it and it's not really the kind of thing you can stop with border guards.
I beg to differ with you. Canada has much more overt anti-semitism than the United States. Montreal and Toronto are not going to win any prizes for liberal attitudes and thinking . Canada's track record during WW2 was for worse than the United State's as far as allowing European Jews to emigrate. Not to say that we have anything to be proud of here in the United States either.
What's with Einstein being a Jew scientist? That's got nothing to do with being politically correct. He was a Jewish scientist. It just makes me wonder.
Bruce
bruce,
one misused word does not make an anti semite. If you are implying this about Dan you couldn't be more off the mark.
It's a very strange choice of words for someone who writes so articulately. I am not suggesting anything. I am just identifying what Dan wrote.
Bruce
Sometimes you have to consider the source. I think you owe Dan an apology.
Wonder all you want. Call it a typo if you wish. A grammatical error. Whatever. It meant absolutely nothing, other than to the PC police. I've already stated that Anti-Semitism completely baffles me. Forgive me if I don't tread properly amongst the properly selected words - I grew up in a social environment in which this type of Racism was completely unknown, so I may not be used to the exact correct phraseology that you prefer.
Its not phraseology. The use in the past of calling Jews derogatory names beginning with just Jew is well documented. I believe you when you say that you are not an anti-semite. When making statements about a group such as the Nazis, one has to be very careful in word selection to avoid the appearance of bigotry.
Apparently so. Actually, I'm honestly not clear on the proper use of the word. I have heard respected, non-bigoted people use "Jew" and "Jewish" interchangeably. I was watching a panel discussion about the selection of Joseph Lieberman as VP candidate, and one of the panelists said, "This would be the first time we would have a Jew as Vice President." Did he also slip up? Is it okay to say, "Albert Einstein was a scientist, and a Jew", but not, "Albert Einstein was a Jew Scientist"? Is it that "Jew" is appropriate as a noun, but the correct form for the pronoun is 'Jewish'? It seems to be a pretty trifling difference, if that's the case.
The nuances of political correctness sometimes escape me. I can never remember whether we are supposed to refer to blacks as 'Negro', 'black', 'Persons of Color', or what have you.
Needless to say, I consider racism to be one of the worst kinds of fuzzy thinking. Judging someone by something as generic as skin color or place of birth is simply irrational thinking and detrimental to both parties, besides being morally repugnant.
It's over and done with. I am sorry for making the suggestions I did. I am overly sensitive when it comes to anti-semitism having parents who are Holocaust survivors.
Bruce
I don't believe you can be oversensitive to this issue because there are too many good people in the world insensitive to it. Not much has changed since "Gentlemen's Agreement" was released in 1952.
When incredibly intelligent people like Dan can honestly believe that anti semitism is practically non existant in Canada then it becomes more necessary than ever to enlighten those who can be enlightened. I applaud your determination to fight the fight.
SammyB
I live in the west, In Edmonton. I've never run into anti-Semitism personally. I've met a few flakes who were into banking conspiracies and such, which probably has an anti-semitic undertone. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was a lot more prevalent on the East Coast, in the larger areas like Toronto and Montreal.
I agree about the horror of the holocaust, but we should not forget other horrors throughout history committed in the name of the state. The Khmer Rouge killed millions during their purge of the intelligentsia in Cambodia. Stalin managed to kill about 40 million people in forced famines and political executions, yet he was an ally of ours.
The Holocaust was especially horrible because it was applied so ruthlessly to a very small group of people, but the root cause is the tendency to put the needs of the state above the rights of the individual. A tendency that is becoming far too prevalent in modern society once again.
I agree with you whole heartedly that Jews do not have a monopoly on atrocities visited upon them. However, you don't find anyone saying that Stalin never really killed anyone or that the Khmer Rouge was an arm of the International Red Cross that passed out tainted pharmaceuticals. But, we do have a segment of the population that engage in Holocaust Revisionism. It was just 60 years ago and some people are convinced it was just a sham.
As for the lack of antisemitism in Edmonton, well, let me just say that here on Long Island you hardly hear a disparaging word about the Amish, but when I was in Lancaster, Pa. it was quite a different story.
I don't know how old you are, but I knew LOTS of people who were apologists for Stalin. I had a professor in University tell me, "You can't make an omellette without breaking some eggs." The idea was that Russia's rapid conversion to industrialism was worth the price.
I met still more who simply denied that it happened. Half of the bleemin' faculty was convinced that the Soviet Union was engaged in a grand experiment and was the wave of the future. There was easily as much Stalinist revisionism in the 1980's as there was holocaust revisionism. That's changed now, because once the Soviet Union collapsed the current socialists could write it off as a bad example.
I had read several articles that alluded to the idea that the Stalinist programs were necessary evils, but I had never heard anyone state with any authority that the events never took place. So, I did a google search of Stalinist Revisionism and saw this article by Harold Covington. He mentions a book by a Dr. Thurston who puts forth the theory that Stalin was a misunderstood genius, a view with which Covington vehemently disagrees. However, unlike the tactics many Jewish organizations and their members use against Holocaust revisionists, Covington does not harass, censor, intimidate, picket, spam Dr. Thurston in any way. Covington believes in freedom of speech and a right for a person to espouse unpopular views of historical events, unlike those trying to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. It's an interesting ploy.
BTW, you would have made a great teacher.
The problem with views such as yours is that it totally discounts the mass genocide committed by the Europeans in the Americas. The idea is that English, American, Frrench and Spanish collonialism brought nothing but "freedom" to the Americas. This is preposterous. It brought slavery, lynchings, mass killings, and discrimination. The west is as guilty as the fascists in killing people of color. Not seeing racism is being an ostrich that sticks its head in the sand.
Where exactly did you get the idea that my 'view' ignored the atrocities perpetrated on Native Americans or African Americans? I don't recall saying anything all all on that subject.
I'm essentially a libertarian. As such, I believe in the absolute right of freedom for all people. ANY philosophy, left or right, that treats people as commodities to be used by others is abhorrent to me.
Dan wrote: >>I'm essentially a libertarian. <<
I for one would definitely agree with Dan's claim based on his many posts. If you are aren't already familiar with what libertarian views consist of please educate thyself. If you are then please accept Dan's claim because he is being truthful.
Ray, you make a fine point here.
Anyone who engages in any conversation about racism should by law be required to give equal time in his statement to all other racism past and present. So, if I want to talk about antisemitism in prewar Germany I should then respectfully mention Cortez, Pizzaro, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Idi Amin, The Khmer Rouge, Manifest Destiny, the subjugation of Hawaii, the persecution of slavs and gypsies, the internment camps of the US during WW2, the Turks and Armenians, slavery in the US and around the world, the Exodus, etc. Because if I fail to admit to these other racist attacks, regrdaless of the topic of conversation then I am by your definition ignoring them. Well, maybe you're not right, but you think you are and that's pretty scary.
The point is that Hanson was bashing his professors for defending socialism. Well, the same case can be made against capitalist societies which Hanson impies is superior.
Genocide in Latin America continues to this day in Guatemala and Honduras. These countries are governed basically by US trained(school of the Americas:Fort Benning GA)fascists that answer to CIA controllers. Genocidal murder of the Mayans is a current affair. This isn't ancient history. It isn't coming from communists or fascists either. If you wish to stand for human rights and be consistant, then you must address grievances from both the left and right.
Do yourself a favor and read, word for word every single one of Dan's posts in this thread. You seem to want to infer things he has not implied. Dan has never said the atrocities he used as an example were the only atrocities ever. His point about his history professor was that a man educated enough to rise to the post of professor of a University taught Stalinist revisionism. That was an answer to my naive remark that no one denies Stalin's excesses.
You have it in your mind that Dan is something he is not. Just because he had no personal experience with anti semitism in Edmonton, Canada does not make him racist, insulated yes, evil no.
As for addressing grievances from the left or the right. Address them if you wish, pose questions on a topic if you wish. But don't slander someone for not answering questions that were not asked, for not adressing situations that although relevant had not been mentioned.
By the way, when a person uses a particular event as an example he does that so he DOESN'T need to mention all the other event. It saves a lot of time.
Hanson stating that he wished the Nazis had conquered Russia is ridiculous. Every Jew in Europe would have been exterminated. I guarantee you that anti-semitism exists in Edmonton. Hanson mentioned some himself. If you "carefully" read his posts in these threads you will see he mentions individuals talking about banking conspiracies. Thats classical anti-semitism. Hitler used the same argument to blame the Jews for losing WWI. It isn't slander. Its there. I've granted him the benefit of the doubt in my posts. I haven't slandered anyone. Liberman's posts are openly racist and offensive to people of color, yet Mason hasn't done much to stop him from posting. I'm beginning to think that this board is comprised of many biased people.
"Hanson stating that he wished the Nazis had conquered Russia is ridiculous."
here's your problem, ray. Hanson never wished this. He asked a hypothetical. He wondered what would have happened, how the world would have been different. You're twisting his words to make your point and that is just not a decent thing to do. I can't for the life of me understand why with all the warped people on this Forum with whom you could justifiably take issue you choose Dan hanson.
If I asked the question, "What do you suppose would happen to the US if we sent all the Afro Amwericans back to Africa?" does it make me racist?
Engaging in historical hypothetical discussions does not mean you wish for them to have occurred.
Here is Hanson's quote: "I have no idea, but do you think they were really much worse than Stalin's Communists? Perhaps the Germans would have defeated Russia, then we would have defeated them and wound up with a world similar to what we did have, except the Soviets would have lost control of Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and a host of other territories they managed to grab in the last days of the war. The world might have been a better place"
The answer is unequivoaclly yes. Go ahead and defend the Nazis. Go ahead and defend a blind eye to anti-semitism when it hits you in the face. Couple this with Hanson's statemnt that Einstein was a Jew Scientist of insignificance to the atomic program(thats ridiculous too, atomic energy is based on the theory of relativity). What would happen if all you anti-minority, and anti-semites would drop dead? I won't speculate.
The board is becoming offensive. Hanson's argument is arguably racist. You have changed my opinion of giving him the benefit of the doubt. He knows anti-semitism when he sees it or he wouldn't have brought up the Jewish banking conspiracy. Odds are great that he is an anti-semite, and that you are biased against people of color.
yes, meaning the Soviet Government was superior to Hitler's Germany. Ask the Poles. Ask the Czechs, Ask the Russians. Ask the Jews.
So, now I'm biased against people of color. Which color? Red, Blue, Mauve, Tan, Cyan? You've bent so far backwards to be politically correct that you feel anyone who isn't as careful with proper-speak as you are must have a bias. Okay, you got me. I'm a self-hating Jew who makes a living off the backs of the minorities who toil for me in the food service industry. Where can I buy a good whip?
Satisfied?
I didn't claim that you were racist, though biased is close. I would distinguish a biased person from a racist one by not only actions, but thoughts expressed. Hanson implies that the World would be a better place if the Nazis defeated the Russians. The only people that I know that put forth that view are Neo-Nazi's. Your post didn't indicate that you think North America would be a beter place if "we" sent all the Blacks back to Africa. Though the use of that analogy is in poor taste, and anyone discussing that unrealistic view must have their biases questioned. Please don't use the word we. Blacks are as much American as anybody else.
Your post also didn't use derogatory statements to describe prominent Blacks either. Hanson's did.
Its too bad that you hate yourself. You said it. I didn't.
One more time - I was putting forward a hypothetical scenario for a way we could have gotten rid of the Nazis AND the Soviets. The Soviets were evil. That does not make Nazis less so. Both were totalitarian states that had no regard for individual life or freedom.
I'm certainly not going to compare the two and declare one 'better' than the other. This isn't a game. Stalin murdered somwhere between 20 and 40 million people in the Ukraine. Millions died in forced labor camps after WWII (read Solzhenitzyn). The Soviets sponsored terrorism throughout the world all through the cold war, and without their pernicious influence we might not have had a war in Korea or Vietnam (although the U.S. and French share some blame for the latter).
Can we agree that the world would have been a better place without the Soviet Union AND the Nazis? I was simply proposing a possible outcome to the war that might have resulted in something like that.
Shut Up
Shut Up
Shut Up
This is
the stupidest
thread ever!!!!!!
Nobody thinks you're a racist - don't waste your time defending yourself against idiots.
So anyways, please stop this stupid stupid thread. This is a poker forum, not an "Am I stupid and like to defame other people because I'm stupid" forum.
not neccesarily. If the Soviets hadn't industrialized in 10 years, they probably would have lost to the Nazis. If they had lost, maybe people named Hanson would live good lives. People without aryan names would be slaves or exterminated. I believe that this was the argument your professors put forth.
Your same argument could be made for the USA. Would not the native Americans and Africans lived better lives, and wouldn't over 100 million people have not been murdered(more enslaved) if Columbus and the protestants had never sailed the seas? The Nazi's were far worse than the Russians. Ever since Kruschev, who acknowledged Stalin's atrocities, the Russians moved towards improvements in human rights and a more open society. It is granted that their system showed less tolerance for dissidents. Still, they have fewer people incarcerated per capita there now than the USA. USA encarceration rates are skewed by selective enforcement based upon both class and race.
I agree that the world would be a better place without racism, totalitarianism, or societys that value profit over human life.
Did you even read that quote of mine you just posted? This was my point: The Nazis were doomed. IF they had managed to take the Soviet Union, they were STILL doomed. We would have won anyway. There would be no Nazis today. However, there also might not have been a giant evil Soviet Empire at the end of that war, because the Soviets used the waning days of WWII to engage in a massive land grab that strengthened their power.
How you managed to twist this into some sort of desire to see Nazis walking the face of the Earth completely eludes me.
If I had been alive during the Nuremberg trials, I would gladly have pulled the hangman's lever on those monsters.
according to my german teacher, #1 lucky break was that hitler declared war on us! this was right after pearl harbor, but remember, the US was strictly a neutral country then and there was some chance that we would have stayed out of europe (obviously not japan), or at least delayed. its like hitler had a gutshot draw to the nuts with pot odds of like 1000 to 1 and folded.
brad
"Just a comment"
President Roosevelt via Canada "Man called Intrepid" & England "Churchill" was secretly getting aid and intelligence to England somehow "thank God" in the late 1930's and early 1940's. This was in violation "who cares -- I don't" of the international neutralty treaties which barred the USA from aiding England and other foreign powers involved in wars where the USA was not yet officially involved or declared.
Mostly rubish.
(1) The Jews were hated since the beginning of European "time" and were by no means a "random" scape-goat. Besides Relativity, Einstein had almost nothing to do with the A-bomb and didn't help anybody build it and didn't inspire anybody as well; the president was already convinced when Einstein wrote that letter. Germany was YEARS away from building a bomb.
(2) The allies had already aknowledged their weakness and were embarked on a re-armamant program. Each delayed month would find Germany's superiority eroded. The longer they waited the worse it would be. This is one of the main reasons for the 1938 consessions: they were buying time.
(3) Agree to Hitler's mis-generalaship. Except it was HE who insisted on attacking France relatively early (although it was the Generals who secured the victory in spite of Hitler's interference). No, Hitler took the wheel in response to things falling apart (Soviet winter counter-attack).
(4) The British had agents inside the Telemark plant, the German's had minimal security, and success was very likely. True, escape wasn't that likely.
(5) Germany failed in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and didn't "waste" their strength on Soviet until 1941. Only the air-force could have been used against Britain (they could NOT cross the channel), but by then Britain's fighter defense was redoubled and would have fended them off again. War with the Soviets was inevitable. Had he not destroyed some 6 million of them that first few months they probably would have defeated him earlier. And yes, as much as I hate to admit it, it was the Soviets that defeated Germany.
You forgot some other lucky occurances: Churchil becoming prime minister (anybody else would have come to terms in 1940), Germany failing to secure the French Fleet, Failure to take out the British Radar stations, the Balkan uprising delaying Barbarosa, Germany's cruelty failed to secure internal Soviet assistance (such as Ukraine), Pearl Harbor cementing our resolve, breaking both Germany's and Japan's codes, ...
Hitler didn't have the resources to win a protracted war.
- Louie
This "lively" enough? :)
Please find a more appropriate forum for a discussion of WW2 and other non-poker ideas. Once was a change-of-pace. Twice is a misuse of the POKER forum.
SOME ONE ONCE SAID --I forget who said it (maybe Brown):
"ALL is Fair in LOVE, WAR, and POKER"
And someone provided an addendum to include. "cheating in international politics" to also be fair."
Bob ol' buddy: Had you READ my previous post, it was essentially to explore a certain dynamic that frequently occurs both at the poker table and at the larger "poker table" of world politics. The essential question was, is the semibluff as powerful a weapon in politics as in poker?
I'm sorry that this was too subtle for you to discern. I'll try to be more explicit next time.
Parenthetically, unless you've been appointed official Board Captain, your post objecting to MY post is also a "misuse of the poker forum", since your post had nothing WHATSOEVER to do with poker. My posts were meant to explore the dynamics that exist in poker as an analogy for the "game of life". I thought that you were the sort of person who would have understood that.
What a cock you are, Kevin.
Go ahead, fire back.
Appropriate or not, this is a rocking thread, and I have read every message and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sure, it's not poker (at ALL) but it's good reading, and there's plenty of great poker stuff above and below this thread, as always. It's easy to find, and I'm scrolling there right now.
In all honesty -- I appreciate the very accurate historical knowledge possessed by the poker players in the thread of this theme "Civilization wins a parlay". I try to read all I can on the events and people associated with WW II. I also learned much from watching "probably" hundreds of WW II films/productions on the History Channel via cable. But I am saddened by the hate and foul language used by a slim minority of some who think they are contributing.
If your standard deviation in a 10-20 game is 200 and you play nine hours, then you divide 200 by the square root of nine (3) and come up with 66.6. I've seen David do this in two different posts now and I don't understand the point. What does that 66.6 tell you?
I always thought that you multiplied the 200 by 3 (the square root of nine) and then added in your hourly rate. For example: if your hourly rate is 20 then after three hours one standard deviation would have you somewhere between + 660 ((3 x 200) + 3 x 20)) and - 540 ((3 x 200) - 3 x 20)).
What is the point of dividing your standard deviation by the square root of your hours played? Thanx for any explanation.
Charlie
I used to teach this--let's see if I remember.
It is assumed that your luck, hour after hour, is independant--that is, one hour's luck (not skill) has nothing to do with the next hour's luck. If this is the case, if you play for N hours, the standard deviation of play (for the whole N hours) is equal to the square root of N * the standard deviation of one hour's play. In this,case, 3*200=600. To get the average standard deviation (per hour), you divide this by the number of hours played, =N, in this case 9. That gives you an average hourly standard deviation of 600/9=66.7. The shorthand way of doing this is to take the 1 hour standard deviation and divide it by the square root of the number of hours played, as Sklansky does.
The intuition here is that, as you play more and more hours, luck cancels itself out. What is really interesting, is that it takes a while to do so--if you believe that your expected win is $20, and the standard deviation is $200, it would take 100 hours of play to get to the point where your expected win was greater than your standard deviation. Even then, there is a one in six chance that your average win was negative, and a one in six chance that it would be greater than $40/hour. Which, I think, is why poker can be such a difficult game to learn--you have to use a give strategy for a loooong time before you get enough evidence to know whether it works.
The calculation gives you the 'standard error of the mean'. That is how far off (plus or minus) the average may be.
So, in other words, if I play 1600 hours in one year and my SD is 200, then, I divide the 200 by the square root of 1600 and I come up with five?
This five then tells me that my hourly rate should be between -5 and + 5 for one standard deviation. -10 and +10 for 2 SD's and -15 and +15 for three??
Wait a minute, do I add the five to my hourly rate of 20 and get -25 and + 25 for one SD? -30 and +30 for two and -35 and + 35 for three??
I'm still confused.
Charlie
Take your hourly rate of 20. With an hourly rate SD of 5, 1 SD above and below gives a range of 15 to 25. Two SD gives 10 to 30. Three gives 5 to 35.
Note that plus or minus 1 SD encompasses about 68% of all observations (34% above and below the mean). About another 28% (14% above and below) is encompassed by the next SD, and almost 4% (2% each way) by the third SD. So most of the time your results will fall within 1 SD, the great majority of the time within 2, and *almost always within 3.
So in your example (hourly rate of 20) you could say that you're reasonably likely to be between a 15 and 25 dollar per hour winner, very likely between 10 and 30... At one *extreme you could be a $5/hr winner who's run increadibly well. At the other you could be a $35/hr winner who's run terribly. But it's all but impossible that you're, say, a $45/hr winner or a -$5/hr loser.
I'm a little sleep deprived right now, so if I said anything goofy I trust someone will correct me.
x
So I am playing in a crazy 3-6 game last night.
The flop is x99 with 2 diamonds. The turn is a diamond and the river is the queen of diamonds.
A bet and call are made on the river. The pot is about $100.
Guy at seat 7, shows the King of diamonds for the flush. Guy at seat 8, puts his cards face down in front of him implying he has lost.
Before the dealer has a chance to muck the losing cards, the guy at seat 7, asks to see his cards. Seat 8 flips up his pocket queens. Seat 8 has a boat and takes down the pot. Seat 7 whines and complains but it was his own fault.
Earlier in the evening a slightly different twist happened. The final board was 8c,9c,10c,Jc,x. Seat 9 with Ac bets. Seat 3 calls. Seat 9 shows his Ace for the flush. Seat 3 appears to be mucking his hand but exposes them to the players on either side of him. Seat 4 says, you have a 7c for a straight flush. Instead of mucking he flips them over for the pot. Seat 9 was not happy.
Ken
Point #1: Why you shouldn't ask to see losing hand:
Unless you suspect collusion it is generally better not to request to see a souped "supposedly" losing hand or all hands involved in the showdown. Experienced players generally know the reasons for this....
------------ Point #2: Earlier in the evening a slightly different twist happened "would be mucked hand wins because when an adjacent player intervenes": 99.999998% of time this is a a moot point -- SAD BUT TRUE. Everytime I see this wrongful event "in question" occur and when a floorman is notified -- the decision is always the same. The floorperson politly responds. "players please don't discuss or inform other player's about their hands until after all cards are exposed on the table." It is the only decision possible. Repeat offenders are never barred from the casino, "business is business."
In places I've played, when a player asks to see somebody else's hand, the dealer will muck the hand and then expose it. So even if it was the winning hand, it has touched the muck and it's dead.
carlos
usually thats if they have a rule saying any player can see any hand at the showdown, and the person asking did not win the pot, but if the winner asks then the cards usually stay live, at least down here anyway.
It's the exception I know in most houses too.
Do you like to play No-Limit Hold'em?
Playing no limit holdem wouldn't change the Bell Curve conlusion that Jews and Koreans are the smartest people on the planet and that blacks and hispanics are inferior races who are intellectually severely handicaped. During the Rodney King riots, 99.9% of the looters were either black or hispanic. When these people move into neighborhoods, real estate prices go down. They are responsible for a big majority of crimes despite that fact that they are minorities. Not only that, they can't play well at poker either. Poker would be too intellectual for them. There are very many blacks and hispanics who play poker yet you don't find many in the top 100. Blacks can only excel at sports like boxing and basketball, thanks to the superior bodies that are the result of the slave upbringings of their ancestors.
This man is clearly a racist. His views offend many people. Is bashing people of color acceptable at 2+2? Other posts by this guy earlier in the week used outright slurs. I believe that blatant racism is less damaging to a community than institutional racism. Nevertheless, permitting clearly racist posts to be displayed on a continual basis without comment can only give credence to the beliefs. Silence indicates acceptance or approval.
Race plays a major role in winning at poker, especially in the area of table selection and player analysis and stereotyping. Chinese generally tend to be very loose and aggressive, due mainly to their gambling tendencies. Japanese and Koreans generally tend to be analytical and silent, but very deceptive. Vietnamese generally tend to be good players that lean towards aggression, thanks to their survival backgrounds and in their families' emphasis on the value of learning. The Irish and British generally tend to be better at no limit/pot limit than at limit. Persians are very deceptive. And blacks and hispanics tend to be disorganized and uncreative which is a direct result of being relatively uneducated and moronic. Etc.
.
I don't think race is primarily the reason for any poker tendencies that may exist on average amongst groups of people. It is important to differentiate between racial differences and cultural differences.
Liberman appears to be obsessed with the idea that genetic differences are responsible. I think he is largely wrong in this. To point this up, I doubt if he could concoct any genetic explanation for why Englishmen would be better at PL/NL than they are at Limit.
It is also very impractical and unfair to make sweeping generalizations in an exclusive sense. While I believe, as I posted below, that in Poker any superficial observations you may make about your opponent may have some value, especially against a stranger, I believe that individual observations and individual merit have far more meaning.
His statement that Blacks can excel only in Sports is just plain wrong.
Finally, even if he and others believe that certain groups may tend to have lower IQs, it would not then follow that all members of these groups would fall into this category. The overall differences in these respects, if they even exist, would be small compared to the individual differences. In other words you could still find geniuses in any groups as well as morons, and it would be very common for someone in the "lower" group to be smarter than someone in the "higher" group. So what I am saying is that even if there is a difference on average, it would have little or no value in being applied on an individual basis. This is the type of thinking that breeds hatred and intolerance, and in its worst forms, state attempts at genocide.
Naziism is reprehensible, as are any absolute attempts to strip away the individual's value by classification.
Finally Liberman claims that Jewish people are the smartest on earth. Here again, I don't think it is the racial aspect that is important. It is well-known that the Jewish culture includes a strong emphasis on education. I submit that the difference here again is not primarily racial, but rather cultural. Any culture which values education especially highly will produce more intellectuals.
.
He deleted the post wherein Liberman called me a n****r scumbag. However, Mason deserves credit for not deleting too many posts.
Even while DS may consider it "kind of cool" to be compared to Stalin and to be called, "El Supremo," it would really be stretching it to compare Mason to Mussolini and to call him a Fascist.
I'm not calling Mason anything. I did notice that he deleted the worst post. Its unfortunate that the world, and the poker world in particular, harbors such maliciously bigoted individuals. The Bell Curve book that has been out for about 5 years (which I assume started this whole crap)is considered flawed and part of a racist agenda by most professors in the psychological academic community.
.
I have two questions regarding expectation.
First of all, when we say that a good player can beat a game for one big bet per hour, are we referring to the net profit he should make after a reasonable time charge or rake has been deducted?
Secondly, what is an appropriate rake for a 5-10 heads up match where you have a fairly pronounced edge? Is $1 beatable? How about 10-20, same scenario?
Thanks.
If you either challenge someone to a heads up match, or accept such a challenge, is it somehow considered unethical to play for a very short period of time (less than 20 min.), make a decent "score" and then get up to leave? The reason I ask is because someone who I recently played did just that, and I felt cheated somehow.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I play some friends around here a lot heads up, mostly for fun and low stakes, I recommend you set a buy in at the beginning of the match and either a time limit or agree to play till somebody is broke.
Whether or not hitting-and-running at the poker table is "unethical" has NOTHING to do with how many other players were at your table.
If it happened at a casino then you were certainly NOT "cheated." The right to walk away from a game and the absence of politics is one of the positive aspects of a card room. If this was the case you should have known this risk beforehand.
On the other hand it would be dispicable behavior in a home game. One of the unwritten rules of private games is that early winners are obligated to stay in the game long enough to allow the others the opportunity to win their money back.
Whenever you play an opponent headsup in a casino try to set some parameters, ie. how long will you play, minimum buy-in, etc. I wouldn't feel real good about your situation although I don't think it's unethical. It lacks a lot of class.
Bruce
Sammy,
Not the thing to do. Unless I know the player very well, I will set terms such as minimum 2 hours play.
Bob
Badger - I have been reading a lot of what you have written, both here and in RGP. What strikes me is that it seems that all you play is tournaments...and very little ring games. Is this true? Please correct me if I am wrong and tell me what limit ring games that you do play. The reason I bring this up is because it seems to me that in the discussion that you and John Feeney were having about folding/playing AQo against a non-maniac UTG raiser that both of you may be correct. It may be correct to always play AQo against a UTG raiser in tournaments but not in 40/80 ring games. I'm not trying to stir up that controversy again, I'm just trying to see if it is possible that you guys are both right, but just in different situations.
Per Badger, he will not be posting here anymore because he feels some people have insulted him. He even wants all his previous postings to be deleted. He has taken his ball and gone home. I think he is acting a bit childish, but thats just my opinion.
/
i played poker with joltin joe in the early 70's once, he played a few minutes or so at the alladin with us. i even bought one of his coffee makers. he sure played good ball. his real fame came when he hooked up and married marilyn monroe. if you get a chance sammy watch some old baseball shorts of him. it seems he never missed the ball when he swung the bat.
One time a visitor to the Yankee's spring training camp was watching batting practice, and he was checking out the outfielders shagging balls. Right away, he noticed one player who seemed to just move so much more smoothly than all the rest. When he asked about him, he was told it was DiMaggio.
DiMaggio was almost sixty at the time.
Doc:
If you follow the advice in our books you will fold in this spot. For your information, I also fold in this spot. However, as we point out in the 21st Century edition of HPFAP you should reraise with this hand against a loose raiser. (See pages 21 and 22.)
Here is a situation that is more a matter of who you are against than good technique. My preference is to simply call when against a stranger who I have not yet had the opportunity to formulate an opinion of. I would certainly agree with folding against a solid player and reraising a semi-maniac. I also agree with the inquirer that calling is more reasonable at tournament play than money play.
The great Bob C wrote : "I also agree with the inquirer that calling is more reasonable at tournament play than money play. "
can you elaborate why this is so? and at what stages in the tourney? I can understand the late stages when stack size / blinds ratio is very small, but what about during the early / middle stages, shouldn't correct tourney play still be very much like ring game play?
I am basically asking because I have done well in ring games, but have never done well in tourneys, and I am wondering what I may be missing in the difference between the two...and if this type of hand is one of them.
Thanks.
In percentage-payoff tournaments, survival is often more important that exploiting small edges. Hence, it is often correct to forego small edges in order to reduce your variance.
• Theory and Strategy
• Poker
• General Theory
• Texas Hold'em
• General
• Small Stakes
(to $6-$12)
• Medium Stakes
(to $30-$60)
• High Stakes
(including pot-, no-limit)
--------------------------------
2+2 just keeps on getting and better...... and it's free.
Thanks.
It also makes for a few more pages to get ads on.
I am a cynical SOB huh!
When I'm not hopelessly chasing with middle pairs, I happen to work in the Internet advertising business. Banner ads are priced on the basis of impressions/1,000. Every time you go to the index page, it's considered another impression. It doesn't matter how many times you sub-divide the index, you still get one page view (impression) for every index visit. So there's no revenue impact (positive or negative) of adding sub-categories to the index.
For what it's worth I am supporting ConGelCo by now ordering my poker books through them as I find this forum extremely valuable. Dave
sounds like you are. whats your feeling on this do you think you are entitled to have other people put things up for you for free. why shouldnt there be ads on the pages, as thats how things work in this free society so its possible that there may be no charges to you. this is a commercial site. but its certainly not out to try to take advantage of anyone as can be easily seen by most i hope. i guess if the majority of people posting start to think they have a right to access other peoples work for nothing and not even have to look at an ad i would be all for closing the site down.
I was speculating on the possible motives for the additional pages - I have no problem with the banner ads I just ignore them as they are everywhere you look on the new and are like back ground noise.
Close it down who cares.
The last time I drove by Ray Zee's place he had a little oil well goin out there so these ads must be more lucrative than people think.
no i was driving in a fence post and the stupid oil started squirting all over the place. im so unlucky i cant even put in a fence post. i now have to pay some guy from shell oil to come and pump away about 10,000 barrels at a time. how else can i get rid of the gooey stuff.
I have worked out the answer to this to my own satisfaction, but perhaps someone can add useful comments on how this affects actual game play:
It is correct to value a backdoor flush draw on the flop as another possible 'out' to your hand. The same thing applies to backdoor straights.
But unlike flushes, backdoor straights come in 3 flavors:
Those that need precisely two cards (You have AJ, flop is K64 - you need exactly QT
Those that give two backdoors (You have KQ, flop comes J64 - you need AT or T9)
Those that give three backdoors (You have T9, flop comes J54 - you need KQ, Q8, or 78)
Does each combination count as (more or less) another out?
A9
I would add another category: those where you have a pair with your backdoor (splits are more likely). Example: 10, 9 with a flop of 10, 8, 7.
as a quick take, i'd think that smooth (three connecting cards) are much better than rough BD draws. Also, your holding overcards are important too (the KQ example of A9).
Excuse me, but a straight-draw of 10-9 with a flop of 10-8-7 is an open-end straight-draw, not a backdoor draw.
Good observation.
"AND" means multiply and "OR" means add.
Lets say a back-door flush is worth one out. To get this you need to hit a 9-card out AND an 8-card out: 9*8=72 ways.
Compared to your 1-way you need to catch one of 8 AND followed by one of 4: 8*4=32 ways; clearly much worse than a 3-flush.
Compared to your 2-way you need to catch one of 8 AND followed by one of 4, OR one of 4 AND followed by one of 8; 8*4+4*8=64 ways; not as good as a 3-flush.
Compared to your 3-way back-door straight you need to hit one of 8 (Kor7) AND followed by one of 4 (either Qor8), OR one of 8 (Qor8) AND followed by one of 8 (either Kor8 or Qor7): 8*4+8*8=96 ways, better ..err.. more likely than a 4-flush.
So the 2-way and 3-way 3-straights are worth a little less and a little more than a single out.
- Louie
You are MUCH better off with overcards since you can pair and win: hand=T9 flop 832 is MUCH better than J32.
May be more useful to convert these into odds...the denominator in all these calculations is 47*46=2162.
Thus, 1-way:1.5% 2-way:3%, 3-way:4.5%
...I don't think you'll ever get those sorts of pot odds, but lets see if these numbers improve slightly if you consider the fact that you will fold if you miss on the turn...
One-way,Two-way,Three-way backdoor straights:
So, when you win, you make pot+0.5f+t+r (f,t,r are number of callers). When you fold on the turn, you lose only 0.5. When you fold on the river, you lose only 1.5. So, you can make this call if (pot+0.5f+t+r)*pw > 0.5*pt+1.5*pr
For One-way, this means (pot+0.5f+t+r)>43.67
For Two-way, this means (pot+0.5f+t+r)>24
For Three-way, this means (pot+0.5f+t+r)>17.33
So, the kinds of situations where these calls would be correct sorely on the merits of the inside straight draw would be very large pots - a lot of preflop action and a lot of people in that will likely call to the river. e.g. 5 players call capped preflop, 3 players call a bet on the flop, 2 on the turn, and they both call your raise on the river...This is for the Three-way - the Two-way and One-way situations would require insane amounts of action...
Well, these implied odds really don't help out very much at all - like Louie said, overcards will help out a lot - still, the double-gutshot is almost never worth it...
~DjTj
I have heard from a reliable (although not a primary) source that they plan to open a 40 table room in the Atl. City venue sometime in Sept this year. Anyone hear anything?
I don't know about AC,but there have been printed reports here in Vegas that Caesars here will be opening a big room to rival Mirage.Hopefully a corporate decision for both locations.
Rival Mirage or rival Bellagio?
I cannot fathom a room in AC opening for the winter. I wonder if the source got it wrong and the site is for LV. I will ask a friend who is a manager there sometime next week.
My Hand: A6s
My Position: 2 off button
Action before me: 3 limpers
Players to Act behind: 2 plus blinds
Action taken by me: Call
Action after I act: BB calls (5-way)
Flop: A T 6r - 8 A
Action on the Flop: All check to me and I bet, BB check-raises, I just call (Heads-up)
Fourth Street: BB bets, I raise, BB reraises, I just called
Fifth Street: BB Bet and I raise and BB reraises again. I call and BB shows me A8o for aces full of eights against my aces full of sixes.
Discussion: This was a 30/60 game and cost me $450
I can’t win the hand but what would have been the smartest way to play it?
Bob, of course you were destined to lose money here but my preference would be to just call on the flop like you did after being check-raised and then just call on the turn rather than raising. Against a typical opponent in this situation his check-raise on the flop means at least two pair not just top pair. I know that 2+2 and John Feeney talk about check-raising a late position bettor on the flop with hands like middle pair,bottom pair or top pair/weak kicker but most players don't play this way. A check-raise usually means at least two pair. I think you should respect this and not raise on the turn.
I might well have played it the same way. The most likely hand for your opponent here is probably the straight (if he's the kind of guy that might check-raise a late position bettor with a gutshot, hoping to win the pot outright), followed by tens full, AT, A8, and A6. or a big Ace. You might even have put him on a hand like 8T until you're re-raised on the river, and now you can worry and just call.
I would back off against some players with this kind of action, and play just as agressively as you did against others.
Sometimes you're just destined to lose a bunch of chips. But remember that these are pretty rare events, and you stand to lose a lot more if you get in the habit of giving up full bets on the turn and river with big hands because you're afraid of a monster.
You were very unlucky. You had the best hand on the flop and they got there on the turn. With two pair on 4th street I am going to pop it up like you did and I will certainly give it one more shot on the river. Them are the breaks of the game and there ain't a whole lot you can do.
Bruce
You played it the way I would have played it. With one difference: I would have only called on the turn. I would have raised on the turn as you did only if there had been someone left to act behind me who I would want to raise out of the pot.
Hi,
I've been playing poker for about a year now.
I use the formula that was posted in one of Mason's articles on how to estimate your hourly variance. I have all my results tabulated in a program on Linux that is almost identical to MS Excel (but is free). I want to share an observation that I made about this variance.
I have many hours plotted now, and I have noticed that when I log sessions with smaller numbers of hours, my hourly variance tends to increase quite a bit.
I have taken graduate courses in statistics and I have verified the reason for this mathematically (even though I will not go into detail about this). I will attempt to explain it in a numerical example.
If I have 200 hours of playing, and I divide those hours into forty 5 hour sessions, I will log the results from these sessions. The result I get for the session subdivided like this is a standard deviation of say 14.5 small bets per hour.
However, If using the same sessions, I divide those hours into twenty 10 hour session, I get a standard deviation of around 12.1 small bets per hour.
(the above numbers aren't my real standard deviation, just an example)
Now, the exact numbers aren't that important here. What is important is that the smaller you subdivide the session, the higher the estimated hourly variance becomes.
Well, who cares? What's the point? Well, say you use these estimates to come up a reasonable number for your bankroll from the -3 sigma bankroll equation (BR = 9/4 * variance/expectation). Well if you log long sessions (10+ hours at a time), your variance could be larger than you have estimated it and your proper bankroll could be larger than you expect it to be.
A solution: Ideally you'd want to break everything down to the smallest possible denomination so that you could get the most accurate estimate... the smallest possible denomination is to keep track of the result of every hand! This is not impossible, but probably quite annoying and definitely will make you look like a math nerd... aside from the fact taht you'll quickly have an unbearable amount of data.
A more reasonable solution: Log your results every couple of hours when playing (maybe at the top of every hour or every fourth dealer or whatever you decide to use).
Just food for thought.
Chris
I'm glad you posted this because I always wondered why the formulae are always geared as bb/hour. The hour is not the basic unit of poker, the hand is. Sure you can average 25 or 35 hands per hour depending on the dealer but one 35% is like 40% bigger than 25% so how accurate are these numbers anyway?
I would think a unit based on 30 hand blocks (call it an applause) would be much more meaningful. For every thirty hands you play 3-4, you win .5-.75 and yield whatever.
What do you think?
Then you'd need a clicker (similar to a baseball umpire's clicker) to keep track of which hand you were on etc.
Seriously though, your suggestion sounds like it will work well because the variance in an applause will not be much different from the variance in one hand. However, not much will be gained over doing it every hour. Maybe just a little more precision.. but i won't change the magnitude of the variance like i've suggested in teh previous post.
Chris
If you have logged a total of 2000 hours - what different would the numbers be if you logged them in 2 hours intervals versus 6 hour intervals?
I'm no math guy, but I would guess that the more total hours you have, it will no longer matter (or at least matter less and less) what intervals you log them in as.
Your guess is incorrect. That's my point.
Mathematically I've proved (though not included it) that it does matter at what intervals you log them...
Chris
ps if anyone is interested in this proof.. then i can send it to them
I suspect that you are doing something wrong in your calculations. However, the maximum likelihood estimator is a biased estimator which is usually corrected by a factor of n/(n-1). Notice that for small sample sizes your estimate will be too small. For example, Barbara Yoon, in an attempt to prove this work wrong, use to give an example on RGP based on a sample size of 2 that showed the maximum likelihood estimator was producing an estimate of the variance that was one-half as large as it should be. Of course coming to statistical conclusions based on a sample size of 2 is very poor statistic.
But it turns out that maximum likelihood estimators are asymtoptically perfect. This means as the sample grows large, the bias becomes insignificant. So, assuming your calculations are correct, this may explain the differences that you are seeing. In my Gambling Theory book I recommend that you have at least 30 observations (playing sessions). If you do, this effect should be negligible.
You may also want to get a good college or graduate level statistics text and read the discussion of maximum likelihood estimators. It will do a much better job of explaining this widely used statistical technique than I can.
Pardon me for my math stupidity here, but what you just wrote seemed like a lot of mumbo jumbo abracadabra math stuff to me.
Are you saying that when the sample sizes increase that it it matters less and less whether the sessions were in 2 hour or 8 hour sessions?
The beauty of this estimator is that you can use sessions of varying lengths of time. So once you have enough sessions the answer is essentially yes.
Thanks for your help Mason...
You answered my question. I think what I did was slightly off and I'll have to look at it again to verify.
I think this was what I was overlooking... and I do know about maximum likelihood estimators being ~consistent~ (or as you put it asymptotically perfect).
I have many more than 30 sessions... more like 100-150.. but still saw this effect that I mentioned. Like I said, just food for thought.
Keep in mind that I'm not anxious to prove anyone wrong (especially you), just trying to get a deeper understanding of why this was happening.
Chris
>>But it turns out that maximum likelihood estimators are asymtoptically perfect. This means as the sample grows large, the bias becomes insignificant. So, assuming your calculations are correct, this may explain the differences that you are seeing. In my Gambling Theory book I recommend that you have at least 30 observations (playing sessions). If you do, this effect should be negligible.
I think that thug, Malmuth, is right on the money here. His mention of 30 sessions is also perfect. That is around the point where the F-distribution and t-distribution converge. Think of selecting a representative interval similar to a typical session to use for calculations. Think of it as a histogram with intervals of about 4-8 hrs each.
I have read, asked collegues, tested and all that other crap, but I find that Malmuth's calcs are correct and represent what is really happening. I conteded that his variance was really a std dev. I argues against his calcs, but later was convinced his calcs were the best estimate. Use his calcs.
An interesting point is that other estimators have been proposed (mostly on RGP by a few who seemed very anxious to prove this work wrong) which have the advantage of not blowing up as the time interval approached zero. But when you read the appropriate literature you see that the maximum likelihood estimators have many advantages that most other estimators don't have. For example they tend to converge much faster and the bias disappears as the sample size gets large.
Also, time intervals that approach zero are really no problem since you can just merge these sessions into the next session you play. For my records, the shortest time interval I keep is one-fourth hour (15 minutes). If I play less than that, I either count it as one-fourth hour or just merge it into the next session. After many years of keeping these calculations, I have found them to be very accurate and are a good predictor of my overall fluctuations and bankroll needs.
That time interval seems too small to me. 15 minutes represent less than once around the table in a 10 handed game. Any comment? I like 60 minutes or probably could live with 30 minutes.
I really think that the estimator you published is as close to "real" as I have seen. I have tried to define variables (either = or - ones) that could enter into a grand equation and get the best estimate. I do not think I can come up with a better estimator than you have, and I have tried. Of course I have no axe to grind (yet?).
I am working on a multiple regression model which probably will be fruitless, but it's fun (what a geek, eh?)
I don't quite get your example:
If I have 200 hours of playing, and I divide those hours into forty 5 hour sessions, I will log the results from these sessions. The result I get for the session subdivided like this is a standard deviation of say 14.5 small bets per hour.
However, If using the same sessions, I divide those hours into twenty 10 hour session, I get a standard deviation of around 12.1 small bets per hour.
It seems like this would be highly dependent upon how you subdivided your sessions. If you want to break your results into 5 sessions, you could weight these 5 sessions in ways that could dramatically affect your standard deviation e.g. putting your biggest wins all in one session. You could do similar things with your large number of sessions.
I'm not sure what sorts of calculations you are doing, but to say that changing your smaple size will necessarily increase or decrease your standard deviation simply is not true. It will change the deviation certainly, but not necessarily in one direction or the other.
Logging each session and then treating things per hour is a good enough statistic and will approximate the per hand rate very well over a good number of hours.
~DjTj
Chris I am on shaky ground here because I have not studied statistics in over 30 years but I believe what you are observing is the effect of N where N is the number of observations. As you increase N you tend to get a better estimate I believe. Increasing N from 20 to 40 will in fact give you a better estimate. For 200 hours, an even better estimate would be to calculate it every hour so N would be 200. However, I think Mason Malmuth is correct when he says that when N gets larger than around 30 the increase in accuracy is perhaps negligble. Just my thoughts.
It's poker not rocket science. I spent a big part of my business career cutting out wasted thinking and procedures that where not directly related to the one goal a company has that is MAKING MONEY and I fail to understand how knowing your "varience" number can help you make money.
Seems like a good academic discussion but that's all.
If it's a good academic discussion, or even a mathematical curiosity where better than to hash it out than here. As for this not being rocket science, perhaps you're wrong about that. Jim Brier seems to do very well at poker. You've said yourself he's the only guy on the Forum you don't want at your table and he IS a rocket scientist.
I don't want any of you at my table except Maybe Vince - maybe he'd understand it when I swallow a bullet at the table after a bad beat.
Life sometimes gets to be a bit to tedious for some of us at times.
knowing your variance or standard deviation does not help you make money in itself. what it does is show one that a certain streak is in the realms of probability (although it may be at one extreme or another), and not necessarily the norm. For example, if you are making $50 an hour, you can use these numbers to show that you're actual per/hour rate may actually range as widely as -$10 to +110 per hour. That's useful to know. It's also useful to know these numbers so you know what limits you should be able to play comfortably without the risk of going bankrupt.
just indirect tools, which if used correctly could be useful and interesting. kinda like individual baseball stats (avg, home runs, era) etc, don't mean anything because it is the wins/losses that mean something...but the individual stats are useful and interesting.
nt
you're always so controversial rounder.. :)
Wasted thinking not directly related to the goal of making money?
While that's probably the most efficient short term business strategy, its probably not a great long term one.
Your standard deviation coupled with your win rate can be used to compute your bankroll requirement. It should also give you insights into short term fluctuations. But perhaps it's most important attribute is that I believe that it gives you good insights into your card reading ability.
Mason wrote : "But perhaps it's most important attribute is that I believe that it gives you good insights into your card reading ability. "
while I agree that knowing your stdev is useful, I'm not sure I follow you here. How does it give you good insight into your card reading ability? Are you saying that if you have good card reading ability that you will be folding more often when you know you are beat, and thus your stdev will be lower? Is this why your stdev (I believe you stated it was around $280 per hour prorated to a 20/40 game) is so much lower than mine (roughly $350 per hour prorated to a 20/40 game)....and then does that mean if I improve my card reading abilities that I should be able to lower my stdev?
Thanks.
I believe, though I can't say absolutely, that you are roughly correct.
very interesting...thank you...I find that no matter how much I improve and learn that I have much more to improve and learn!
Doc, you are about to get a dissenting opinion here. I do not believe that superior card reading ability is a dominant factor in your standard deviation. I believe the standard deviation is a manifestation of the kind of game you are in. Specifically, a loose/aggressive $20-$40 game will produce a higher standard deviation than a tight/passive one. Games where you are frequently having to pay multiple bets to take a flop with a lot of opponents mean that your upfront investment will go up and you will win fewer pots because of having multiple opponents and your swings will be higher. In addition, you will be paying more on the average to take flops out of your blinds. On the other hand, a tight/passive game should produce a low standard deviation because you will get a lot of free plays from your blinds, you can limp in more and not have to worry as much about getting raised, and you will win more pots but they will be smaller. The loose/aggressive games produce bigger pots and you frequently find yourself in marginal situations where the pot is large but your outs are few and you end up making tough,expensive decisions that produce big swings.
I wonder if all the "theories" are partly correct. I am beginning to see both sides now. Intuitively, the std dev or the variance (not the same thing of course) are simply measures of one's cautiousness. Since neither has a sign, the variance for a big looser could be the same magnitude of a big winner. Just looking at the magnitude tells us only how cautious the bettor is and nothing about his knowledge or lack thereof of reading cards (not in the Kreskin style).
I agree that inherently the 20/40 games near me are more volatile than the ones that Mason plays in. The one's here are regulary 5 way capped pre-flop (well, not always, but its not unusual, and happens at least every couple hours)...the same goes for the 40/80 and 80/160 games, but to a lesser extent. I would think that would be unusual in the 30/60 at the Bellagio....and that would be one reason my stdev is higher than Mason's.
But it is also possible that some of the higher stdev is due to card reading skills that Mason points out.
So, maybe the $70 stdev difference is $50 in the more volatile games and $20 in card reading ability, or something along those lines. It's possible for both "theories" to be true.
Knowing whether or not you are overbetting your bankroll is crucial. Expectation isn't everything.
Let me ask you: Let's say we invent a game where we flip a coin, and if it comes up heads I'll give you 55 cents, and if it comes up tails you give me 45 cents. Clearly, you're taking much the best of it.
Now, you have a $10,000 bankroll, and mine is for all intents and purposes infinite because I'm a casino. I'll take any sized bets you want to make.
So, how much are you going to wager on each flip? Do you think that this question is completely irrelevant? If two players play this game, the one who sizes his bets appropriately using all this Geeky math will be driving a much nicer car than the gut-instinct player.
Knowing your variance does two things: One, by comparing it to other good players' variance, you can have yet another check on whether you read cards well, play too loose, etc. But more importantly, it allows you to play stakes appropriate for your bankroll. Perhaps there is a 10-20 game and a 20-40 game going, both equally soft. Without knowing your variance, you might play in the 20-40 and bust out, or you might play in the 10-20 when you could safely play 20-40, and earn half the income. I'd say that that is important.
Absolutely correct Dan. I agree and here's a small example.
Playing tight agressive consistantly over 3 yrs, I was winning almost $20 hr at 5/10. It was boring but profitable. My variance was X (i forget and the data is home), and I had 70+% winning sessions. I began to play more hands depending on who was in the game. I thought I was doing the right thing under the guise of "varying my image and play". I thought I was doing well. I decided to move up to the 10/20 and 15/30 but decided to try to build a little more bankroll. If I did not track my per hr rate and variance (actually more like the std dev), I would never have realized my how my play deteriorated. The rate dropped to below $12 (over the short run it was minus) and the variance went up like to 1.3 times X.
I reevaluated my play; discussed my play with some friends who are better players and concluded I had to change. This took 3 months of me telling myself I was playing correctly and I was just having one of those loosing streaks. Had I not tracked my data, I might have busted out in a 10/20 and almost for sure in a 15/30 plus my play would have been subpar. The data tell syou a lot. Players with much more experience (like rounder?) may feel they do not need this, but I figure they would be even better if they did track their data.
Computing variance allows you to know if you ARE making money per hour and not just getting lucky. Lack of knowledge about the mathematics of gambling will lead to the making of LESS money.
It sounds like you are doing something wrong - properly computed results should not substantially depend on your time interval. Mason Malmuth has covered this in his books (e.g., _Gambling Theory and Other Topics_).
Your expected squared session fluctuation is proportional to time (hours or number of rounds). If you calculate your hourly fluctation in a session then you have divided by the session fluctation by the session length. You should instead divide the session fluctation by the square-root of the session length. The average of these numbers squared is the estimated hourly variance, and the square-root of the variance is the standard deviation.
It's common knowledge that a pocket pair is an 11.5:10 favorite over 2 overcards. What about 2 players both holding overcards to the pair. For a hypothetical example, say we're playing no-limit, first hand so stacks are even: Player One stacks off with pocket 3's, Player 2 calls with 98s, and Player 3 calls with AKs. Running the board several million times, it seems obvious that Player 2 would lose many more times than 1 and 3, but what are the exact ratios, and what if 2 and 3 were both unsuited? What if players 2 and 3 held eachother's possible straight cards, like 33 vs. JT vs. AK?
Thanks in advance, anonmathgiftedplayer
First, not all pair vs. overcard matchups are 11.5:10. For example, your pair of 3s is probably a slight dog to the 98s, if they are heads-up. I'm not sure of that, but I know that JTs is a slight favorite over 22, so 98s vs. 33 should also be close, whoever is the favorite.
In your 3-way example, the small pair is usually very much dominated when against 2 hands of overcards, when these 2 hands contain 4 different overcards. Now, the chances of all 4 of those missing making a pair becomes pretty small, and when they do miss a pair, straights become more possible. Thus, the 33 in your example will probably win much less than 1/3 of the time, maybe as low as 20% of the time.
AK must be the favorite, but I really am not sure by how much. Maybe somebody with poker probe can run the exact numbers for you.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks Greg,
All of your hunches are the same as mine. I was looking for exact numbers to verify just how much of a dog the small pair was. I've been thinking a lot lately about small pairs and their strength in no limit situations.
3-3 wins 26.8%, 8-9s wins 32.5%, A-Ks wins 40.7%.
Making these hands unsuited doesn't change it tremendously. 3-3 rises to 30.1%, 8-9o drops to 29.6%, and A-Ko drops to 39.8%.
J-10s versus 2-2 is about a 54:46 winner, as it is versus 3-3. The reason that 2-2 and 3-3 are VERY slight favorites over A-Ks (less than 1%) is because they negate some of the low straight potential, whereas that isn't relevant with J-10s.
Notice that as the pair size rises to between 6-6 and 9-9, we get closer to this much-touted 11:10 winner for the pair (actually 52:48), then it drops off again for the pairs on the high side of the straight (10-10, J-J, and Q-Q).
Naturally, the pair you'd really like to have against A-Ks is A-A (88:12). On the other hand, having K-K is "only" a 2:1 favorite over A-Ks.
Hi all,
i got dealt tonight AdKd on the button in a 10 20 Blinds Potlimit HE game.
UTG folds, 1 tight limper, all fold to me ... i raise 90 ... SB calls BB Folds, tight limper reraises POT 300.
I have 800left , tight limper has about 1200 left.
Any comments what you would have done here ?
Thanks
I will post later what happened ... thanks.
Before someone tells you what to do, let me tell you what NOT to do. Do not call and try to hit the flop. A call makes the pot bigger than the amount of money you have left. You are about a 2-1 dog to buy help on the flop, and even if you pair this does not mean you win. The expression I use when teaching pot-limit is, "When you're halfway in your in." You must either raise all-in or throw your hand away. My opinion of what you should actually do here in a cash game against most people is stated in an article I wrote several years ago called, "Walkin' Back To Houston."
Well it is just a sign that you answer first Mr. Ciaffone cause just in the bathtub this aftenoon i studied the HE and Omaha section of your book Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker ( written with Stewart Reuben).
First i have to say that this game was HE and Omaha mixed every round.
And i have to say that a lot of the things you have written helped me tonight.
But after all it came up to the above hand ...
Well i thought about folding or raising and i raised all in 800 ... i was hoping that he might hold something like QQ or JJ or mabe the same Hand.
The SB folded which i liked then the Reraiser did not hesitate to call the 500 more.
OK flop came As J s 4c then we showed down our hands and he showed me AA ... ok of course he won the hand.
But you told the right thing i think a fold would be the superior play but a call the badest play.
Cause what the hell would i have done with this kind of Flop.
I am sure the rest of my money would have gone into the pot anyway.
I just think that the raiser has not played that hand superior cause i was close ... very close to muck my hand.
So i think the better play would be a raise with his hand cause i would not have hesitated very long to reraise than he can smooth call and have me where he wants me to have.
After all i have to excuse a bit for my english ...!!
German Poker Player
Thomas
Bye
"Walkin' Back to Houston" is the nickname some American pot-limit and no-limit players have for AK, with the part humerous/ part serious implication that if you back this hand with all your dough you will get broke. I agree with your analysis that the opponent would have a better chance to bust someone with an initial raise, and you had an opportunity to get away from your hand the way it was actually played.
AKs is a purely drawing hand. You don't wanna jeopardize all or most of your chips on a drawing hand. This is especially true once you factor in the fact that the limper is a tight player. By the way, what was your image, so far, in this game? Had you been stealing hand after hand and therefore perceived as loose and aggressive? Or had you been playing tight and therefore perceived as a rock? Your answers to these two questions will also play a big part in how you should respond to the limper's reraise.
MoJo wrote: "AKs is a purely drawing hand. You don't wanna jeopardize all or most of your chips on a drawing hand."
To the extent that this statement is taken as an absolute, I disagree completely.
If the stacks are very large relative to the blinds, then it may be that most of the time, by the time you get it all in preflop, that the opponent must have at least KK, in which case it was a mistake to get it all in with AK. However, this is frequently not the case, either because you or your opponent are somewhat short-stacked, or because it's a tournament, where everyone is often short-stacked.
The question is, how often must your opponent have AA or KK, vs. the chances that he has a lower pair, and more importantly, a worse non-pair hand? Against some players, I will be glad to get it all in preflop with AKs, because I know that for every time they show me AA or KK, they will more often show me AQ, AJ, KQ, etc. If they show me AK or QQ (or lower pair), then it's close enough to a coin flip that I'm making some money just because of the dead money in the pot from the blinds or early callers who folded. Thus, it boils down to how often they show the dreaded AA/KK vs. the times they show a hand worse than AK. I know some players, especially if their cards have been cold for a while, who will show up with hands as weak as AT in these spots.
In tourneys, it is very often correct to get it all in preflop with AK, because players lose patience and go for it with much worse hands.
It depends, as always. AK is only a drawing hand if the opponent has KK. In a more practical sense, if you're doing ALL the betting preflop, no hand is a drawing hand in any sense that's useful for discussion. It's just a question of how your hand matches up against the various hands that your opponent might hold, given the preflop play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
For live games, how many big blinds on the average stack should there be in order to meet the condition "If the stacks are very large relative to the blinds..."?
The typical money game would be with you having at least 40 times the big blind. The typical late-stage tournament would be with you having 10-20 times the big blind. If you open for a raise this is typically 4 times the big blind. After the opponent's call prior to raising, this puts 12 units in the pot. At this point, if you had raised to 4 and got rraised the pot, you would normally call if this put you all-in, but would normally fold if there were another 24 units left to wager if you called the raise. The reason is your opponent usually has aces or kings for such a raise if he is jeopardizing big extra bucks in a cash game, where he can pick his spots, but may have way less if he is under pressure from the blinds in a tournament situation.
I don't know PL well, but if I were planning on a BIG stack strategy, I'd buy in for 4x the largest stack. You'll be able to push everyone around, and will be able to afford to get lucky a couple of times.
If there's one thing I've learned from my very limited PL experience, big, big, big stacks are the way to go.
- Andrew
Please answer how you would play the following hand in the given situation. . This is not an example of an actual hand that I playeed so I can't tell you any real results. This is an academic exercise. Please do not look at any other responses before answering. Especially if David Sklansky answers. I don't want Oz clouding or complicating the issue. In fact Sklansky if you read this please do not answer until I complete this survey. It's ok to read Masons response if he answers because Mason is not as smart as David and will probably get it wrong anyway. Yes there is a right way and a wrong way to play this hand. That's enough, now please anwer.
Position: BB
Hand: Kd,2d
Situation: Early to middle limper. All fold to you. You check.
Flop: Ad,Kc,6d
How do you play the flop?
How do you play the Turn?
How do you play the river?
Your answers are greatly appreciated because I have a bet with a buddy on this one!
Vince
I'll let El Supremo et al tear me a new one on this. I don't think you can put the limper on a big hand here since he limp opened. I would check call the flop and go for the check raise on the turn whether the flush came in or not.
What's wrong with: 1. betting the flop - re-raise if raised 2. bet the turn 3. if called on the turn, ck & fold river if flush/2nd pr doesn't come
1a. bet the flop (no raise) 2a. ck & call the turn if turn ckd by limper, then - 3a. bet river no matter what comes.
"What's wrong with: 1. betting the flop"
Answer this question and you have the answer to the play of whole hand!
Vince.
Vince,
I'll take my chances of getting ridiculed here.
I would think that with just you and the limper, you would be getting incorrect odds to try and get a flush, add to that the chance that limper most likely has you out kicked with the king or even an ace, and i would check the flop and fold on a bet....depending on how the player played.....
Elie
oh well, reading other posts i see that i am way off.....back to the drwing board
Check raise on the flop in order to induce your opponent to give you a freecard on the turn. If you miss on the turn, check and hope he checks along. If he bets anyway, call. If you hit something on the river (flush, trip Kings, two pair), bet. If you miss on the river, check and fold.
I would play very aggressively until my opponent gave me reason to slow down. You have second pair with the nut flush draw. He may or may not have anything. No matter what he has, I'd say you're a favorite to win this hand.
A bet on the flop will help define his hand. If he raises, you wait for your flush. If he calls, keep the action coming on later streets, flush or no.
GB
I agree with da Buddha...
If the player's the type who'll try and bet me off the pot, I just check-call, raise on the river if the flush comes. Less aggressive player's get raised on the turn.
I bet out on the flop. If I win right there, that's just fine. I don't want to give a free card to a hand like QJ, QT, or JT, all of which are somewhat likely for an early-middle limper.
If raised on the flop, I 3-bet, UNLESS this is a player who I know is quite capable of having limped with AA or KK. If he is, then I just call the raise.
On the turn, I bet out if I improved, or if I made the last bet or raise on the flop. If I made the flush, I do a very light Hollywood, a slight hitch, in my bet, as if I quickly thought "Could he have a flush?", and then thought "No", before betting. I want to give the impression that I'm worried about him having the flush, not that I could have it.
If I only made the last call on the flop, and I don't improve on the turn, I check-and-call.
On the river I check-and-call every time unless I've improved to 2-pair or better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In response to fossil man, I agree for the most part, EXCEPT is is very unlikely that someone would limp in with AA or KK. I think the better way is if the player would limp with A-9 or lower. Most A-Face would not just limp, even if suited. Of course, this depends on the structure. In a low limit game, calling with AA-KK is more likely...
jim wrote: "EXCEPT is is very unlikely that someone would limp in with AA or KK"
This is the advised play by some authors in some games.
I know a good handful of regular players who do this regularly. If they get AA especially, in very early position, they always limp if no one has entered before them.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Obviously, I like my hand. I don't want him to dump his underpair or gutshot so I'll get greedy and play the flop passively against a typically aggressive opponent (but why's he open-limping?). After all, he'll have to bet 3 to win 3 on the flop and turn to knock me off Kx, a 6 or, my most likely hand, nothing at all. Most opponents, IMO, would find it hard to resist taking a shot with nearly any two cards.
Exception 1: if my opponent is pretty agressive and would do something like semibluff raise with an underpair or a gutshot if I bet, then I go for 3-bets.
Exception 2: if my opponent is passive and inclined to take a free card with the scary board, I bet and call if raised.
If I improve on the turn after I check-call the flop I'd bet out if I thought he'd typically raise me (thinking I'm counter-bluffing), otherwise I'd go for a checkraise. I don't mind so much if there's no bet because it increases the chance of him bluffing or calling me on the river.
If the flop has gone to 3 bets I lead no matter what falls (I think. I guess I'd have to see the card).
The river depends too much on the opponent, the board, and the prior action to venture a guess.
I am assuming a low to mid limit game.
I bet the flop 2/3 of the time. Call any raises.
If the turn is a blank, if there are two or more in with me, I will bet 1/2 the time, depending on whether I am looking for a hand, representing a hand, or just playing the odds.
The river has many possibilities, depending on whether I have the nuts, a good hand, an opportunity for a steal, or nothing.
Flop: Bet out to see where I'm at. If I get raised call. Turn: Check raise if I improve, Bet if I don't. If raised call. Nut flush check raise and reraise. River: Bet out if I improve, check and call if not.
I bet the flop. If I am raised, I call.
No matter what falls, I bet again on the turn. If I am raised and I didn't improve, I call. If I did improve, I re-raise.
If my opponent put in the last bet on the turn, I check. If I put in the last bet, I bet. I check-raise with a flush, trips, or better. I check-call with two-pair. Check-fold with no improvement.
If I put in the last bet on the turn, I bet out. If I am raised, I re-raise with a flush or better, call with trips, and fold two-pair.
~DjTj
If I'm playing heads up against a mp limper, I will check the flop and call a bet.
If limper bet I will check the turn and raise the bet, if limper checked I will bet out on the turn and reraise and then call and check the river if I haven't improved. If my flush card comes on the river I will bet out.
If I'm called on the turn I will bet out on the river and fold to a raise unless I improved on the turn or river.
Bet. Bet. Bet.
I'm going to have to say, "It depends". The overriding factor here would be my knowledge of the limper. A lot of these players will have a hand like JTs, 9Ts, KTs, Axs, etc. Complicating factors are that you typically won't get an Ace to fold heads-up, and your King has a bad kicker. However if your opponent is on a complete bluff there isn't a lot of free card danger.
So... I might bet the flop, and if raised check and call all the way to the end, letting my opponent hang himself on a semi-bluff, and saving bets if he has a better hand. Or, I might check the flop, and go for a check-raise on the turn if a scare card lands (typically another broadway card).
Against a loose passive opponent who might check a hand that he would call a bet with, I might just bet the flop, bet the turn if I'm called on the flop, then decide on the river whether to value bet or check depending on how I perceive developments.
Just the way you wnated it, Vinc, no peeking.
It depends on your opponent: If he´s a player who would have raised preflop with any A he plays with, bet out. If raised, call and checkraise the turn. Checkcall the river.
If he´s a weak tight player, checkraise the flop and bet the turn. Checkfold the river.
Just my thoughts
Regaards
M.A.
I haven't read any of the other responses, as per your request. I can only tell you what I'd do on the flop, which is lead out with a bet. After that, I cannot tell you how I'd play the turn or river, since I don't know what my opponent has done with my flop bet. Has he raised me? Has he folded? Has he called? And what about the turn? Did my flush get there? Did I catch a K or a 2?
Sorry, not enough information to go beyond the flop. You should have compiled the most popular answer, given us the other player's play, given us a turn card, and then continued with the survey.
shooter
Check raise the flop, bet the turn whatever card comes. Check and call the river.
D.
I think that I would have to go to a showdown with this. So if I have the worse hand, then I want to limit my loss. However, there is a reasonable chance that I could get my opponent to fold a better hand (K better kicker)
So, on the flop, I would bet, and re-raise if my opponent raised me. If he 4-bets, then I would call. The idea is that he could have riased with any pair, although it is unlikely that he has bottom pair. If he has a K with a better kicker, then I want to give him a reasonable chance to fold on the flop. If he 4-bets, then I am probably behind, but I have at least 12 outs, but I probably have 14. If I knew that I had 14 outs, then I would keep re-raising until I was all-in or he stopped. But we don't know that.
If I make a flush on the turn, the I would bet. I want to maximize my win in this situation. If I go for a check-raise, then I am afraid that my opponent will either check behind me, or fold if I check raise. Betting into him looks like I am making a move on him, and he will probalby call to the end.
If the turn give me 2-pair or 3 kings then I would go for a check-raise.
If the turn is an A, then I bet, and fold if raised. If the turn is a blank, then I will check and call. I would do this regardless of who put in the last raise on the flop.
If the river helps me, then I bet. Otherwise, I would check and call.
Steve
Position: BB
Hand: Kd,2d
Situation: Early to middle limper. All fold to you. You check.
Flop: Ad,Kc,6d
How do you play the flop? Check
How do you play the Turn? Check
How do you play the river? King Me!!!!
Your answers are greatly appreciated because I have a bet with a buddy on this one!
Check raise the flop, bet the turn, if don't improve check and fold on the river.
Vince,
There is no way that there can be a right way and wrong way to play this hand. Surely, it depends on your opponent's tendencies.
I will answer as though I was playing on-line and don't know my opponent from Adam.
Firtsly, you should know that you probably have the best hand and the best draw on the flop. I would tend to bet on this kind of flop against one opponent even if I had something like JT or 33. Thus, in order to provide some cover to my bluffs and semi-bluffs, I would tend to bet in this instance when I think that I have the best hand and the best draw.
The turn play depends so much on what happened on the flop. But generally speaking, I probably would have gone to war with my opponent on the flop with my 14 outer (i.e. if he has just a pair of Aces) so I probably would have got the last lick in on the flop and therefore would fire another bet on the turn even if I failed to improve. Of course, I would also bet if I improved.
On the river, assuming that there had been a lot of action already and I failed to improve, I would generally check and call. Come to think of it, even if my opponent just called the flop and turn, I would probably checkcall the river rather than bet out.
Well, doesn't it have something to do with what cards come on the turn and river and what my opponent does?
On the flop I would bet. What does he do now? What cards come later?
It all depends on the opponent. If he is the kind of opponent that would only raise me with a big ace or better, I would call his raise. Then on the turn if I don't improve, it is a close call between checking and folding or checking and calling. There are 3.25 BB in the pot going into the turn (assuming he raised) and his turn bet makes it 4.25. Hmmmm, I guess I would check and call the turn. It's close though. I suppose I have extra outs if a K or 2 hits on the river.
Obviously if I make my flush I bet out - no sense missing a bet. And I don't want to go for a checkraise because he might be afraid to bet into the flush board. And, he might call me if he thinks I'm trying to bluff.
From here out it's tough. I know players who will raise the flop with QT headsup, hoping that I'll lay my hand down rather than pay 2 more BB.
Are there merits to checking the flop? Or checkraising?
Hmmmmm.
-SmoothB-
Bet the flop
Bet the turn
Check call the river if no improvemnt
Call all raises on any Street.
Vince,
I’m replying because everybody else did and I like polls.
I’ll have to assume typical opponents in the absence of other information. And typical for me would be Los Angeles 15/30 and 20/40 players. In the real world, the way you play would depend on the opponent.
Position: BB -- Hand: Kd,2d - - Situation: Early to middle limper. All fold to you. You check. - - Flop: Ad,Kc,6d - - How do you play the flop?
Probable best hand and best draw for sure. In either case, free cards are not a big problem. I check and raise any bet on the flop. If three bet on the flop then I call.
How do you play the Turn?
If no reraise (or a check behind) by opponent on flop then bet out and call raise if no flush and reraise if flush.
Go for the checkraise if the opponent was the last aggressor and you made the flush. If not check and call.
How do you play the river?
If I was the last aggressor I would bet no matter what and if he was the last aggressor I would check call if I didn’t make the flush and check raise if I did.
Regards, Rick
P.S. Next time, can you make the poll one where you just check mark the preferred answer.
This was actually my question. Vince and I argued how others would answer it. He was right again.
This is not much of an "it depends" question. All high limit players I polled basically agreed.
Two hints: (1) What percentage of the time would most players bet if the K2 checked?
(2) The answer would be less clear cut if the flop was Ad Th 3d and your hand was Td 2d.
David,
My answer to your questions:
(1) almost always - meaning you should check-raise the flop.
(2) if the board was Ad Th 3d and you had Td 2d, free cards are now a much bigger problem, therefore you may want to bet it out.
Puggy
"All high limit players I polled basically agreed"
David,
I am not a high limit player. I am a low limit player. Nowhere in the original post does it assume that this hand is part of a $50/100 game. I was relating it to my experience in games ranging from 3/6 to 6/12. Does this change the correct answer?
How about these questions?
(3) What percentage of the time will your opponent raise with a worse hand if bet into (worse hand meaning a hand that is a dog to be best at the showdown)?
(4) What percentage of the time will your opponent call with a worse hand if bet into?
AT3 is differnt if you have paired the T because giving a free card is more dangerous, and it is more likely that your opponent has made the same pair as you did. The reason for this is that he called pre-flop. There are more calling hands with a T than calling hands with a K. However, I think this is a minor consideratoin compared to the free card.
David has alredy told all of you that we have had a discussion about this hand. David explained the correct way to play the hand and I reluctantly agreed. After giving the hand quite a bit of thought I came to a conclusion. I have not discussed my conclusion with David but have let him know how I feel. I view this hand in a number of ways but have concluded that that the best way to play the hand, David's way, is predicated on the following. If you are ahead you want to get the most money in the pot as possible. If you are behind you want to put the least amount in the pot. If you are ahead you are probably a very big favorite. If you are behind you are probably not much of a dog. If I am correct then how do you accomlish your two sided goal? If you bet and are ahead what is the likelyhood your opponent will call? If you are ahead and you check what is the likelyhood your opponent will bet his dog hand? If you are behind and bet what is the likelhood you will be raised thus putting more money in the pot? These are the fundamental questions one must answer to get this question right and play the hand in the most effective manner. I don't know if David agrees but I am putting my thoughts out for discussion just the same.
Vince.
As the thread appears to have gone rather quiet, I would like to expand on my answer. I chose the strategy of check-raise ( the opponent must surely bet), bet the turn and check fold the river.
If I am beaten and don't improve - I think that if the opponent calls the turn bet, he has a weak ace or a king and will outkick me- the above strategy will cost me 4 small bets. Checking and calling all the way costs me 5 bets and betting, being raised and calling costs me 6 bets. If I am winning, he will probably fold on the turn if I bet the flop and turn. So with my strategy I win 2 bets instead of one.
The one exception is if a Q or J appears on the turn or river. This may induce the opponent to bet the river if I check and I would call.
Is this reasonable?
Limpers are most often on drawing hands. Therefore bet the flop rather than checkraise since giving a free card now is a mistake. If raised, you can call or re-raise depending on your read of the opponent.
Since the limper is probably tied on if he plays past the flop, you can check raise the turn to keep some initiative for the river. The free card is not that big a deal now since you don't mind taking one off either. If you bust, a quick check after your turn check raise might short-circuit the automatic river bluff.
and by far the most important point is this: Your single opponent will bet almost everytime if you check, including many hands that are drawing dead. Given the small pot almost all players will fold these same hands if you bet. Therefore betting out costs you a small bet at least half the time. Those of you who would bet have very serious leaks in your game. Every single good player who I asked agrees with this. From this point on the right play becomes more debatable and depends somewhat on the aggresiveness of your opponnent as well as whether he is capable of folding a hand that beats yours. Still against most players, the right strategy after you check is fairly clearcut.
Am I to understand: (Always) (Usually) ck raise the better (who positionally will 'always' bet) when holding a good drawing hand is best, rather than just betting out on the flop?? This is to 'punish' the positional better who will 'bet almost everytime if you check' - ?? I understand the agressiveness/caliber of the limper is to be taken into consideration.
Well, I consider myself chastized. But that is okay; I knew even before this thread started that I had "serious leaks" in my game. Now the question is whether or not I have gotten any smarter.
So what was my problem thinking that it was a good idea to bet? I thought that there was a good chance that my opponent would raise with a worse hand. Also, I fit this play into a general strategy of trying to steal pots in this type of situation (1 opponent where the flop did not likely hit him). What I failed to see was the better trap play.
Check raising also given my opponent a reasonable opportunity to lay down a K, but it costs less betting then re-raising.
So, why did I miss this one? I can't say that I made a hasty decision at the table, and just chose the more aggressive approach by default; I thought about the problem in the comfort of sitting in front of my computer. Well, it's embarassing, but I must admit that I was assigning too high of a probability to the possibility that my opponent would raise-bluff on the flop.
If this is the case then my "bluff paranoia" is probably costing me quite a bit.
What about the rest of you guys who voted for a bet?
Raise him back
At higher limits the check-raise is arguably correct. Since you are postulating that the checked-to limper will always bet, the check raise is the obvious play. At low limits, it is incorrect for two reasons. One, low limit limpers often check through if given the opportunity. I believe that you will lose many bets by attempting to check-raise limpers in low limit games. Two, success in low limit games is about good players keeping it fun for bad players. Check-raising single opponents is bad for the overall atmosphere and creates unneccessary tightening.
-Marc
Why is everyone assuming I advocate a check raise on the flop?
Because -- ". . .Those of you who would bet have very serious leaks in your game." AND ". . .the right strategy AFTER YOU CHECK is fairly clearcut.
"Your single opponent will bet almost everytime if you check, "
And if he doesn't so what! You have given a free card to someone that you are probably way ahead of and don't want him to fold anyway. If you are ahead on the flop you have a big hand. It is sometimes correct to slow play a big hand. You are trying to induce a bluff or a bet from your opponent who may has a worse hand than you. You also do not want to put money in the pot if you are behind but if you are behind you are not going to fold, especially on the flop where you are getting close to the right price if you are behind. The problem is that you do not know if you are ahead or behind and do not know if you want to bet or not. You have to look at this as a risk vs reward situation. You are risking your equity in the pot if you do not bet and get out drawn by a better hand. At this point what is your equity in a $40 pot (15-30) if you are ahead. If you are behind and bet you now risk another small bet and the possibility of being raised thus having to put more money in when you do not want to. I do not agree with David about check raising the turn as a viable option. Even if your opponent is the type that will lay down a better hand on the turn you still may be better off checking and calling. Your objective the way I see it is to get more money in the pot when you are ahead and less when you are behind. I believe the best way to accomplish that is by cheking and calling the flop and turn. If your opponent checks the turn then betting the river is probably correct.
Vince.
The limper could have anything thus you don't really know what he has but you would have to lean slightly toward the assumption that you are the favorite. The object is to play this hand as cheaply as possible (since you don't know what he has) without giving away a freecard (since there is a decent chance you may have the best hand). Thus you checkraise on the flop in order to accomplish three objectives simultaneously: to semibluff, to gain a freecard on the turn for your draw, and for value. I cite all three of these reasons because you don't really know what he has. If he checks along on the flop, you bet on the turn for value. If he bets on the flop, and reraises after you've check raised him, you put him on an Ace and play your hand as if it's a draw (call the turn regardless and check and fold on the river if you miss). If after you check raise him, he just calls, you may have to bet the turn for value (and just check and call on the river).
Vince - do you fold, if the opponent bets the river and you do not improve?
"Vince - do you fold, if the opponent bets the river and you do not improve? "
No. Call.
Vince
I forget the name of the author and title of the book but I know that 2+2 put out a poker psychology book at about the same time that the Feeney book came out. Perhaps I missed it but I haven't seen any reviews here. Could someone who has read it post a review.
Thanks.
I thought it was ok...but all the material could have been condensed in a 50 page book instead of the book that it was. But, you may want to read the reprinted sections of the book in Poker Digest before you spend the bucks for it.
One thing to keep in mind is that Schoonmaker's book is geared towards an intermediate level player. Feeney's book was geared towards a more advanced player which is the category that you and many other posters on this forum would fall into.
While I highly recommend both books, some of you may find Schoonmaker's Psychology of Poker too elementary in many spots.
skp - I asked a similar question a while ago, either on this forum, or on the other topics. I got several helpful responses. Why not check the archives? Thanks, Tim
x
After having read both Feeney and Schoonmaker's books, I felt Feeney's book is worth the money while Schoonmaker's books is not much useful at all. Save your $20 to buy some other poker book...
I purchased Schoonmaker's book right after Feeney's. Both were very good IMHO. Schoonmaker's book requires you to record and analyze your play and that of others. This helped me a lot; although I am a fairly recent player. My game was elevated quite a bit as a result of these two books. Money well spent. Regards, Dave
Bob Ciaffone has another good article in the latest Cardplayer on the effectiveness of calling (as opposed to raising) in certain situations.
He along with Roy Cooke are easily my 2 favourite autors in CP. Both are extremely witty and offer great advice in their articles.
Yes, this was another excellent article by the Coach. Of particular interest was Reason #4 where he advises against raising with drawing hands when there are players behind you yet to act. I think about a recent post from "scott" regarding some hands and one in particular where he raised a flop bet with KQ suited having a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw when there were other players behind him. In another post about Roy Cooke that I posted, I decided to not 3 bet on the button with Ace-Ten offsuit when Roy opened with a raise from the cutoff. When the big blind called Roy's raise as well, the flop gave Roy an open ended straight draw and a backdoor flush draw. Roy ended up raising me out of the pot only to make his hand and collect from the big blind. Had he just called he would have collected some additional money from me on both the flop, the turn, and possibility the river.
Gambling Theory and Strategy Hold'em
Re: CookeProblemPtB
Posted By: David Sklansky In Response To: Re: CookeProblemPtB (GD)
For the umpteenth time. If an extra bet on the flop may in fact increase your chances of winning a big pot, you are wasting a lot of poker talent trying to decide when the play is not quite worth it. This is especially true because even when it isn't quite worth it, the play might make you money in the future. We are not grading thesis here. We are trying to make you guys money. Don't you guys like money? To make money in bigger games you need to be able to read hands, read thoughts, get people to play badly against you, know when to bluff and call possible bluffs, and know when to raise on fourth st. in holdem or fifth st. in stud. Mathematical fundamentals are of course at least as important but only make you money in smaller games where others don't follow them. I will have more to say on this shortly. For now please stop worrying about saving tiny fractions of small bets except as an intellectual exercise. ( I do agree that Roy's reasoning seems flawed)
I'm still waiting for DS to expound on this...or have I missed the post?
Im sure this topic has been discussed many times before but if someone could just give me some info on the difference in variance between the two games id be very greatful,
Thanks,
Arrash
Very simply: Stud has higher variance than Hold'em.
There is one more betting round and the last card is dealt face-down, which forces you to callt he river in stud when you can often fold in Hold'em.
I personally haven't played a whole lot of poker, but my stats show Std.Dev's of ~13 BB/hr. for Stud and 11 BB/hr. for Hold'em.
I don't know if you want more elaboration than that.
~DjTj
When does a game become unbeatable. Canterbury takes a $4 rake on every game plus jackpots on everything but 15-30. Add a $1 tip and it's $6 per pot. Figuring 30 hands per hour, they're taking $180 per table per hour. Divided by 9 players, that's $20 per hour to play. In order to win 1 big bet per hour, the other 8 players would have to lose an average of $24.50 per hour. In a game where the best hand has to be shown down to win, without the biggest fish in the world, is it worth playing?
If the game is good enough, yes it is worth playing. In Louisiana they rake 10% up to a maximum of $5 and the lower limit games have an additional $1 rake for a jackpot. Despite this, there are players who beat these games over the course of a year.
The other thing is how do they rake small pots? For example, at the Bellagio in the $15-$30 game they rake $1 up to $40, a second $1 at $70, and a third $1 at $100. So a $50 pot only gets raked $1. But if the house rakes 10% up to a maximum of $4 then they could be raking the full $4 on a $50 pot. Is this the way they do it at Canterbury?
They take 10% up to $4 in the smaller games and 5% up to $4 in the 15-30. The games are only 9 handed (like California). Early on there were enough bad players in the 10-20 (now 8-16 w/jackpot) and 15-30 to make up for this. Most of those players have busted out. Most of the good players from out of town have even left. There were some locals that I thought were pretty good and I don't see most of them anymore either.
I must concur with everything Gomez mentioned.
Most of the fish at Canterbury have either busted out or improved as players (I hope I fit into the latter category!)
An upside is that gambling in a casino when you turn 18 is sort of a rite of passage these days. If can get on a table with a few younger players giving it a shot, (love the ones that bring an entourage), you can do pretty good.
About two weeks ago, I was on a 3/6 table with just one of those kids. He drew out on people for about an hour, kept catching cards and went up about 4 racks after a $60 buy in.
He then decided that the best way to play holdem is to never bet, never fold, and always call all the way to the river. He would even laugh as he was calling, saying "I am going to river you!" He coughed up every chip in front of him and also tossed in the $140 he had in his pockets. Alas, during his cold streak, I was even colder, getting unplayable hands so I could not capitalize.
Those opportunities have been fewer and farther between however, and you tend to not see those people come back. In a 2/4 or 3/6 game with relatively tight players, the rake eats you up quick.
Also, the novelty of Minnesota Poker is beginning to wear off. Many nights, there are only one or two 3/6 or 4/8 table going. Many people say table selection is key, but when there are so few tables going on, it's play with the better competition or sit out.
As a result of the rake and the games getting tougher, I reluctantly signed up on Planet Poker. I was very worried about collusion, but so far have not seen any blatant collusion.
I have been playing 5/10 and doing pretty good. I am only up around $250 after 20 hours, but I also saved a ton on the rake, tokes, drinks, transportation etc. Online poker cannot replace live poker for me, but it is working OK so far.
Additional Comments on Poker Expense or "random comments on the various expenses when playing poker at casinos:" Things that bring up the poker expenses -- especially for people who enjoy the game and the social interaction while sitting at the table:
(1) Nine chairs per poker table(holdem & omaha/8):Even though nine active players is probably optimum for holdem and omaha hi-lo; ten players would make a better game because: For various reasons "which should be apparent" -- probably fifty percent of the time the games have less than nine active players. That is: sometimes only seven or eight players or maybe only six players. With 8 active players the collection expense goes up 12.5%; with seven players the expense goes up 28.6%. Assumming an average of 8.1 players per table, this increases the expense about 10% for the players who seldom miss their blinds. A good remedy for this situation would be to have 10 seats per table "some Vegas casinos do this", but it will not happen because it would reduce the expense by about 10% for the average player. (Also there would be less tables in the casino.)
(2)Probable FACT: About 90% of the players "mostly losers" have no idea what they pay in expenses -- these expenses are completely transparent to these losers. These traditional losers have no idea where the money goes "they usually just blame the dealer for their bad luck." Obviously, the very few winners should not complain about this FACT for apparent reasons.
(3) The relatively new Hawaiian Garden Casino is laced with professional propositional players "players paid by the casino to play in short games. These props bet "or risk" their own money. The action "pickings" at this time must be very good because the better props are playing up to 30 or 40 additional "unpaid own-time" hours per week after their regular 40 hour shifts are over. Hollywood Park CA and Hawaiian Gardens casinos also pay professional players "as good will ambassadors" to host certain middle or higher stake games. I just mention these facts because there are many things"unknown to the average player" that casinos must do to maximize the action and profits. For example, casinos must keep the action going, many times a short game might have two or three props in addition to the dealer. For situations like this, the house profit could be severly reduced to zero, $5, $10, or $15 dollars per hour. The important thing for the house is to keep the action continuous....
(Background for this Rock: I live in the LA/Orange counties CA near the relativly new Hawaiian Gardens casino. I have also played poker for over 40 years in the So. CA area. I am not a pro, but I have never been a loser on balance.)
Rock,
You wrote: "With 8 active players the collection expense goes up 12.5%; with seven players the expense goes up 28.6%. Assumming an average of 8.1 players per table, this increases the expense about 10% for the players who seldom miss their blinds."
Are you suggesting that half-hourly time collections increase as the number of active players decrease? If so, could you give an example of a cardroom where this occurs?
You seem to suggest that blind payments increase as the number of active players decrease. This is true. But the blinds (except for "dropped" blinds) go to the pot winner and thus are not player expenses.
If you are saying that rakes rarely exceed their maximums in short-handed games and thus are more costly to the players, then you would have a point. But that doesn't appear to be your premise.
You also wrote: "Probable FACT: About 90% of the players 'mostly losers' have no idea what they pay in expenses -- these expenses are completely transparent to these losers."
It seems like you might be among those players who have difficulty understanding "what they pay in expenses."
You continued: "Obviously, the very few winners should not complain about this FACT for apparent reasons."
First, I thought you stated it was a "probable" FACT.
Second, why shouldn't "the very few winners" complain about unreasonable expenses, such as excessively high rakes in some cardrooms. Perhaps you could list some of the "apparent reasons" why winners shouldn't complain.
Splitting the Hold'em Forum into so many categories is a poor approach. It makes navigation and participation more awkward and finding specific threads difficult. How suttle the difference between 'General Theory' and Hold'em 'General [Theory]'. Must be particularly hard on Schizophrenics.
: Poker Theory, Hold'em, Other Poker Games, Other Gambling Games, Internet Poker, Miscellaneous Topics (other this an' other that..), Tourneys, and Stock Market (aka vanity forum).
Of course, what do I know, I can't even count straight...
Oh yes, and I like it when I go to the Other Topics page and then the page lists itself, at the top, as The Gambling Exchange! Adds nicely to the general disorientation.
z
The place I am playing at takes all the tips and divides them up at the end of the day to all the dealers including table games and poker.
I have decided not to tip at all.
There are a number of truly terrible poker dealers and most of the "good" ones are really just acceptable. I feel that unless the management allows the players to reward the better dealers, there is no point in tipping at all.
Comments?
D.
I would say your theory is solid, but the application might not work out too well.
Once you have tipped someone, the money is no longer yours to control. The person you have tipped should be able to do put the money in a pool to share with other dealers. Such an arrangement is common in restaurants and other places where tips are given. If you think about it, you can probably come up with reasons why pooling tips might improve service. (I can).
You should be aware that dealers depend on tips, just as waiters do, as part of their income. That's the way the system operates, like it or not.
I don't think you will be able to change the system by being stingy with your tips. You will cause some dealers to suffer. If that makes you feel smug or self-righteous, then go for it.
I don't think the quality of dealing will improve by stiffing dealers. I will continue to tip and trust the dealers to do whatever they want (or whatever is the custom of their employment) with their tokes.
Buzz
If it were optional for the dealers to pool their tips that would be another story. The pooling is not a custom but is in fact a problem with the management.
"If that makes you feel smug or self-righteous," Actually I feel kind of bad about it but I can't think of any other logical alternative until management changes the policy, I did inform them of my plan.
D.
I believe most cocktail waitresses pool the tips as well. Some are definitely better than others. But why tip someone for better service when she will just share it with the slower ones?
"If it were optional for the dealers to pool their tips that would be another story. The pooling is not a custom but is in fact a problem with the management"
And exactly how is it that not toking is going to change what management thinks; by keeping extra money in the games so the drop will be higher? If you have a problem wiht management don't play there. By playing in this room you are telling management you like how they are doing things, by not toking you are doing your part to drive away quality dealers.
It is essentially the only game in town.
I do think if enough people objected to the tip pooling the management might change the policy.
If not very many people object then nothing will happen and I will have a higher rate at the same time as doing the correct thing. I will not be wasting my money on pointless tips and those that don't seem to care about the dealing quality will foot the bill for these bad dealers.
D.
Truly a shame you can't find a way to get management to change this innane policy. One tips for service. Just because a person counts on tips for his/her living, doesn't make tipping mandatory - a tip is for SERVICE - good dealing (physical delivery of the cards) pleasant attitude no chit chat (professional demeaner) ability to CORRECTLY read the board/winning hand My list @ The Mirage, of dealers I don't tip, is getting longer and longer - tired of absolutely INEPT dealers with an attitude. (and who socialize with the players in an UNPROFESSIONAL manner) There are dealers there who have BEEN there for more than a year who STILL can't read hands. There are dealers there who should have retired YEARS ago. There are dealers there who deal AT BEST 9-11/hands in 30 minutes.
Management does not monitor the QUALITY of dealing. I tip for GOOD dealing & no talking.
While your theory is understandable I think it is philosophically and morally repugnant. If every poker player adopted your theory than one of two things would eventually happen:
1. Close the poker room because the dealers cannot make enough money to earn a decent living. There are a number of casinos that would like to do this anyway since the poker room and poker players are high maintenance and frequently more bother than they are worth. This would be just another factor in helping the opponents of casino poker get rid of it altogether.
2. Implement a dramatic increase in the rake or collection so that additional money could be collected to pay the dealers a decent wage. Now this would hurt the player who plays tight,aggressive poker since he does not win very many pots his expense is less over the course of a year than someone who plays looser and wins a lot of pots. In addition, when pots are small and there is no showdown many players do not tip in these special situations and I believe most dealers understand this. But if there were no tipping at all then an increased rake would hurt these small pots.
Finally, you must realize that in most casinos the poker room is part of an overall system that is designed for the casino as a whole to operate profitably. In addition, casinos have to operate under the state laws that govern these matters so they do not have the flexibility to make changes.
There is possibility 3) that they will change the rule so that the dealers get to keep the tips instead of dividing it up with misc. blackjack dealers and newbie poker "dealers".
Also I don't think it is a question of morality.
D.
Jim,
Assume your second scenario occurs and cardrooms "increase in the rake or collection so that additional money could be collected to pay the dealers a decent wage."
Can you explain why hurting winning tight players and helping losing loose players "is philosophically and morally repugnant?"
Mark what is morally repugnant is that if a player is not ever tipping the dealer and everyone else is, then basically this player is freeloading off everyone else. The current poker infrastructure with regard to dealers is founded on the generosity of its patrons. If you ever play in a home game where they have a professional dealter, if you don't tip the dealer then you will simply not be invited back.
Now if you want to change the system and have a special collection every half-hour so the dealer can make a decent living than there would be nothing morally repugnant about that. But the good player who plays tight/aggressive poker is better off under the current system since over the course of the year he does not win as many pots as his looser/weaker playing opposition. Therefore, because of his style of play he is not paying as much for tips and rakes as others who play differently.
Jim,
You replied: "Mark what is morally repugnant is that if a player is not ever tipping the dealer and everyone else is, then basically this player is freeloading off everyone else. The current poker infrastructure with regard to dealers is founded on the generosity of its patrons."
First, the current poker infrastructure with regard to dealers allows freeloading to occur. A system that paid dealers a reasonable salary would not.
Second, the current poker infrastructure in David Steele's cardroom essentially forces non-freeloaders to tip unsatisfactory dealers.
Do you not find that current poker infrastructure repugnant?
I understand "the good player who plays tight/aggressive poker is better off under the current system since over the course of the year he does not win as many pots as his looser/weaker playing opposition." But I try not to let my own self-interest unduely shape my moral standards.
Well, Mark a system that "paid dealers a reasonable salary" would involve dramatic increases in the size of the rake or a special collection to cover dealer's salaries. I believe I made this point in a previous post. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this but it is really academic and you and I are not in a postion to change the current system here in America. Especially since in many areas poker is part of an overall casino operation that is governed by local and state gaming laws. But rather than not tipping, an alternative would be to simply not play poker in casinos or public cardrooms. Just play in home games where every player deals for himself.
The current system could be improved upon by allowing dealers to keep their own tips but unfortunately the world of public gaming does not center around the wishes of poker players. I like the current system. I do not like players who never tip. I think these people should simply withdraw from public poker and play in home games.
The comment about "not letting my on own self-interest unduely shape my moral standards" is an innocent distortion and overlooks why many people poker. I play poker because I like to compete and win. For me to fulfill my goals I cannot play in a lot of pots. But other people play poker because they like to gamble. It is no fun for them to play tight and not be able to win a lot of pots. They like to play a lot of hands and enjoy the rewards of winning a lot of pots. The natural consequence of that is for them to pay a lot more in rake and in tips over the course of a year than someone who wins fewer pots. Of course in a collection system, they are only paying more in tips.
Jim,
You wrote: "Well, Mark a system that 'paid dealers a reasonable salary' would involve dramatic increases in the size of the rake or a special collection to cover dealer's salaries. I believe I made this point in a previous post."
Yes, you did make this point. And Jed noted, "Public poker is alive and well in Australia and England where tipping any casino employee is not allowed."
In another post, you also wrote: "I know in the Tournament Of Champions they withheld an extra amount so that they could get the best dealers and did not have to worry about adequate tipping. Maybe that is the best approach for tournaments."
Why would this not also be the best approach for ring games (other than it harming your EV)?
You wrote: "Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this but it is really academic and you and I are not in a postion to change the current system here in America. Especially since in many areas poker is part of an overall casino operation that is governed by local and state gaming laws."
Much the same could have been said about slavery in America many years ago. If David wants to attempt to change the system, I am not going to call his actions "philosophically and morally repugnant." Even if they eventually lower my EV.
You wrote: "The comment about 'not letting my on own self-interest unduely shape my moral standards' is an innocent distortion and overlooks why many people poker."
No, my comment merely pointed out that my moral philosophy isn't really based on hedonism. Just because something benefits me, I don't necessarily consider it to be morally good. And just because something harms me, I don't necessarily consider it to be morally repugnant. Perhaps you don't either. I'm just curious why you find David's actions so morally objectionable.
I thought I answered this question but I will try again. The reason the action is wrong is because he is voluntarily taking part in a public poker system which is based on its dealers receiving tips for adequately supporting themselves. If he does not like this system he can simply not play public poker and play in home games where everyone deals for themselves. But it is totally self-serving to reap the benefits of public poker here in America and not shoulder any of the responsibility. How much to tip and how often is a personal choice but to adopt a policy of never tipping is simply wrong.
But I would like to address some of your other points. The fact that they may have a different system in Australia or someplace else is interesting but not relevant. If someone would like to start a nation wide campaign where the entire system of tipping dealers is eliminated and made over to conform to an Australian system they certainly have that option. One could write the various state gaming commissions and lobby to get this changed. In the meantime they can refuse to play public poker. A similar effort regarding smoking in card rooms has been undertaken by Lee Jones and other poker authorities. In the meantime, Lee Jones refuses to play in card rooms that allow smoking. This is his choice.
Withholding extra money for tips is an option I mentioned in an earlier post and undoubtedly would be undertaken if all poker players stopped tipping altogether. But again this would probably require some external campaigning.
The comparison of tipping or not tipping poker dealers with human slavery is probably not appropriate. The action is wrong not because of its impact on EV. As a matter of fact, not tipping will help his EV and because I tip it lowers my EV. But this is a sacrifice I am willingly make since I voluntarily choose to participate in the public poker system. So I agree that moral philosophy should not be based on hedonism.
Well Jim I guess your argument falls apart because this is not america I am talking about. It is Canada.
Your Lee Jones comparison is silly. He doesn't play in the smoking rooms because he doesn't want to get sick as well as to protest. There is no danger of cancer from not tipping and also as I mentioned it is the only game in town above 4-8.
Jim, if there were good home games to play in I just might play in them. That would be an even better protest.
D.
David my post was responding to Mark Glover's inquiry about why it is wrong to simply never tip. Apparently Mark sees nothing wrong with this. Other posters on this thread apparently feel the same way. If you really think this is an issue about geography I am afraid you are missing the whole point of the discussion Mark and I were having.
I believe the approach Lee Jones has taken in trying to change something he feels is wrong is applicable here. He is trying to eliminate smoking in public cardrooms through external campaigning. In the meantime he simply will not participate in poker games where they allow smoking. His approach to contesting an issue is the correct one.
J: "I thought I answered this question but I will try again."
At least one of us seems to be misreading what the other is writing.
J: "The reason the action is wrong is because he is voluntarily taking part in a public poker system which is based on its dealers receiving tips for adequately supporting themselves."
If I tip less than the average player, are my actions also wrong? Would I also be a freeloader? Would my behavior be "philosophically and morally repugnant?"
If I watch the television show "Law & Order" but decline to purchase the advertised Colgate toothpaste, are my actions wrong? Freeloading? Repugnant?
If I play on my company softball team but do not help organize it, am I shirking? What if they approached me and encouraged me to play?
J: "If he does not like this system he can simply not play public poker and play in home games where everyone deals for themselves."
I think we both know it can be difficult to find home games of acceptable limits going at convenient times. Why should David be forced to restrict his play to these games when most public cardrooms and dealers probably welcome his play (whether he tips or not)?
J: "But it is totally self-serving to reap the benefits of public poker here in America and not shoulder any of the responsibility."
It isn't David's responsibility to ensure the dealers receive adaquate compensation (from salary and/or tips). It is the cardroom's responsibility.
J: "The fact that they may have a different system in Australia or someplace else is interesting but not relevant."
It is relevant, since you contend that "a system that 'paid dealers a reasonable salary' would involve dramatic increases in the size of the rake or a special collection to cover dealer's salaries." England and Australia indicate your assertion is incorrect.
J: "If someone would like to start a nation wide campaign where the entire system of tipping dealers is eliminated and made over to conform to an Australian system they certainly have that option."
Why does the campaign need to be nation-wide? Why not state-wide or province-wide? Why not city-wide? Why not just a single casino?
J: "One could write the various state gaming commissions and lobby to get this changed."
Some gaming commissions require tips to be distributed equally among all dealers, but I'm not aware of any that prohibit a cardroom from paying reasonable salaries to their dealers and forbidding tips.
J: "A similar effort regarding smoking in card rooms has been undertaken by Lee Jones and other poker authorities."
Notice that it didn't require a nation-wide campaign to get smoking banned in California public cardrooms. Nor did it require even a state-wide campaign to get a smoke-free cardroom at the Taj(?). Changes can be made at a very local level.
J: "Withholding extra money for tips is an option I mentioned in an earlier post and undoubtedly would be undertaken if all poker players stopped tipping altogether. But again this would probably require some external campaigning."
It isn't an all-or-nothing situation. If cardrooms want to employ dealers, then they have to ensure the dealers are adaquately compensated from salary and tips. If fewer tips are received, cardrooms will have to increase salaries. This requires a free market--not any external campaigning.
J: "The comparison of tipping or not tipping poker dealers with human slavery is probably not appropriate."
Why not? I didn't claim the importance of this tipping issue is on par with slavery. Nor did I suggest or imply that you were in favor of slavery. I merely said one of your arguments is similar to incorrect arguments once presented to abolitionists many years ago. If you recall, you suggested that "...you and I are not in a postion to change the current system here in America. Especially since in many areas poker is part of an overall casino operation that is governed by local and state gaming laws."
There is a big difference between tipping less than someone else and having a policy of simply never tipping.
The analogy you make with watching television but declining to purchase what is advertised is not valid. Advertisers pay to have their products and services known and they realize that there is no assurance that everyone who watches will buy their product.
The analogy of playing on your company's softball team but not helping to organize it is not valid. You are member of a team and are helping your team to win ball games.
No one is forcing David to do anything and this is not a personal attack on David. This is a discussion about a player who participates in a public poker game and never tips when the system of public poker in America is based on players tipping so that the dealers can make an adequate wage.
Compensation for dealers is not always under the authority of the card room. Many card rooms are located in casinos and are an integral part of that casino and are subject to the laws of the city or state in which they are located that govern casino operations and practices.
The situation in England or Australia does not make my assertion incorrect. I asserted that if there were no dealer tipping then there would have to be higher rakes or collections imposed to adequately compensate dealers. How do you know that the card rooms in England or Australia don't do this?
The reason the effort would have to extend beyond the casino is because the casino in many cases is governed by city, county, and/or state laws. This would have to be researched in each individual case.
If card rooms increase dealer salaries then this increases their cost of doing business. In most cases they would have to increase revenues to offset these increased costs. The most obvious method would be to simply increase the rake or collection. As an aside, you will find that the rake and collection practices among card rooms in a given geographic area are usually quite similar and there is no real competition here.
The fact that similar arguments are made for bad causes as well as good causes does not make the thrust of the argument itself incorrect. If I use a hammer to build a house and someone else uses a hammer to kill someone, that does not mean there is anything wrong with hammers.
J: "There is a big difference between tipping less than someone else and having a policy of simply never tipping."
Isn't it simply a difference of degree rather than a black-and-white issue? If a non-tipper is failing to support your preferred method of dealer compensation, isn't an under-tipper also coming up short in that support?
J: "The analogy you make with watching television but declining to purchase what is advertised is not valid. Advertisers pay to have their products and services known and they realize that there is no assurance that everyone who watches will buy their product."
Dealers voluntarily accept employment in cardrooms realizing full well there is no assurance that everyone who plays will tip.
J: "The analogy of playing on your company's softball team but not helping to organize it is not valid. You are member of a team and are helping your team to win ball games."
Non-tipping poker players are cardroom customers and are helping to get and keep games going (and dealers employed).
J: "This is a discussion about a player who participates in a public poker game and never tips when the system of public poker in America is based on players tipping so that the dealers can make an adequate wage."
Most dealers are being adequately compensated, even when some players do not tip and others under-tip. Otherwise, the underpaid dealers would quit and seek better compensation in other jobs.
J: "Compensation for dealers is not always under the authority of the card room. Many card rooms are located in casinos and are an integral part of that casino and are subject to the laws of the city or state in which they are located that govern casino operations and practices."
Fine. If cardroom managers are not responsible for compensating dealers, then casino managers are. My point was, it isn't the players' responsibility.
I realize there are minimum wage laws. I didn't realize there were maximum wage laws. Could you cite an example?
J: "The situation in England or Australia does not make my assertion incorrect. I asserted that if there were no dealer tipping then there would have to be higher rakes or collections imposed to adequately compensate dealers."
If you re-read your earlier post, you will see that you asserted that "a system that 'paid dealers a reasonable salary' would involve dramatic increases in the size of the rake or a special collection to cover dealer's salaries."
Since England and Australia both have no tipping but well-attended cardrooms, it appears their rakes are not "dramatically" high.
J: "If card rooms increase dealer salaries then this increases their cost of doing business. In most cases they would have to increase revenues to offset these increased costs."
Yes.
J: "The most obvious method would be to simply increase the rake or collection."
Yes. And, as I wrote earlier, I understand that would harm the EV of good players. But just because a policy would make us worse off doesn't necessarily make it "philosophically and morally repugnant."
J: "The fact that similar arguments are made for bad causes as well as good causes does not make the thrust of the argument itself incorrect."
I didn't make any such claim. Earlier, you had suggested that David shouldn't try to change his cardroom tipping system because "...you and I are not in a postion to change the current system here in America. Especially since in many areas poker is part of an overall casino operation that is governed by local and state gaming laws."
Early abolitionists were told that they couldn't change the current system, which also was supported by local and state laws. But slavery in America eventually did fall.
My point was that David just might make a difference, despite your assertion to the contrary.
"Isn't it simply of degree rather than a black and white issue. If a non-tipper is failing to support your preferred method of dealer compensation, isn't an under tipper also coming up short in that support'?
Not necessarily. A local who plays every day may actually tip more over the course of a year than a tourist who may tip more when he plays but he may not play as much. If you assume that the minimum tip would be 50 cents and the player in question either tips the minimum when he wins a pot or does not tip at all then depending upon how many pots the player wins on the average, the dealer is getting a pay cut of something around a $1 per hour if the player never tips.
"Dealers voluntarily accept employment in cardrooms realizing full well there is no assurance that everyone who plays will tip"
True but dealers are given an idea about how much they can expect to make over the course of a year based on a system where most of their income is derived from tips not paid wages. Whenever a player who does not tip at all sits down at a table this ends up being the functional equivalent of a pay cut for the dealer. The more players who adopt this policy, the deeper the cut. Basically a player who never tips is simply victimizing the dealer(s) who has no control over the compensation system.
"Non-tipping players are card room customers and are helping to get and keep games going and dealers employed."
The dealers could not afford to remain employed if none of the players ever tipped.
"Most dealers are being adequately compensated, even when some players do not tip and others under-tip. Otherwise, the underpaid dealers would quit and seek adequate compensation in other jobs"
That is only true because the vast majority of poker players tip despite the presence of a few who do not tip.
"Fine. If cardroom managers are not responsible for compensating dealers, then casino managers are. My point is that it is not the player's responsibility"
Each player has to decide what he thinks his responsibilities are. The player knows that the bulk of a dealer's earnings come from tips just like the bulk of a cocktail waitress's earnings come from tips. The difference is that the cocktail waitress has some leverage by altering their level of service to a player who chooses not to tip. The poker dealer has no effective means of doing this so the dealer is a helpless victim.
"Since England and Australia both have no tipping but well-attended cardrooms, it appears their rakes are not dramatically high"
But this is an unsubstantiated supposition. Perhaps the rakes would be lower if tipping were allowed. There is a private pot limit game in Houston where they rake $28 out of every pot. It is well attended.
"Yes, and, as I wrote earlier, I understand that would harm the EV of good players. But just because a policy would make us worse off doesn't necessarily make it philosophically and morally repugnant"
I agree and I never said it did. What I said was philosophically and morally repugnant was a player who voluntarily plays in a public poker system that is based on customer tipping but who never tips.
A person is free to go out and try to change the current dealer compensation system as it relates to public poker in America. But they should do it at their own expense not at the expense of the hapless poker dealer.
Jim,
I assume you are just being silly now, so I would guess you realize your arguments are becoming even more illogical. On the outside chance you are still serious, I'll try to explain why.
J: "A local who plays every day may actually tip more over the course of a year than a tourist who may tip more when he plays but he may not play as much."
And if I tip 10 cents per pot, my lifetime tips will be a huge amount if I play 2000 hours of poker per year for 40 years. Probably much more than the old lady who takes up poker at the age of 72, plays 3 hours a week, and tips $5 per pot. But who do you think the dealer would prefer to see sitting down in the empty seat at his table? Most dealers are interested in how much they earn per hour rather than how much an individual tips them over the course of a lifetime (or even a single year).
According to your reasoning, anyone who tips less than average is relying on other players to make sure the dealers are adequately compensated. Do you really not see this?
J: "If you assume that the minimum tip would be 50 cents and the player in question either tips the minimum when he wins a pot or does not tip at all then depending upon how many pots the player wins on the average, the dealer is getting a pay cut of something around a $1 per hour if the player never tips."
If the average tip is $1 per pot and an under-tipper only tips 50 cents per pot, then (depending upon how many pots the player wins on the average) the dealer is getting a pay cut of something around $1 per hour. Does this make things any clearer?
M wrote: "Dealers voluntarily accept employment in cardrooms realizing full well there is no assurance that everyone who plays will tip."
J replied: "True but dealers are given an idea about how much they can expect to make over the course of a year based on a system where most of their income is derived from tips not paid wages. Whenever a player who does not tip at all sits down at a table this ends up being the functional equivalent of a pay cut for the dealer."
Dealers have an idea about how much they expect to earn each year based on salary, some players tipping a lot, some players tipping an average amount, some players tipping a little, and some players not tipping at all. Dealers who expect everyone to tip are naive, and their false expectations are not the fault of the poor tippers.
J also replied: "The more players who adopt this policy, the deeper the cut."
No. If many players do not tip or tip poorly, then dealers must reduce their expectations of tip earnings. If the total compensation they expect is less than what they are willing to work for, then they will find a dealing job elsewhere or a new career. If casinos/cardroom managers cannot find enough people willing to deal for the expected amount of compensation, then those managers have the option to increase the salary portion of the dealer compensation. (At least I assume they can. I'm not aware of any maximum wage laws, and you haven't yet cited any.) Isn't the free market wonderful?
J futher replied: "Basically a player who never tips is simply victimizing the dealer(s) who has no control over the compensation system."
But the dealer does have control in this system of compensation. The dealer can ask for a salary raise. The dealer can find a higher paying job elsewhere. The dealer can start a new career. Yes, the free market is wonderful.
M wrote: "Non-tipping players are card room customers and are helping to get and keep games going and dealers employed."
J replied: "The dealers could not afford to remain employed if none of the players ever tipped."
If you understand my above explanations, you now realize why your assertion is incorrect. If no players ever tipped, cardrooms that wanted to employ dealers would increase their salaries. Players don't tip dealers in England and Australia, but dealers remain employed. How do you explain that? Do you think their free markets might have something to do with it?
M wrote: "Most dealers are being adequately compensated, even when some players do not tip and others under-tip. Otherwise, the underpaid dealers would quit and seek adequate compensation in other jobs."
J replied: "That is only true because the vast majority of poker players tip despite the presence of a few who do not tip."
No. That is true regardless of how many poker players tip or do not tip. It is the way the free market works. Think about it for a little while before your next reply.
M wrote: "Fine. If cardroom managers are not responsible for compensating dealers, then casino managers are. My point is that it is not the player's responsibility."
J replied: "The player knows that the bulk of a dealer's earnings come from tips just like the bulk of a cocktail waitress's earnings come from tips. The difference is that the cocktail waitress has some leverage by altering their level of service to a player who chooses not to tip. The poker dealer has no effective means of doing this so the dealer is a helpless victim."
Dealers are helpless victims only they are: (1) gagged and unable to ask their bosses for raises, and (2) chained to the table and unable to seek employment elsewhere. I haven't seen any dealers restricted in this fashion. Could you cite an example? Perhaps this is a common practice in states where those maximum wage laws are on the books.
M wrote (but J omitted): "If you re-read your earlier post, you will see that you asserted that 'a system that "paid dealers a reasonable salary" would involve dramatic increases in the size of the rake or a special collection to cover dealer's salaries.'"
M continued: "Since England and Australia both have no tipping but well-attended cardrooms, it appears their rakes are not dramatically high."
J replied: "But this is an unsubstantiated supposition. Perhaps the rakes would be lower if tipping were allowed."
First, I'm guessing rakes would be lower if tipping was allowed. If they were, that would evidence in support of the idea that a free market was in operation.
Second, notice that it is your original assertion that remains unsubstantiated. Can you cite an example where paying dealers a reasonable salary has resulted in a "dramatic" increase in rakes or collections?
Third, I suspect the rakes in England and Australia are more likely to be "reasonable" rather than "dramatically high." I could be wrong, of course. But I doubt it. I guess it would depend on how one defines "reasonable" and "dramatic."
J: "What I said was philosophically and morally repugnant was a player who voluntarily plays in a public poker system that is based on customer tipping but who never tips."
Yet you are unable to offer a rational basis for this rather strong opinion.
J: "A person is free to go out and try to change the current dealer compensation system as it relates to public poker in America. But they should do it at their own expense not at the expense of the hapless poker dealer."
By now, I think you probably can guess what my reply would be to your "hapless poker dealer" assertion.
I believe I've made a reasonable and coherent case for why David's actions are not "philosophically and morally repugnant." I'm not sure how I can make these explanations any simpler to understand.
If your replies really are serious, Jim, then I think we can agree to disagree. Although I might leave this discussion with less respect for your analytic abilities, I won't call your belief "repugnant."
I don't understand why you think I am being silly at all. I don't understand your assertion that my arguments are illogical. It appears that anyone who does not agree with you nor the validity of your arguments is viewed by you as being silly and irrational.
With regard to the amount of tipping. Dealers understand that there are locals who play regularly and usually on the average tip less than tourists who play infrequently. I don't know of anyone who tips only a dime. The smallest tip is normally a quarter at the low limit games. At the medium limit games tables it is usually a dollar. Normally anything less than a quarter does not play. At some tables, anything less than a dollar does not play. But this argument is about not tipping at all versus tipping something.
"According to your reasoning, anyone who tips less than average is relying on other players to make sure the dealers are adequately compensated. Do you really not see this?"
What I see is that you are trying to evade the central issue which had do to with players who never tip. I never stated any kind of minimum amount was needed to make sure the dealers were adequately compensated. You are now trying to change the issue by creating a new issue wherein some minimum amount is specified. You are setting up your own strawman and knocking it down but this has nothing to do with anything I said.
"But the dealer does have control in this system of compensation. The new dealer can ask for a salary raise. The dealer can find a higher paying job elsewhere. The dealer can start a new career. Yes, the free market is wonderful."
Asking for a salary raise is not the same as receiving one. Saying that the dealer can quit his job or start a new career is not reasonable. Which is easier, for a dealer to find another job or for a non-tipping poker player to find another game?
Your simplistic arguments about the free market are so trite as to be almost cliches. The system is more complex than all that because poker dealers are part of an overall casino operation in many cases and are not independent entities.
"Yet you are unable to offer a rational basis for this rather strong opinion."
A solid rational basis has been offered on numerous posts but you simply don't choose to accept it.
Someone who never tips is not contributing to the dealer compensation system which is based on player tipping just like cocktail waitresses and other types of employees who provide a service. I have pointed out that someone who never tips is simply victimizing a dealer who cannot alter his service the way a cocktail waitress can alter her service when faced with a customer who never tips. Your answer is to simply state that if the dealer does not like it he should simply ask for a pay raise or quit his job. These are hardly reasonable answers to the problem of non-tipping players. You try to change the issue by quibbling about the amount of tipping whether it is a dime, fifty cents, or a dollar and want to elicit some precise response from me which you then could take issue with.
The vast majority of players, including top players, do in fact tip poker dealers. I believe they understand how the system works and the fundamental unfairness of never tipping.
Jim,
You mistakenly wrote: "I don't understand why you think I am being silly at all."
What I actually wrote was: "I assume you are just being silly now . . ." Perhaps you are being silly; perhaps you aren't. From my perspective, it certainly seems like you are. But my assumptions have been wrong before, and they'll be wrong again.
You wrote: "I don't understand your assertion that my arguments are illogical."
I can see that. That is why my respect for your analytic abilities has been diminished. If you look back over this thread with an open mind, you should find many instances where you put forth illogical arguments. Look particularly at those arguments where you ignored my replies. Two of the most obvious examples are where you assert: (1) cardrooms/casinos cannot change dealer compensation because laws/regulations prohibit them, and (2) cardrooms/casinos cannot pay dealers a reasonable salary without a "dramatic" increase in rake/collection.
You wrote: "It appears that anyone who does not agree with you nor the validity of your arguments is viewed by you as being silly and irrational."
I can accept that it appears this way to you. So perhaps you can accept that it appears to me that you are just being silly. Note that just because it appears that way to you, it isn't necessarily so. In fact, it isn't true (but don't let that change your opinion).
You wrote: "With regard to the amount of tipping. Dealers understand that there are locals who play regularly and usually on the average tip less than tourists who play infrequently."
I understand that, too. So what? Are you suggesting a dealer would prefer to see a low-tipping local regular sit at the table rather than a high-tipping tourist? Go ahead and ignore this question as well, but I hope you are starting to get a small understanding of what I mean about your illogical arguments.
You wrote: "I don't know of anyone who tips only a dime."
Neither do I. So what? I was using an extreme example to make a point. You chose to focus on the extremeness and to ignore the point. What a surprise!
You wrote: "The smallest tip is normally a quarter at the low limit games."
Fine. If it makes you happier or makes it simpler for you to understand, then let's go back to my scenario and replace the dime with a quarter. Remember that you previously had written, "A local who plays every day may actually tip more over the course of a year than a tourist who may tip more when he plays but he may not play as much."
And if I tip a QUARTER per pot, my lifetime tips will be a huge amount if I play 2000 hours of poker per year for 40 years. Probably much more than the old lady who takes up poker at the age of 72, plays 3 hours a week, and tips $5 per pot. But who do you think the dealer would prefer to see sitting down in the empty seat at his table? Most dealers are interested in how much they earn per hour rather than how much an individual tips them over the course of a lifetime (or even a single year).
Jim, feel free to replace QUARTER with HALF DOLLAR or DOLLAR if you wish. Also, feel free to address my point if you wish.
You wrote: "Normally anything less than a quarter does not play. At some tables, anything less than a dollar does not play."
As far as tipping is concerned, dimes, nickels, and pennies certainly do "play." Can you give an example of a cardroom that prohibits players from tipping dimes? Perhaps in that mystical land where maximum wage laws exist and dealers are chained to their tables. Of course, it might not be worth the dealer's time to pick up a single dime. But if I tossed over a hundred dimes, I'm guessing most dealers would be appreciative.
If you are talking about the minimum coinage/bills that players can toss into the pot, then my question is: so what? We are talking about tipping, or at least one of us is.
You wrote: "But this argument is about not tipping at all versus tipping something."
You would prefer that this discussion be only about not tipping at all versus tipping something. You find non-tippers to be "philosophically and morally repugnant" because they fail to adequately support dealers in the current compensation system. I explained why your argument also makes below-average tippers guilty of inadequately supporting those same dealers.
I don't believe non-tippers are "repugnant." You do. I don't believe low-tippers are wrong either. You appear to want to avoid criticizing the low-tippers. But, logically, you should (although I realize you have trouble understanding the logic of this).
Earlier, I wrote: "According to your reasoning, anyone who tips less than average is relying on other players to make sure the dealers are adequately compensated. Do you really not see this?"
You responded: "What I see is that you are trying to evade the central issue which had do to with players who never tip."
I repeatedly dealt with the issue of players who never tipped when I discussed how free markets work. I merely demonstrated a flaw in your criticism of non-tippers by pointing out that, logically, you also should be critical of under-tippers as well. You seem to prefer to ignore this issue, but that is okay.
You wrote: "I never stated any kind of minimum amount was needed to make sure the dealers were adequately compensated."
I never claimed you did. Obviously, the amount of compensation that is adequate will differ across dealers (who have their own individual utility functions).
You wrote: "You are now trying to change the issue by creating a new issue wherein some minimum amount is specified."
No, I'm not. Can you cite an example that supports this ridiculous assertion? I didn't think so.
You wrote: "You are setting up your own strawman and knocking it down but this has nothing to do with anything I said."
No, you are the one who is setting up a strawman. I repeatedly offer direct quotations from you, which I refute. Would you extend me the same courtesy and present a quotation that supports your claim?
Earlier, I wrote: "But the dealer does have control in this system of compensation. The new dealer can ask for a salary raise. The dealer can find a higher paying job elsewhere. The dealer can start a new career. Yes, the free market is wonderful."
You replied: "Asking for a salary raise is not the same as receiving one. Saying that the dealer can quit his job or start a new career is not reasonable."
If a dealer fails to get a salary raise that is needed for adequate compensation, then saying the dealer should get a different job is very reasonable. It is the basis of a free market economy. Feel free to disagree, but it would be nice if you could offer some reasons to support your opinions.
You wrote: "Which is easier, for a dealer to find another job or for a non-tipping poker player to find another game?"
I don't know. Perhaps you could explain why it matters, from a philosophical and moral perspective. Nobody promised the free market would be free of pain. In fact, business failures and job turnovers are an integral part of the system.
You wrote: "Your simplistic arguments about the free market are so trite as to be almost cliches."
I've tried to keep my arguments simple so that you could understand them. I seem to have failed in that regard. Perhaps you could explain why you believe there is a "market failure" in the casino industry labor force?
You wrote: "The system is more complex than all that because poker dealers are part of an overall casino operation in many cases and are not independent entities."
Huh? We, er, I'm not talking about video poker machines here. I'm talking about live poker dealers . . . human dealers . . . independent entities. You seem to be talking about dealers who are chained to tables, although you haven't managed to cite any casinos where this situation exists.
You wrote: "Someone who never tips is not contributing to the dealer compensation system which is based on player tipping just like cocktail waitresses and other types of employees who provide a service."
First, players who never tip are contributing to the dealer compensation system, because they start games and keep games going which otherwise would not exist (and, therefore, provide jobs for dealers).
Second, using your logic, someone who under-tips is not fairly contributing to the dealer compensation system.
Third, the dealer compensation system is based on the reality that some players will not tip at all and others will tip less than average.
Fourth, if the number of non- and low-tippers increases and an individual dealer decides his total compensation is now inadequate, then that dealer can ask for a raise and, if refused, can seek employment elsewhere. Unless he is chained to a table.
You wrote: "I have pointed out that someone who never tips is simply victimizing a dealer who cannot alter his service the way a cocktail waitress can alter her service when faced with a customer who never tips."
You have an odd view of victimization. After the automobile began to be mass produced, the demand for buggy whips declined. Factories closed. People lost jobs. Did the past customers who no longer bought whips victimize the factory owners and employees? Did anyone prevent the factory owners from starting new businesses or the former employees from seeking new jobs?
You wrote: "Your answer is to simply state that if the dealer does not like it he should simply ask for a pay raise or quit his job. These are hardly reasonable answers to the problem of non-tipping players."
I did say that those dealers who no longer felt they were adequately compensated did have the option of asking for a raise or changing jobs, as per the operation of a free market. You don't believe these are reasonable options. I do. We can agree to disagree.
You wrote: "You try to change the issue by quibbling about the amount of tipping whether it is a dime, fifty cents, or a dollar and want to elicit some precise response from me which you then could take issue with."
No. I merely pointed out that a logical extension of your argument is that low-tippers also are committing wrongs against the dealers. You don't understand why this logically follows. That's okay.
"I don't understand why you think I am being silly at all" versus "I assume you are just being silly now" sure sounds like the same thing to me. I believe it would sound the same to most anybody. There is no real mistake in meaning here.
Your arguments about dealers quitting their jobs or switching occupations altogether are far fetched and basically unrealistic. My argument about a player who does not feel that he should tip in a public poker system based on tipping and that this player has options like playing in home games or playing internet poker where tipping is not necessary are realistic. He would not even have to move to Australia or England where, as one poster remarked, tipping is not allowed.
Your arguments about tipping nickels and dimes and the whole discussion about tipping some minimum amount versus some other amount are totally irrelevant to the central issue of someone never tipping at all. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to create ancillary issues to debate. I refuse to respond to these contrived issues since it relieves you of the responsibility of dealing with the main issue. One has only to read your latest post to see this like where you state: "I merely demonstrated a flaw in your criticism of non-tippers by pointing out that, logically, you should also be critical of under-tippers as well". This fatuous statement ignores the simple fact that no minimum has ever been specified. It is therefore illogical to assume that anyone should be critical of something that has not been defined (i.e.- "under-tipping"). Since you are the one who is contriving this new issue I would submit that it is your responsibility to define what you mean by under-tipping before you start ascribing it to me.
The issue in not the free market system or the merits of the current dealer compensation system for public poker in America. The issue is much simpler than that. Given that the system operates the way it does, how should a player who does not want to tip poker dealers respond? The morally correct thing is to simply not participate. Don't play poker under that system. If you don't want to tip cocktail waitresses when they bring you your drinks then simply get your own drinks. It is no more complicated than that to virtually all of the poker players I have talked to at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and in Lake Charles, Louisiana at the Isle of Capri.
Jim,
You wrote: "Your arguments about dealers quitting their jobs or switching occupations altogether are far fetched and basically unrealistic."
Why? It really is possible, and dealers do it all the time. It is the free market in opertation. Why do you find this so hard to believe? Do you realize how illogical you appear when you make these kinds of statements?
You wrote: "Your arguments about tipping nickels and dimes and the whole discussion about tipping some minimum amount versus some other amount are totally irrelevant to the central issue of someone never tipping at all."
No. Your argument about nickels and dimes not being allowed to "play" in the pot was totally irrelevant to the issue of tipping. What logic did you see in your argument?
And your argument that below-average-tipping locals end up tipping more money in the course of a year than high-tipping tourists also was totally irrelevant to the issue. So what if someone tips more in a year? It is the amount of tips received per hour of work that is relevant to dealers and this discussion. My counter-argument about the player who tipped dimes (or quarters or half dollars or dollars) many times during her life merely demonstrated that your argument was irrelevant. You have ignored this point. That's okay. You don't have to respond. But your assertion that my counter-example is irrelevant continues to expose your illogical thinking.
You wrote: "I refuse to respond to these contrived issues since it relieves you of the responsibility of dealing with the main issue."
You responded to these issues before, but in an illogical fashion. Perhaps you refuse to respond now because you can think of no logical argument.
You wrote: "One has only to read your latest post to see this like where you state: 'I merely demonstrated a flaw in your criticism of non-tippers by pointing out that, logically, you should also be critical of under-tippers as well'."
You don't like non-tippers playing in games where dealer compensation depends, in part, on player tips. The crux of your argument is that this either: (1) forces other players to make up the difference by tipping more (i.e., the non-tipper is freeloading), and/or (2) victimizes the helpless dealers who now fail to receive adequate compensation and have no control over the situation.
My above statement points out that if you believe non-tippers are freeloaders, then those players who tip less than average also are coming up short in seeing that the dealers are adequately compensated. These below-average tippers (i.e., "under-tippers" or "low-tippers") also force other players to make up the difference by tipping more. As I pointed out earlier, they don't do this to the same degree as non-tippers, but their behavior is still "wrong" based on your moral standards.
You prefer to view this as a black-and-white issue: tipping nothing versus tipping something. I don't know why you see this in black-and-white. I suppose one possibility is that your tips might be below average. Perhaps you, for years, have been angry at the non-tippers who play at your table, maybe even berating their behavior occasionally. Perhaps you never really understood the basis for your anger--just felt what they were doing was "philosophically and morally repugnant." Perhaps now, when challenged to logically explain the basis of your opinion, you developed the "freeloader" argument. But when someone demonstrates that the logical consequences of this argument indicates that below-average tipping also is morally wrong, perhaps you were placed in a quandary. Perhaps you know that you are a moral person even though your tips are perhaps below average. But if this is so, then how can you climb on your high horse and criticize the behavior of non-tippers? Oh, my. Perhaps this isn't so. It probably isn't so. Like I said, I really don't know why you see the tipping issue in black-and-white.
You said: "This fatuous statement ignores the simple fact that no minimum has ever been specified."
First, calling my statement "fatuous" doesn't make it stupid. But it does tend to show you do not understand the relatively simple point I made.
Second, I did specify a minimum. In an earlier post, I explained that players who tipped below average were guilty (to a lesser extent) of the same immoral behavior that you attribute to non-tippers. In later posts, I used the short-hand phrases "under-tippers" and "low-tippers" in place of "below-average tippers." I apologize if that confused you. In this post, I've tried to consistently use "below-average tippers" in an attempt to keep things simpler, hoping you might have a change to understand.
You wrote: "The issue in not the free market system or the merits of the current dealer compensation system for public poker in America."
My descriptions about free markets address the second plank of the unstable platform supporting your argument that non-tipping is repugnant. That is, your assertion that a non-tipper "victimizes the helpless dealers who now fail to receive adequate compensation and have no control over the situation."
I explained why dealers are not helpless and do indeed have control over their situation. First, inadequately compensated dealers could ask for raises. Second, they could seek employment elsewhere.
You claimed state/local laws/regulations restrict dealer compensation. I explained that there were MINIMUM wage laws, but I knew of no MAXIMUM wage laws. When I asked you to cite an example of a maximum wage law, you dropped this argument. Wisely so, since it made you seem rather illogical.
You also claimed that dealers were not always "independent entities." I explained that we weren't talking about poker video machines but rather about human poker dealers who were, in fact, independent entities. When I asked you to explain your rather bizarre assertion, you dropped this argument. Wisely so, since it made you seem very illogical.
You claimed that my free market explanations were too simple and that this economic system is rather complex. I asked you to show why that complexity prevented dealers from seeking alternative employment--what "market failure" exists in the casino labor force that results in this alleged restriction. You've dropped this line of "reasoning." Wisely so, since it was absurd.
You claimed that if dealers got raises, then rakes would increase. I agreed. But you also claimed that if there was no tipping at all, rakes would "dramatically" increase. I asked if you had any examples to support this assertion, and I pointed out that poker appears to be alive and well in England and Australia, where no tipping is permitted. So far, you've provided no evidence to support your claim, and I doubt you will (unless you come up with a definition of "dramatic" that is as odd as your definition of "victimization").
You wrote: "Given that the system operates the way it does, how should a player who does not want to tip poker dealers respond? The morally correct thing is to simply not participate."
I might agree with you if: (1) you applied that morally correct thing to all below-average tippers, and (2) dealers were chained to their tables and incapable of seeking employment elsewhere.
You wrote: "Don't play poker under that system."
If you, Jim, are a non-tipper or a below-average tipper, then I suppose you shouldn't play poker under that system, since it violates your moral standards. Those non-tippers and below-average tippers with different moral standards might want to continue playing and feel good about doing so (since they will start and keep games going that result in more dealers being employed with adequate compensation--assuming the free market works in casinos).
I hope this has helped clarify the issues for you. If it hasn't, then I apologize since I'm running out of ways to make my explanations simpler.
If you want to continue believing that non-tipping is repugant, that's okay. Perhaps my explanations have shown you, at least a little, why others might see non-tipping as acceptable behavior. Perhaps you will find it a little easier to tolerate this alternative behavior. Perhaps not.
You are turning this into some kind of personal attack. Your suppositions about how much I tip are not relevant to the discussions. I have asked you to simply define your terms for the purposes of carrying on a rational discussion. What is average tipping? What is under-tipping? Is there such a thing as over-tipping? I have never made an issue about how much someone should tip but you are apparently trying to make an issue out of it.
You seem to equate someone quitting their job with someone simply finding another poker game. These two actions are not at all comparable in the minds of most people.
Not that it will matter to you, but for the purposes of anyone else who is still following this discussion you might find the following facts of interest:
1. I use to play in two big private games in Houston where they hired a couple of professional dealers to deal the game. This was done to speed up the game and minimize any mistakes that might be made if players dealt for themselves. Very rarely, they would get a player who would not tip. In Kathy Turino's game she would just make a mental note to not invite the player back next time. When this happened in Gene Timberlake's game he would simply talk to the player in private. He explained that the dealer made his money off tips and that tipping when you won a pot was customary. If the player refused to tip then Gene would simply tell him to cash in his chips and leave the game. The other players in these games supported this.
2. When I played in Lake Charles we had one regular player who never tipped the dealer when he won a pot. He was disliked not just by the dealers but by the other players as well. One of the more prominent local players, who won more money than anyone else in that game, tried to discuss it with him privately.
3. I am a regular at the Bellagio poker room which is one of the premier poker rooms in the country and I know of no one who never tips. There may be some dealers that a particular player dislikes so he won't tip that particular dealer but that is a special case.
My point in all of this is that the vast majority of poker players at all levels of ability have an innate sense of fairness and believe it is wrong to play and never tip the dealer. I am sorry that you do not understand why this is so. While you may be sincere in your motives some of the others who agree with you like Poker Veteran are very upfront about their motives. Poker Veteran states that he does not tip because other players, who he views with disdain, do tip and support the system giving him a free ride. He is proud of what he does.
Jim,
You wrote: "You are turning this into some kind of personal attack."
I have questioned the logic of some of your arguments. I do this in most discussions when I come across arguments that appear to be flawed. Nothing personal. Note that I did not call you or your arguments "fatuous."
You wrote: "Your suppositions about how much I tip are not relevant to the discussions."
I did not claim to know how much you tipped or why you prefer to look at this tipping issue in black-and-white. In fact, I specifically said that I do not know.
You wrote: "I have asked you to simply define your terms for the purposes of carrying on a rational discussion. What is average tipping? What is under-tipping? Is there such a thing as over-tipping?"
And I thought I did simply define those terms. Apparently, my definition wasn't simple enough. For any given dealer in any given year, an average tip is equal to the total amount that dealer received that year divided by the total number of tips that dealer received that year. For example, if dealer Ann received $23,498.28 from 30,126 tips in 1999, then her average tip would be $0.78. Under-tipping would be below-average tipping, as I tried to explain in my previous post. In our example, any 1999 tip to Ann that was $0.77 or less would have been an under-tip. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as over-tipping, but there is above-average tipping (or "high-tipping"). In our example, any 1999 tip to Ann that was $0.79 or more would have been an above-average tip. I hope this is simple enough for you to understand now.
You wrote: "I have never made an issue about how much someone should tip but you are apparently trying to make an issue out of it."
"While your theory [about non-tipping] is understandable I think it is philosophically and morally repugnant." (Jim Brier, 27 August 2000 at 11:54 a.m.)
"If you want to continue believing that non-tipping is repugant, that's okay. Perhaps my explanations have shown you, at least a little, why others might see non-tipping as acceptable behavior." (Mark Glover, 4 September 2000 at 11:08 a.m.)
You wrote: "You seem to equate someone quitting their job with someone simply finding another poker game."
No, I don't. Once again, you try to put words in my mouth. Once again, I would ask you to offer a quotation to support your allegation. Once again, you probably will ignore my request.
" I have questioned the logic of your arguments. I do this when I come across arguments that appear to be flawed. Nothing personal. Note that I did not call your arguments fatuous."
But on Monday, 4 Sept 2000, 11:08 a.m. Mark Glover wrote:
"I suppose one possibility is that your tips might be below average. Perhaps you, for years, have been angry at the non-tippers who play at your table, maybe berating their behavior occasionally. Perhaps you never really understood the basis for your anger..."
These are personal attacks based on unfounded suppositions. This is not questioning the logic of an argument. You will note that I used the word "fatuous" to describe your arguments not you personally.
Now in using your example, how is the player supposed to know that Ann's average tip is $0.78? What about the average tips for all the other dealers? Is every poker player supposed to know what the average tip is for every poker dealer so that he can determine whether or not he is under-tipping? What about the case where Ann gets under-tipped by Player A because Player A only wins small pots when Ann happens to be dealing but Player A tips another dealer, say Fred, more than Fred's mathematically derived average tip because Player A happens to win a few big pots when Fred was dealing? Is "under-tipping" one dealer but "over-tipping" another mean that Player A is "under-tipping"? Again what do you mean by "under-tipping"? While it is theoretically possible for a player to be under-tipping, he would never know. Of course if a player does not tip at all he knows full well what he is doing.
You have argued repeatedly in your posts that since this is a free enterprise system, dealers can quit their jobs if they don't feel they are getting adequately compensated. The implication is that if some players never tip and this happens to result in lower compensation for poker dealers they can simply ask for a raise or find other employment. Do I really need to dig out the specific posts for you? However, when I brought up another alternative which is for players who choose to never tip to simply find other games, you merely shrug that off and state that it might be a hardship. Again to you want me to provide you with the specific post where you mention this?
Your posts have shown me why you believe non-tipping might be acceptable behavior. But the believe that non-tipping is acceptable behavior is not shared by the vast majority of poker players and people who are in the poker business. I have tried to explain why.
Jim,
You noted that I earlier wrote: "I suppose one possibility is that your tips might be below average. Perhaps you, for years, have been angry at the non-tippers who play at your table, maybe berating their behavior occasionally. Perhaps you never really understood the basis for your anger..."
Of course, part of what you omitted was: ". . . Perhaps this isn't so. It probably isn't so. Like I said, I really don't know why you see the tipping issue in black-and-white."
You claim: "These are personal attacks based on unfounded suppositions."
I'm not saying you felt or did any of these not-so-awful things. In fact, I specifically said you probably didn't. I merely offered one POSSIBLE scenario that PERHAPS MIGHT explain your rather odd black-and-white view of tipping. I apologize if that offended you.
You wrote: "This is not questioning the logic of an argument."
You're right. I was wondering what might be the cause of your illogical arguments.
You wrote: "You will note that I used the word "fatuous" to describe your arguments not you personally."
Since I developed and presented the argument you incorrectly labeled "fatuous," people could reasonably infer that your description also applied to me personally.
You wrote: "Now in using your example, how is the player supposed to know that Ann's average tip is $0.78?"
People don't have to know whether they are below-average tippers for them to come up short in their support of a dealer's total compensation.
Earlier, you wrote: "You seem to equate someone quitting their job with someone simply finding another poker game."
I replied, "No, I don't. Once again, you try to put words in my mouth. Once again, I would ask you to offer a quotation to support your allegation. Once again, you probably will ignore my request."
Of course you don't have to do anything just because I ask. But you accused me of saying something that I never said. If you do this without being willing to support your assertion or being willing to apologize, many people would consider this to be rude.
Apology accepted. Now I get to apologize for using the term "fatuous" that might cause someone to incorrectly infer anything about you.
"I was wondering what might be the cause of your illogical arguments."
Our extensive debate on this subject has prompted me to discuss this issue with other players and people in the poker business. I can only say that they see the logic of my arguments and the overwhelming majority of those I have talked to share my sentiments. Apparently I have failed to communicate effectively to you and perhaps someone else could do a better job.
"People don't have to know whether they are below average tippers for them to come up short in their support of dealers compensation."
But then how is it known that any "under-tipping" exists? What proof can be offered to show that there is such a thing as "under-tipping"?
I did write: "You seem to equate someone quitting their job with finding another poker game."
Mark Glover wrote: "But you accuse me of saying something I never said"
Not true at all. I never have accused you of saying this specifically. This is a reasonable inference most of us who have read your posts on this subject make. I know because I have printed out and shared your posts with others who come to the same conclusion. Since I have never stated that you said this specifically, no apology is necessary.
The fact that you fail to grasp the logic of my arguments does not make them illogical. I know for a fact that many others do see the logic and share my sentiments.
Jim,
Earlier, I wrote: "People don't have to know whether they are below average tippers for them to come up short in their support of dealers compensation."
You replied: "But then how is it known that any 'under-tipping' exists? What proof can be offered to show that there is such a thing as 'under-tipping'?"
It is theoretically possible that everyone, on average, tips exactly the same amount (i.e., the "average tip"). Obviously, this is extremely unlikely. And your asking for proof merely shows how desperate you have become. If we assume everyone tips exactly average, however, then there would be no non-tippers (unless everyone were non-tippers), and you would have no need to feel your moral repugnance.
To make things easier for you to understand, your argument (i.e., non-tipping is wrong because it is freeloading) logically can be extended (at least from a moral perspective) to people who believe they are tipping below the average amount. And I, for one, believe I'm a below-average tipper. Do you feel my actions are "philosophically and morally repugant?"
Earlier, you wrote: "You seem to equate someone quitting their job with finding another poker game."
I replied: "No, I don't. Once again, you try to put words in my mouth. Once again, I would ask you to offer a quotation to support your allegation. Once again, you probably will ignore my request."
I added: "Of course you don't have to do anything just because I ask. But you accused me of saying something that I never said. If you do this without being willing to support your assertion or being willing to apologize, many people would consider this to be rude."
You replied: "This is a reasonable inference most of us who have read your posts on this subject make."
The only comment I made on this comparison was when I responded to your question, "Which is easier, for a dealer to find another job or for a non-tipping poker player to find another game?" My reply was, "I don't know. Perhaps you could explain why it matters, from a philosophical and moral perspective." In what way does that seem like I "equate someone quitting their job with finding another poker game."
You also replied: "I never have accused you of saying this specifically. . . . Since I have never stated that you said this specifically, no apology is necessary."
So, as long as you don't directly quote someone, you seem to feel it is okay to falsely attribute comments to them, refuse to support your erroneous accusations, and refuse to apologize.
Not only have your analytic abilities diminished in my view, so has your credibility.
Mark in the future do me a HUGE favor. Do not respond to any of my posts and I will not respond to any of yours. I am not the least bit interested in anything you have to say about anything. You believe what you like. As far as I am concerned you no longer exist.
Jim,
You wrote: "Mark in the future do me a HUGE favor."
Your behavior in this thread does nothing to make me want to do you a small favor, much less a HUGE one.
You wrote: "Do not respond to any of my posts and I will not respond to any of yours."
If I believe I have something to contribute to one of your posts, I will feel free to do so. Please feel free to do the same with mine.
You wrote: "I am not the least bit interested in anything you have to say about anything."
That's a shame. If you actually read my posts with an open mind, you might be surprised what you could learn.
You wrote: "You believe what you like."
I will. And, as I said many posts ago, we probably can agree to disagree.
You wrote: "As far as I am concerned you no longer exist."
Fortunately, I don't live for your acknowledgment or approval.
(n/t)
I'm crushed. Absolutely crushed. ;-)
I am constantly amazed at otherwise intelligent people that worry more about the dealers welfare than their own.
Intelligent people don't tip. Ask Ray Zee, Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, David Sklasnky, Mason Malmuth...the list goes on and on.
If you think it's your job to pay the dealers salaries then go right ahead. But to call someone a freeloader because they don't tip is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
I have played with Mason Malmuth at the table and he tips. I don't know about what these other players do since I don't play in their games. I know in the Tournament Of Champions they withheld an extra amount so that they could get the best dealers and did not have to worry about adequate tipping. Maybe that is the best approach for tournaments.
I regularly play in the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio which by national standards is good sized game and it is populated with some excellent players. Every top player I know (e.g.- Roy Cooke, Cissy Bottoms, Ben Williams,etc.) tips the dealer. While I have heard that there are some top players who don't tip, I believe they are in the minority.
Yes but the dealers keep the tips there. I am an excellent tipper also when I am allowed to tip.
D.
David I know you started this thread but my posts under Mark Glover,Jimmy R, and Jed are not meant as an attack on you personally. I am attacking the idea that it is okay to never tip poker dealers. If it comes across like I am attacking you specifically than I apologize since that is not what I meant to do.
I wasn't feeling attacked, but I did think you were continuing the argument for my special case as well.
I do agree with you that in normal places some tipping is correct.
D.
I stopped tipping completely. Dealers, floor personel, cashiers and chip runners.
I am now a free man.
I feel great about it too.
Jed, that is awful. If everyone did what you did there would be no more public poker.
Jed, that is awful. If everyone did what you did there would be no more public poker.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Public poker is alive and well in Australia and England where tipping any casino employee is not allowed.
Jed,
Obviously the situation you describe does not apply to this thread.
I would think that the wages of the people working in the casinos you mentioned are increased as compared to the wages for employees in US Casinos.
I do not consider tipping a 'gift' or a tax. I willingly tip dealers, cocktail waitresses, chip runners, and sometimes floor people. However, I do not do this out of the goodness of my heart and I do not tip extravagantly.
As a former bartender, I know pretty well what you get for your money when you tip. I can remember many times where I gave much better and faster to service to people who tipped fairly than to people who stiffed me.
It's not like I didn't serve the stiffers, but they tended to wait a long time until I finished serving paying customers before they got any attention at all. On a really busy night, Mr. Cheap asking for immediate service and extra strong drinks could sit there until closing time for all I cared.
I think the same can go for players in cardrooms. You might get your drink or your chips, but you *will* wait for them.
In gameplay, action might pass you by, as a dealer may not be paying as much attention to you as you would like. He *may* not be too interested in protecting you from others betting out of turn for example. His explanations to floor people during a dispue will still be fair, but he sure won't go out of his way to present your side of things.
I can think of a few examples of this that I have seen during gameplay.
I feel you get what you pay for, and I have found that when I contribute fairly, people help protect my interests. What goes around comes around.
All of what you say only applies if the dealer actually gets to KEEP the tip.
D.
But David, even if the tips are pooled and shared among everyone the dealer keeps a portion of whatever tips he collects and he gets a portion of whatever tips the other dealers collect. I agree that the best system is where the dealer keeps his own tips but again that is not always up to local managment.
Don't forget these tips are shared with the other table game dealers. In fact I am told that most of the tips come from the poker and not the Roulette and BJ etc. So I guess by your theory they will close the whole damn place.
I understand the way the tips work in most places to provide for the dealers however I am not going to participate here. Others can do what they want, it the place closes because of this issue it will be enormous stupidity on their part.
D.
The dealers are the cardrooms' responsibility, not the players'. Since we players already spend excessive amounts in collections, we shouldn't be pressured or made to fill bad if we refuse to pay more than what we're already paying, which I repeat, are extremely excessive amounts. The ass kissing dealers treat me well even though I never tip. This has been made possible by my friendly personality and cheerful demeanor. Thanks to the people (mostly working 9-5 ass kissers themselves who are just playing for recreation and to give themselves timeouts from their boring jobs of quite desperation) who do tip, the dealers do get paid. And I don't have to spend an extra penny for it. Everytime they treat me lesser than the average tipping player I will immediately complain to management. But I've never really had to do so. To all of you, be nice and tip your dealers. If you don't tip, there won't be any games. Those sorry 9-5 ass kissers would starve without your tips. So do tip. And tip well.
"Poker Veteran", that post was hilarious.
I especially liked the part about your "friendly personality and cheerful demeanor" Yeah, you are freakin Mr. Rogers all right.
Go ahead, stiff dealers all you want, but that was funny.
I can just see this guy walking through a cardroom mumbling "Goddamn ass-kissers really believe I am cheerful and friendly..."
Thanks, that was great!
I don't let the dealers know that I am aware of the fact that they are ass kissers. I treat each one as an individual who, unfortunately, just does not have the guts and intelligence to strike out on his own, preferring instead to be a slave of the organization whose ass he kisses 8 hours a day. I have compassion for my fellow human beings (dealers included) and it shows in my warm and friendly attitude towards them. The dealers aren't really getting stiffed as you claim they are, thanks to the tips that they are getting from their fellow ass kissers from other industries who have chosen poker as an escape from their unfulfilling and unexciting brown nosed lives.
LOL
Dude, could you get any funnier??
Sir, you have some sort of anal fixation you really should get some help with.
Doctors don't expect tips.
Why are you making fun of my posts? All I'm doing is expressing my honest opinions about the important subject of tipping. It's a subject that has yearly consequences in the thousands for players and dealers alike. And you make a mockery of it. If you have nothing constructive to say, go the hell away. This is a serious forum. Good bye. This is no place for clowns like yourself.
I understand from some of my dealer friends that dealers are "required" in some card rooms to fork up a set dollar amount every day to the card room manager. I know one in Arizona where the "fee" is $75 a day.
These are usually in rooms where the dealers keep their own tips.
This seems wrong to me.
That is wrong I agree, but here they fork up the whole thing. The tip box stays at the table all day and the floor empties it!
D.
Yes, that would seem wrong and I think falls under the category of kickbacks.
Someone may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at Canterbury, a percentage of the dealer's tips are withheld and distributed among the floor poeple, chip runners, and cashiers.
Anyone know what that percentage is?
Yes, that would seem wrong and I think falls under the category of kickbacks.
Someone may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at Canterbury, a percentage of the dealer's tips are withheld and distributed among the floor people, chip runners, and cashiers.
Anyone know what that percentage is?
Rounder,
At the big Los Angeles area card clubs such as Hollywood Park, the dealers usually return anywhere from $1 to $2 per table dealt (top section dealers would return the higher amount). This money gets split up among the floor people, the board people, and the chip runners. To the best of my knowledge, management does not take a cut.
Regards,
Rick
Where I play the floorman gets 15% of every dealers tokes. Dealers also usually give the cashier 2 or 3 dollars a day.
my guess is that's against federal law to require tips to be given to ones boss. also if its cash its unreported and again such. the dealers probably would get fired if they made a stink and thats illegal as well i think. a dealer that got let go would have a big hammer.
In addition to that set amount, dealers also toke the chip runner or floorman that brings them new cards each time some shmuck (sp?) decides to delay the game by demanding a new set-up for no reason.
David,
I would encourage you to continue to tip good dealers (and stiff the rude, inattentive, or truly inept ones). Even though the dealers share their tips, they will still FEEL appreciated and rewarded when you tip them (and sometimes neglected/disappointed when you do not). Furthermore, dealers who have more tips to contribute to the pool may receive some recognition in addition to pride of accomplishment.
In some ways, a tip-sharing plan is more equitable than the alternative. If the dealers kept their own tips, the blackjack/Asian game dealers would probably make more money than equally skilled poker dealers; as a consequence, the best poker dealers would tend to be "promoted" to other games. In addition, presentable female dealers generally receive more tips than males of equal ability.
Does anyone know where I can get a list of all the poker rooms in the USA? I hope to be able to do some in the near future and would like to plan a trip around playing poker. THANKS!
Barefoot
im not sure how comprehensive it is but try www.pokerpages.com, it has a large list
THANKS!!!
If a player tracks his results by the half-hour to determine mean and standard deviation, how many data points are necessary to constitute a representative sample for Texas Hold'em, for Seven-Card Stud, and for Omaha High-Low Split?
Q
If you use the formula that appears in my Gambling Theory book you won't have to tally your results every half hour. (The essay is also on our essay page.) I recommend that you have about 30 sessions for your standard deviation to be reliable.
Q
As a professor, I wondered why students labored under the impression 30 observations were necessary for statistical analysis (e.g., running a linear regression). Then I realized the t-distribution chart usually ends at 30 degrees of freedom, where it is numerically indistinguishable from a normal distribution. In other words, if the data follow a normal distribution with a _known_ variance then the sample mean of 30 sessions will be very close to a normal distribution even though you use an estimated variance.
Here is why you may need fewer or more observations.
1) The t-distribution is still an excellent approximation to the normal distribution with less than 30 observations (look at a chart).
2) The t-distribution assumes sessions are normally distributed without skewness or fat tails. A recent post described a skewed no-limit game where a single pot won more than the previous year of grinding. If your games are mixed loose/tight then your results will be a mixture of normal distributions which has fatter tails. In other words your biggest swings will be more common than predicted by a normal distribution.
Oz has stated that those of you that would bet the flop and not check-call in the K,2 scenario below have a leak in your game. Well just what in the world is that leak if any? Is Oz correct or is he just spitting in the wind? Hey I like that. Spitting in the wind. Now where have I herad that before?
O.k. so let's take a look at leaks. Specifically David's so called leak. I will start by referring to Sklansky's (Sklansky is another name for Oz by the way) 8 mistakes of poker. Specificazlly number something or other that states : Betting when you should check. That is the error after all. But why should you check? If you think you shoud bet then why? What are some reasons for betting? (Mike Caro if you are reading this, betting to show how much of a maniac you are does not count here, so forgetta bout it. You too GC). If you think that you should check raISE THE FLOP WHICH IS ALSO A MISTAKE ACCORDING TO oZ THEN WHY IS IT A MISTAKE? (OOPS CAPS KEY) It falls in the category of Raising when you should call. I could go on but let's start here.
Oh yeah, if these are mistakes just how big a mistake is each and what is your definition of the leak in general terms.
Vince.
Do I sound like a teacher or what? If you say yes what does that say about leaks in your other parts of your head also?
Here's the situation: You have a hand that may or may not be the best, but you can't really fold it. If your opponent has a better hand you'd like to pay the minimum, and if you have the best hand you'd like to extract the maximum.
Heads up against a good opponent, he'll usually bet if you check. If you bet, he'll fold most hands that you can beat. There's not much free card danger, because there are no overcards to your pair.
In this case, checking and calling the flop is probably the right play. On the turn, the correct play changes depending on what card lands, so we're not talking about that.
In my original message, I said that I might bet out if I were playing a really weak opponent who would call me heads-up with as little as an underpair or a gutshot, but who would check it if I check. Otherwise, I'd check and call the flop.
Betting out most of the time is a leak if you are playing in a typical mid-limit game against decent opponents. On the other hand, I believe that there are no absolutes in games like this because of the need to vary your play. But certainly you need to check hands that are probably the best from time to time to let your opponents hang themselves. This keeps them from running all over you when you check, and makes it harder for them to play against you. This hand is about perfect for that need.
That's my .02. Rebuttals welcome.
In my original response I advocated a checkraise on the flop. It is a near automatic play because the limper is almost certain to do something on the flop. But at that point, that is during the flop, I'm check raising mainly for the secondary goal of "to gain information" and won't really know what the primary goal will be until I see his response. If he bets and folds on the flop, it means that I was check raising "in order to induce a bluff". If he reraises on the flop, it means that I may be beat by Aces (or a better King). In this case I'll call the turn but will fold the river if I don't get there. If he just calls my checkraise, I'll bet the turn even if I don't improve then check call on the river if I continue not to improve. If I hit the flush on the turn, I may attempt a checkraise on the turn then bet the river. The point in this hand is that I don't know what he has (Axs?, Kxs?). Therefore, my first job is to find out. And check raising (on the flop) is the best way of doing that.
The most likely hand for your opponent to have when he bets is not much at all. If you check-raise, you lose him if he was bluffing, and you pay more if he has a big hand.
If your hand didn't include the flush draw, you can play quite a bit differently against many players, because you may be able to fold the hand at some point. In this case you really can't, so your check-raise doesn't really gain you a whole lot, and stands to lose an opponent who would have paid another big bet on the turn and maybe even another one on the river if you let him. I don't like the idea of paying more money on the flop so that you can fold to a bet heads-up on the river. I'd rather pay the extra half a bet and eliminate the chance of being bluffed out of the pot.
If I shared your assumption that the opponent has "not much at all" and that you should therefore operate from the "for value" perspective, I would agree completely with the logic with which you say you would play this hand from flop to river. But, for now, I'm still sticking with my assumption that "I don't know" and therefore need to "find out". On the flop, my strategy for the entire hand hasn't been determined yet. His response to my checkraise will help me to determine that strategy. If he reraises, I'm gonna play my hand as a draw. That is I'll call any bet on the turn (if I don't hit my flush) then - and this is gonna make you cringe - check fold on the river (if I miss the flush, two pair, or trip Kings). If he folds, I've just caused myself some value. If he just calls, I'm gonna play the hand all the way to the river as cheaply as possible without giving a freecard.
Vince, you said,"If you think that you should check raISE THE FLOP WHICH IS ALSO A MISTAKE ACCORDING TO oZ THEN WHY IS IT A MISTAKE?"
Your opponent could have a wide variety of hands. Including one that is slightly better than yours at this point. Since, you are the blind and didn't raise preflop. If I was your opponent I would put you on a weak hand initially and you would have to put me on a better hand considering my position.
Now, on the turn you check. If your opponent bets, you should raise, because if he had a weak hand he would now throw it away (note that at this point his weak hand could have been better than your hand, but since you waited for the turn, your bet is more believable as a legit bet).
Utilizing this play in addition to your flush draw gives you more ways to win.
Hey Vince, notice how more astute these answers are now that people know it was my question rather than yours? Sorry pal.
Well, I said I would bet because I am going to bet a good percentage of the time here regardless of what I have.
Now, do I have leaks in my game?...yes, of course and probably several leaks.
Do I think that betting out in this situation is a serious leak?...Of course not.
Oz is overstating his point when he says "those of you who endorse betting have a serious leak".
Zero out of about 12 excellent players who I asked about this hand thought that betting on the flop could in any way be justified.
Well, I don't question your logic for saying that check-calling is the best play. I have read the logic, understand it and would concede that it is better than betting.
What I am questioning is your implication that if one gets the question wrong, one must have some serious leaks in his game and can't be a very good player.
That's what I meant by saying that you may be overstating your point. But then again you could be right: God knows that I do have some leaks in my game which prevent me from being an excellent player although I can safely say that I am a good winning mid limit player.
"But then again you could be right"
Skp,
I was going to chastise you for questioning the mighty Oz. If he says you have a leak who are you to disagree. After all the "Oz" knows leaks when he gets wet by them now doesn't he. But now you change and cow to the almighty Oz and give in. Never Surrender. Who cares if Oz is right. Why the first time he asked me the question I said "Bet". He then took away my "superstar Status" and barred me from playing at Bellagio's for a week. But did that deter me. No! I tried to convince him that there were good reasons for betting. Then he really made me feel good. He asked "Chip Reese" and Reese didn't hesitate. He said check call. That earned me another week being barred. This time he made me play low limit at the Orleans as added punishment. He told me that the next time that I disagreed with him that he would instruct Mason not to talk to me again. That would be bad enough but he ensured me that he had enough influence with Mason to make sure that Charmaine, Mason's beautifu girl friend, wouldn't say hello either. That would cause me great pain indeed. But do you think I would stop. No! I stand my grounds even if it's muddy under them. When I'm wrong I wrong. I don't care who knows it!
"That's what I meant by saying that you may be overstating your point."
Of course he's overstating his point. He's Oz. That in itself is an overstatement. What is not an overstatement is that David is the best poker authority this side of Jupiter. Overstement or not. He has given us insight into advanced poker thinking with this "unique" example. And you with your powerful thinking have helped those of us that would play poker through thinking and not by rote. Poker is not all mathematics. It requires logical thought bolstered by mathematics. If you have logical reasons for your actions you are heads above %90 of your poker opponents. If that logic sometimes leads to an incorrect conclusion you may suffer some but if your mind is open to discussion then there is no leak in your "game". Just need for a little correction. So even though David is correct, (I hate that), he may be a little strong in his evaluation that leads to claiming there is a leak in your game. Of course he sure knows how to stir the pot. And thank Oz for that!
Vince.
x
I am a winning mid-limit holdem player. I play mostly in typical games, every day for several hours. I have not had a winning session in nine days. Even before that my profits had stagnated for a couple of weeks. It seems as though it is a combination of not being dealt enough playable hands, not hitting enough draws, having decent-good hands cracked, etc. I make a strong attempt never to tilt. I have frantically hit the books and regularly have in depth discussions with an excellent player who is helping me monitor my play. Still I am continuing to lose. When should I begin to worry? Any suggestions? Thanks.
Losing streaks are very common among full time players. Mason Malmuth wrote an excellent article in Poker Essays Volume 1 or 2 about how to deal with them. I recommend the following:
1. Step down to a lower limit game for awhile and see how you do. See if you can win back some of the money you have recently lost.
2. Write down some of the hands you are involved in where you think there may have been questionable plays on your part. Post some of them on the forum for comment.
3. Try to get together with a few friends whose play you respect and discuss some of your hands with them.
For what it is worth, I can offer you the following facts:
1. Mason Malmuth discusses a $30-$60 player who can beat his game for $30 per hour but who could have a 4000 hour losing streak. This is about 2 years of full time play.
2. I have a friend from Houston who is a winning $20-$40 player. Over the past 800 hours of play he has lost $13,000.
3. I have become good friends with a prominent $30-$60 player at the Bellagio who was a student of Roy Cooke's. I know him to be an excellent player. Over the past 1000 hours of play he is only broken even. He has been losing for 3 months in a row.
4. I once lost $5000 in one week of $20-$40 play and I once lost $8500 in a month.
5. Another friend of mine is a low limit player. He has read all the books, studied hard, has patience, discipline, etc. He was a student of John Feeney's. He has lost almost $4000 over the past 900 hours of playing low limit holdem (less than $10-$20).
6. Mike Caro has stated that most every full time poker pro has had or will have a 1000 hour losing streak.
Limit Hold-Em poker has an incredibly high element of luck. Suckouts are the biggest single cause for a good player to lose money over a long period of time.
Just a quick correction. Though I have corresponded a bit with him, and know him to be a good guy who has run badly, he was not a student of mine.
.
"Mason Malmuth discusses a $30-$60 player who can beat his game for $30 per hour but who could have a 4000 hour losing streak. This is about 2 years of full time play."
While this etreme example is correct, it also was for draw lowball where because of kill pots the standard deviation is higher than what it would be for a hold 'em expert. So a similar player at the hold 'em table could not go for as long doing this poorly. But you can run bad long enough for it to drive you crazy.
>>But you can run bad long enough for it to drive you >>crazy.
Is that what happened to Vince?
Brett
that happens to EVERYONE at some point in time. Of course, if denial allows posters here to believe otherwise, then thats life.
Quit playing every day and find a variety of places to play. You may still play "good", but surely your regular batch of opponents have at least made some adjustments to your game and that alone will reduce your win -- on some days, it might account for the difference between a winning session and a losing one. You might also try stud or omaha for a few sessions to give you a different variety of hands to look at. Freshness is the key here -- burnout is the flip side of inexperience.
NINE DAYS?? Shit, come back when you go 3 months without real win, when you have 25 flush draws in a row not get there, when you have 40 pocket pairs in a row not flop a set, when you go a month without seeing Aces, Kings or Queens, only to have them cracked when you DO finally get them, when you sit at a table filled with fresh fish who don't know the first thing about the game night after night and get dealt nothing but 93o and 48o and T2o and 62o for hours and hours and hours, when you play a tournament and get blinded off as though you didn't even show up after paying the buy-in, when every time you have a king high flush the other guy's got the nut flush, when you flop a full house three times in an hour and lose all three hands, when you have to drop from $15/30 to $3/6 just to slow down the bleeding. . .
nine days? please. . .
Anon,
I'm kind of a newer player, and I was wondering how a person can learn to cope to with all the types of depressing things you point out in your post that a full-time ring-game player experiences? I get so discouraged at times I feel like quiting all together(ring games only). Tournaments are kinda different since people don't seem to chase quite like they do in ring games, especially after the re-buy period is over, so I don't have to cope [as much] with people making those wacky runner-runner draws like I do when playing ring games with three or four super-loose lunatics.
-Don
I've been playing professionally for 25 years. I am currently on an 11 month losing streak. 11 losing months in a row. The longest of my career. Last night was another beauty. I flop jacks full of nines and the case nine comes on the river. I have pocket aces and with a flop of 10 4 2 and lose to Jack nine, comes jack, jack. I have ace-king and it comes ace-king-four and I lose to pocket queens. Big deal right? Who cares? I care that's who. This has been happening for 11 months now and I'm sick of it.
What hurts even more than that is when you consistently lose heads up to ace-four when you have ace-king. You have ace-queen of clubs and your three opponents cards are ace-eight, queen-ten of clubs and Queen four. You get the idea. You never hit the flop, never make a draw, never flop a set, etc. etc. etc. Aces heads up loses to Ace-ten. Over and over and over again. Wow, what fun. I lose 700 ( I should have only lost 500, but I played two marginal hands right at the end and even though I flopped the best they both got beat--so I quit) My ONLY edge is that anybody else would have lost 2000 plus with my cards. I don't tilt so to speak and am capable of playing even tighter when I'm suck so that is how I've managed to survive. Still, it isn't any fun. Hasn't been fun for years.
What really makes me sick is to think about the three racks of chips that are being raked off in a ten hour session. Wow, what a tough nut you have to overcome.
I should have taken up dealing when they first introduced poker in my area. The dealers were making 200-300 a day and took absolutely no risk. A job without risk, there's a novel idea.
I play with some of the worst players ever. They can't win in the long run but they are taking me down with them. I can fold every hand for two hours and then bring it in for a raise and get four cold callers. Collectively they are ganging up on me and taking me down. Oh sure it's sweet when you win but I haven't had a winning month in so long I've forgotten what that's like. I'd better start winning soon or I'll have to sell my house.
Poker is so absolutely depressing as to be insane. I wasted my life and now I'm stuck with it. I absolutely hate poker but what outs do I have? Not many. Oh to be young again and have the world as my oyster. Who would play poker if they did't have to these days. There is so much money to be made in business or computers or things like that if you are half way smart. I'm going to go back to school this fall. I'm 50 and just want out. Forget about poker. If the pros are struggling how are the amatuers gonna make it.
There is always Kinish's truck.
Kinishes's truck my ass. After 11 months most will be prime candidates for a mental hospital.
I play mostly stud, but have played a little holdem. Someone told me that the swings are more in stud and I just don't believe it(maybe it is true). You can have a great starting hand in holdem and it can die right at the flop. A great starting hand may not last in stud, but it won't die as quick. You start with AA in holdem and the flop comes 999, there always seems to be someone hoolding 9,10 and your hand is dead. People probably play with crap in holdem because then see so many times they fold a 36o and the flop comes 457. They only remember the times it does happen like that, not all the times it doesn't happen, but if it does happen, your aces are in trouble. Like a friend of mine says, there are no bad hands in holdem, just bad flops. :)
I'll take AA with a 999 flop all day in hold'em.
You better stick to stud.
You misunderstood what I meant. I never said AA was bad, but it sucks when you get a great starting hand and the flop looks from another planet while someone who stayed with crap gets matched perfectly. You keep your AA with a 999 flop, I'd love to have it also, but then you get someone holding a 9T(or better yet some idiot holding 29o) and you shake your head. That's the one thing I dont like about holdem. Losing with a great hand happens, but it can get frustrating when flop after flop kills a great starting hand, and then you dump 36o and the flop comes 245 or 333. Granted you won't stay anyways but it can get frustrating. I play my starting hand tight in stud so it is rarely(if ever) ruined by the next betting round.
I think your post should be required reading for every hold-em wannabee out there. Every young person who thinks about dropping out of school or quitting their job to play limit hold-em full time should profit from your experience. This notion that if you work hard, study, have discipline, patience, pick your games, etc. you must be successful is flawed. Hold-em is very much a gambling game and people who think that all good players consistently win have never run bad and may be in for the shock of their life when it happens. The biggest reason players quit this game is not because they go broke. It is because most people do not have the psychological strength to withstand a 500 hour or 1000 losing streak. They discover that the game really is not all that much fun anymore and they begin to explore other uses of their time.
tell them young guys,its not romantic.finish school get a good job.see,i cant even type.thats why i am apoker pro the last 15 years.its not romantic for most of us.even we can make a living
This "abc" moron is right. If you are a dysfunctional dyslexic like he is, don't take up professional poker. You don't have what it takes to engage in the most adventuresome intellectual profession known to humanity. Go to school and get a normal 9 to 5 ass kissing job instead. But if you have guts, courage, discipline, and the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this country the great nation that it is, by all means go ahead and take up poker as you profession. You'll have the grandest adventure that life has to offer.
I thought I tried to lighten up this losing streak subject,but look at the respond we got from Poker Veteran.How cruel you respond to another pro running bad!You may be the kind of people who give poker a bad name.I'll say this:poker is a grind!95% pros are grinders.Let's not glorify ourself.Most of us are under achievers,and we sort of lucky poker came along.Tic Tac Toe,no quantum machanic here,sure it take mental strenght ,what doesn,t?And don't romanticize it!Or we'll be comparing ourself to the likes of Einstin,Mozart,Linberg and Linclon soon.
So what if I've chosen to romantically perceive poker as an adventure? That's my own personal choice. I love it!!! If you think it's a grind, that's entirely your problem. Why do you insist on imposing your life philosophy on others? You're not God.
This is just getting too good...
We live in an age where the fundamental mysteries of the universe are being uncovered. As we speak, a huge telescope is orbiting the Earth, taking photos of the creation of the universe. The human Genome has been mapped. All around us, a revolution of automation is making our lives better and longer.
And POKER is the most adventuresome intellectual profession known to humanity?
I want what you're smoking.
BTW, this telescope was built by multitudes of engineers, technicians, scientists, accountants, managers, etc. All 'ass-kissing' 9-5 'ers. When you play poker, you get to play with cards manufactured in a factory full of 9-5 people. The dealers who deal to you work a schedule. All of these functions are necessary to keep you doing what it is you do. You don't have to want to do those jobs, but jeez, at least have the grace to be thankful for the fact that other people are busting their butts to provide a world in which you are free to do what you enjoy. Your attitude makes you the worst kind of parasite, living off the fruits of others while sneering at them.
The 'entrepreneurial spirit' has far more to do with hard work than risk. It's risky to break into homes and steal things, but burglars are not entrepreneurs. And neither are poker players. You're simply a guy who's figured out how to play a game well enough that you can make a living at it. This is not glamorous - it's just another career choice.
I've been there, done that. I've supported a family on nothing but poker. There's nothing glamorous about it. It's a skill that has monetary value, and that's it. I'm back working in the computer industry not because I can't hack it as a poker player, but because it's a boring, dead-end lifestyle.
When I'm on my deathbed, I don't want to look back at my life and realize it was all just a long poker game. What a waste that would be. I would much rather leave a legacy of engineering, people's lives made better through the products I created, a family that can be proud of my accomplishments, children with a work ethic established through Dad's example, etc.
And I want to have FUN. If you think work cannot be fun, you have never had the right job. I look forward to coming to work every day, and I leave reluctantly every night. I've yet to kiss a single ass, because we're all adults where I work, and everyone is judged purely on their ability. Just like at a poker table.
BTW, I did FAR more 'ass-kissing' playing poker than I've ever had to do anywhere else. I've had to ignore the drunk fish who mouthed off at me all night long - I've had to endure the taunts of bad players on a 'rush' while I'm running bad - I have to show up on time for the start of my game or lose my seat - my hours playing poker were far less flexible than the hours I now have at work.
"You're simply a guy who's figured out how to play a game well enough that you can make a living at it. This is not glamorous - it's just another career choice." You just don't get it don't you? The point is, poker is not a career choice. It's a passion! It's an adventure! That's the point!!!
That's great for you. It honestly is. Everyone should feel as passionately about what they do.
Where you go wrong is when you criticize other people for the choices they've made. Just because you love poker does not mean that those who love something else are ass-kissing weenies.
Secure, confident people gain self-respect from their own decisions and accomplishments. Insecure, weak people gain self-respect by knocking down the accomplishments of others.
Which one are you?
I have never criticized anyone for the choices that they have made. My criticism has been aimed solely at the REASON behind those choices - namely, "security". I believe in being passionate about what one is doing but security is just too gutless a goal to be passionate about. Deciding to work in a corporation is about security and therefore gutless.
You just don't understand. Working for a corporation does not have to be about security. Working for a corporation can be about OPPORTUNITY. Corporations give people access to power they could never achieve on their own. I'm not talking about political power or anything trite like that. I'm talking about access to billions of dollars worth of tools, scientific equipment, construction equipment, management expertise, the help of co-workers etc.
I get to build cool robotic equipment for a living. Products we make control the crawler that moves the space shuttle, assembly lines for cars, nuclear power plants, you name it. My deal with the corporation is this: they pay me a fair salary, and give me the opportunity to work on projects that excite me. In return, I provide the value of my work. It's a win-win situation. There are no slaves where I work. Everyone there is smart enough to do something else for a living - very few people want to.
Shame on you you miserable coward. You give poker a bad name. And are a very bad example for the young aspiring poker professionals. I suggest you quit for good and get an ass kissing job like dealing. Poker is an entrepreneurial pursuit that carries with it risk. Risk as in the one Columbus took when he set sail for the New World. Risk as in the one Henry Ford took when he sold his wife's jewelry to finance his first Model T. Risk as in the one Chuck Yeager took in order to become the first man to break the sound barrier. Life is risk you miserable coward. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the poker profession and crawl underneath the rock called "the working life". You belong there miserable coward that you are. And may you rot there for the rest of your life!!! It is pathetic people like yourself that gives poker a bad name. Go away you miserable coward!!!
Yo, Poker Vet. Muck your AA, and back away from the table, slowly. Yes, poker is risk, but to compare a poker player's risk to that taken by Columbus, Ford, and Yeager is a bit of a stretch. Makes our soon to be president Gore's claim to have invented the Internet seem like a little white lie.
And Columbus, Ford, and Yeager added immeasurably to the advancement of the human race. As much as I enjoy poker, I don't think you can say that about ANY poker player. Chill, man.
Why would someone loving the freedom of poker table back a Big government nanny state candidate like algor.
Shame on you for that.
I threw in the Al Gore Internet comment in an attempt to generate comments. Thanks, Rounder.
With Dubya's only two claims to fame being his name and the fact he's not Clinton, I'll take Big Al any day. Fears of the so-called nanny state (see Welfare Reform) are greatly exaggerated.
i have my doubts as to whether "i give up"'s post was actually written by a professional poker player or someone trying to advance their "anti-pro" agenda.
Could you say miserable coward one more time? I don't think we got the picture. And your calling abc a moron?
It's not always possible but if I run into a slow streak I travel to a different area and/or play a different limit. Certainly look for easier games.
Its simple. If you can't lose, don't play cards.
Oz has written about the concept of one's "max swing" for a given poker session, but I have not found a precise definition of the concept. If your max session swing for a poker session is $1000 and your EV is $0 (for simplicity), does this mean there is a 90% chance that your session outcome will fall in the range of plus $1000 and minus $1000? Or is it a 95% chance? 99%? How many standard deviations equal the max swing for a given poker session?
Define it how you like. The point is that your max swing for X poker sessions combined (again using your own definition) is your max swing for one session times the square root of X. This of course assumes each sessionn is approximately the same length.
In your recent PD article, you presented a Required Bankroll formula using one's "daily max swing" and stated if you have the bankroll indicated by the formula, "there is only a 3 percent chance of going broke due solely to bad luck." How can this formula be so precise if there is no precise definition of "daily max swing?"
I would like to apply the bankroll formula to a prop position for which I have a good estimate of the standard deviation. Since the position involves playing at several different bet levels, the max swing estimate of 75 to 100 big bets is not very useful.
I seem to recall the "max. swing" as being 3 st. devs. above or below the mean. This covers approx. 99.7 % of all possible outcomes; allowing for roughly a 1:300 chance of a "fluke".
Hope I was of some help.
- Chris
In "Poker Essays" MM gives basic bankroll requirements and hourly win rates for OK, good, and great players. In one of his books, DS does something similar using good, excellent, and world class to define the different players.
I've often wondered about these player classifications. What is the difference between a good and great player? What does the excellent player know or do that the good player doesn't?
I would be interested in reading how you define the difference between an OK, good, or great player.
Jakell
I see, deal to, and play with many "OK" players. They all lack certain skills that "GREAT" players have. Some (but not all) of them are:
1. Patience. The ablility to wait on good cards.
2. Discipline. They avoid the temptation to chase draws without the correct odds. Great players make good folds when they aren't getting the best of it.
3. Cool. They don't steam after beats.
4. Money Management. This is something "OK" players really don't have, or even know about.
5. Game Selection. Many times, who you play with is as important as what cards you play.
6. Card Sense. The ablility to read the other player's hand. "OK" players say "I thought you had ----" after the hand and they're almost always wrong. "GREAT" players say "I know you had ---". . .and they're usually right.
good luck, shoot
Mr. Shooter, You are the Master of the Obvious. These items you mention are quite basic, and any meathead who has any concept of hold'em and it's fluctuations, or even attempts to play on a constistent basis, knows these things. Thanks for nothing, jerk!
I don't think your hostility is necessary. If these things were so obvious, more players would do them. Most that I play with do not. Not that I'm complaining.
Still, sorry you feel so strongly about my post.
shooter
Hey shooter never mind - it's mind over matter you shouldn't mind cuz he don't matter - you are right many do not do the obvious thinks - THANK GOD - makes our job so much easier.
IDIOT
Mr. Nuts:
On these forums, it is important that we remain professional and couteous to our other posters. Please do so in the future.
Best wishes, Mason
"any meathead "
And Freud said self analysis couldn't be done effectively! He obviously never met the "Nuts".
Vince.
Shooter said....
"I see, deal to, and play with many "OK" players. They all lack certain skills that "GREAT" players have. Some (but not all) of them are:
1. Patience. The ablility to wait on good cards.
2. Discipline. They avoid the temptation to chase draws without the correct odds. Great players make good folds when they aren't getting the best of it.
3. Cool. They don't steam after beats.
4. Money Management. This is something "OK" players really don't have, or even know about.
5. Game Selection. Many times, who you play with is as important as what cards you play.
6. Card Sense. The ablility to read the other player's hand. "OK" players say "I thought you had ----" after the hand and they're almost always wrong. "GREAT" players say "I know you had ---". . .and they're usually right.
good luck, shoot"
------------------------------------------
Just a few comments...
1. Great players dont have to be as patient as good ones. They can afford to speed around a bit more. This is a well known fact.
2. Good players, by definition, would also fold draws when they are not getting proper odds. Wouldnt they?
3. Finally, one truism.
4. Money management is actually a fallacious concept. Hit and run sessions do not increase your long-term expectation, and neither does playing at the proper limit for your bankroll. The only thing they do is protect you from going broke this very session. So, as you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with great playing ability.
5. Great players do not have to be as game selective as good players. They can beat a broader range of games and opponents, including the tough ones. Pretty obvious, dont you think?
6. And finally, a great player bragging to an opponent about reading his hand correctly makes about as much sense as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum.
Thats all.
Come back and see us when you grow up.
Based on your post you have a lot to learn.
Blow me.
Kid,
You're welcome at my game. . .anytime.
poker and peticularly Hold'em is full of the "obvious" , why? Well everyone knows that although KQ is a good hand you shouldn't call a raise with it, small poketet pairs in erly position can be dangerous, calling a rasie hesds up in the big blind because you were "suited", calling 3 bets cold with a suited conector with 2 people in the pot, the mistakes are endless. My point is this most of us, if we have ANY skill at all know these things. it's what we apply at the table that makes us OK,GOOOD,or GREAT, it is being able to discern what we did wrong after a session or a hand because you KNOW you played a hand incorectly. Knowledge is useless unless you use it.
There is no agreed upon definition. It also depends upon the game. I believe in the books you mention, 2+2 is referring to limit ring games as opposed to tournaments or big bet games (pot limit and no limit). In general, OK players will win a little, lose a little, or break even over the course of a year. They may win a modest amount year in and year out. Enough to over come the rake or collection. A good player, depending upon the game, can usually average something around 1 small bet per hour and will almost always win something significant over the course of a year. It would be unusual for a good player to have a losing year but it could happen. An excellent player can win something between one small bet per hour and one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play but it depends upon the game. Excellent players can win one top bet per hour in low limit games, something between 1 small bet and 1 big bet per hour in mid-level games ($10-$20 through $20-$40), and more like one small bet per hour in high level games ($30-$60 and above) over many thousands of hours of play. World Class players are few and far between. They play exclusively in very big limit ring games ($300-$600 and above). They play more than just one game, usually a mixed game like Hold-Em, Omaha, Razz, Stud, and Eight or better (HORSE) or some variant like HOE, ROE, HOSE, etc. These guys swing huge amounts of money over the course of a year and hourly rate calculations for them would not have much statistical significance because of the gigantic fluctuations. They make most of their money off wealthy players who enjoy the thrill of playing high and against the very best. Most of their games are shorthanded. World Class players will frequently swing money back and forth among themselves while they wait for one or two of the rich players to sit down so they can make a real earn.
A quick explanation would be that an OK player is usually someone who plays just tight enough to win a little but still lacks many other poker skills.
A good player would be someone who has mastered many poker skills but whose card reading ability still need improving and thus his game is still a little out of balance.
A great player would be someone who like the good player has mastered the skills and then combines these skills with excellent card reading ability which allows him to almost always make superior plays at the right times.
These classifications are all relative. A great player at a low limit amy only be an OK player at a higher limit where the competition is usually tougher.
In bridge tournaments it is common to have players play cards from duplicated deals to reduce the influence of luck. Has this idea been tried in poker, and would it be successful?
Can you explain how this concept works?
(Sorry to make this post so short. . .this site has been so goddam slow lately, I get frustrated when I wait what seems like forever just to read a one line post. However, one line pretty much sums up my question)
shooter
In duplicate bridge the hands are preserved in a special metal or plastic container designed for that purpose. They are then played over again by a different group of players. At the end of the session, what is compared is how many points were won by the teams holding the same cards. The cards themselves become somewhat unimportant. Rather it is how well you did with the cards you got that is compared.
Enjoying concepts & replies to subject by Kim, Shooter, & Jim.
A format "Beat the pros" might be:
A table of nine top pros could be selected to play 100 random hands in a constant limit holdem game "without seat changes". At the end of the these "kept secret" 100 hands the chipcount for each pro would be saved as a milestone or handicap for that seat for the "somewhat" duplicate poker tournament.
The pro results might be: seat"or pro" #1" 1 +250; seat #2 -300; seat#3 +300; seat #4 -400; seat#5 +25; seat #6 -200; seat #7 +175; seat #8 +375; seat #9 -225.
As you can observe the results are for a zero sum game.
The "duplicate tournament" would consist of the same 100 hands delt to nine players at each table with the same blind positions. Each player in a particular seat would be assigned the handicap"chipcount" that the pro had after 100 hands. It would probably be best if the handicap was kept secret until after the 100 hands are completed for the tournament. The winner of the tournament would be the player with the highest chipcount minus(algebraically) the pro's chipcount for the respective seat number. In case of a tie, the tied players could have a sudden death playoff, if desired.
This type of poker would not work because unlike bridge, the right play in poker is dependant upon your opponents. Each "Duplicate" Poker game would require a different strategy that would technically be "correct", and as such, you would not be able to score the results of "Duplicate" Poker against others sitting in your seat.
Duplicate Bridge however, will have a correct percentage play based on the cards, not the opponent and will therefore be easy to score and compare to other players playing your cards. This comparison would not be completely valid in poker, as the correct strategy changes.
Elie
Elie has hit the nail right on the head. A duplicate tournament at poker simply does not do what it is supposed to do; take most of the luck out of the game. This was my warning when consulted on the matter.
I can only fantasize about this. I don't think it would ever work. However, I suspect that if such an idea could be fairly implemented you would see a very different line-up of poker superstars.
I'm not so sure.
If a deck was "lucky", ie the gutshot draw is going to get there, then the gambler/suckout artist/lucky great player is going to get there in each iteration of the hand.
Repeat this over xxxx hands and it depends on luck again for the short term.
Same guys wearing different clothes would take home the money.
I also noticed that the response has slowed down considerably for the last few days. I run fiber optic cable "MediaOne" in Orange county CA. I thought maybe MediaOne was the problem. Has 2plus2 done something to slow down the response??
I am in Michigan and have noticed the same thing. I do not use Media One.
Duplicate poker tourneys -- regarding:
Dear Kim: Do you have a format for duplicate poker tourneys?
My opinion is:
A totally new format would have to be developed which would be fair for all players. I think that it could be done -- but it would be a labor intensive affair where every hand would have to start at the same time at each table. It might be feasible if each hand was delt by a computer and each player had a terminal/monitor to view his/her hand. Probably it could be best accomplished on the Internet.
At this point in time -- I cannot think of a reasonable format which would allow the tounnament to be run in an efficient and cost effective manner. I cannot think of a simple technique for dealing hands out which would be totally fair to all the tournament entries. There would probably be an element of chance that some players get better hands than other players. In addition to final chipcount -- other parameters would probably have to be taken into account "handicapped in" to determine the winner -- things such as quality of starting hands, table position, losing the minimum of a second place hand -- whatever. As you can probably imagine,it would be very difficult to develop a format which is fair to all tournament entries.
I do not think an actual tournament has been held, but it has been discussed. I have been a technical consultant about this. Hollywood Park Casino in California is managed by Tom Bowling, who is a bridge player, and Mirage casino executive Bobby Baldwin also plays bridge. About ten years ago noted bridge writer Danny Kleinman tried to market the idea. There are serious technical problems. For example, at duplicate bridge there is a technique known as "shooting," meaning taking a position against the normal play of the field in order to create a swing when you do not have a winning score. You can imagine what would go on in a poker tournament, where the opportunity for shooting is much greater than at bridge. This would look a lot like cheating by sluffing chips--and in some cases would be done with exactly that intention! There is an excellent use for"duplicate poker," though. Some day we will have a Computer World Poker Championship. The fairest way to run such an event, and by far the fastest, would be to have head-to-head matches. such a computer match could then be played back in a rematch with the exact hands reversed!
I have a lot of experience playing duplicate bridge - both matchpoint games and team-of-four. There is a huge short-term luck factor depending on which hands you play against which opponents. If you play a hand against particular opponents whose bidding system perfectly matches a borderline slam, and they bid it and no one else does, you get a cold bottom by just sitting there listening. Or, if you play a hand in which your cards are making a game for everyone else, and your (aggressive) opponent pops up with a high pre-empt that no other opponent at other tables has bid, thereby robbing you of your bidding space, you are going to have a swing result, either better or worse than the standard - either a top or a bottom.
Someone mentioned "shooting." It happens all the time in bridge. Toward the end of a matchpoint session, an expert will have a pretty good idea of where his partnership stands, and experts go wild with gambling moves basically when they have nothing to lose.
So, what other objections do you guys have? I kind of like this idea, although of course I have never seen or heard of a duplicate poker event yet. I think logistics could be worked out easier than you guys think - probably a lot like computer-generated duplicate bridge hands, forming your hands from printouts. And I think I would like to play knowing that the people I am really competing against - those holding my same hands - will have the same number of good hands / good matching flops that I will have.
Dick
You are 100% correct that there is short term luck in Duplicate Bridge, and that people can make crazy plays based upon standings and that you can get unlucky and play the only pair that reaches a 10% slam that is cold. Therefore, the results are often subject to a little luck, while the correct percentage play never changes.
However, over the long haul, the better players will have better results with the same hands. That is the point, that at "duplicate" poker, this would not work because the correct strategy would change, not the resulting winning hand. While people would get the same starting hands as you and hit the same flops, you might get to see a flop with 7-2 in the big blind and get a flop like 7-7-2 or 2-2-7 and rake it in, while at my table there is a maniac and i throww it away. The results of these hands cant be comparable because the right play at my table, is not neccesarrily the right play at your table.
Though i am also intrigued by the idea, i dont think that the results would tell you anything
Elie
I read the thread below titled 'losing streak'. I think everyone who is considering playing poker professionally should keep a few things in mind.
1) Poker is fun for those of us who play a couple of times a week to get extra money for a vacation, nicer car, nice dinner out, etc.
2) Poker can NOT be relied upon as a source of income. ANYONE can run badly for months or more. I have seen it happen to lots of great players. One thing I noticed - as their losing streak continuied, their play really did become worse. They overplayed some hands. Or they were afraid of losing and weren't aggressive enough. Whatever.
You MUST be able to have the freedom to quit poker for a while if you want to. Poker Veteran has it completely backwards. Poker pros are the slaves. They have no rights. You don't have the right to earn a living. You don't have the right to healthy working conditions. You don't have the right to good health care. And if you must make your monthly nut, you most certainly DON'T have the option to not play when you choose not to. You are a slave to poker more certainly than anyone who wears a tie to the office every day.
The very best situation you can be in is to have a good job and play for fun WHEN YOU WANT TO. I know that I could make a 'living' playing poker. But I don't want to make 30 or 40 dollars an hour, if I'm lucky, with NO security, NO benefits, NO retirement, etc. And then run the risk of running badly for a year and losing everything I own. And losing my game and having no source of income and no future.
I want to finish school, get a good job, and play at whatever level I want whenever I want. If I see that a 40-80 game looks pretty soft, I can play in it. If I see a 5-10 game and it looks like people are drinking and having lots of fun, I can play in that one. I won't be FORCED to play in the tougher looking 20-40 game because I need to come up with 1500 bucks by next Tuesday.
I will have the freedom to spend my poker winnings on whatever I want. I can take some and roll it back into my bankroll. That way one day I can play 80-160 and not care if I lose it. I can invest some if it and perhaps retire earlier. If I have a good year maybe instead of a Volvo I'll buy a Mercedes.
Why play poker for a living if you can have so very much more?
By the way Poker Veteran, some people actually LIKE to work! Some people have jobs that they really love. Some of those jobs pay well and others don't. Some people wear a tie and others wear overalls. Do you LOVE your job? If so I am happy for you. But why get down on someone who wears a tie to work, makes 150K per year, and loves HIS job? You both love your jobs, but he gets paid better and has some security. What's so bad about that? Sounds good to me.
-SmoothB-
I'm sorry but "security" just does not compute in my head, that's all. It does not fit into my sense of values. I'm not wired to understand it, much less accept it as a priority. Life is way too short for a menial concept such as security to actually exist. Security is a delusion and even if it's not, it is still an undignified goal. It is synonymous with gutlessness, IMHO. On the otherhand, danger, adventure, and individualism are values towards which we all must aspire and commit our short lives to. Since none of us will still be around 100 years from now, we might as well commit to these noble values instead of naively pursuing the hallucinated gutless path of "security". By the way, I feel certain that I am not the only person in this forum who lives by this life philosophy. In fact, I dare say that a majority of the pros who either post or lurk in this forum think just like I do. They just have made the decision not to express their views on the subject (perhaps they don't want to alienate themselves from their 9 to 5 ass kissing friends). My view is the view of the silent majority. And it is the correct view.
You talk about 'danger' as a worthwhile goal, and 'security' as a concept for the weak.
But I dare ask, when you are too old to read the cards anymore, and your mind is too confused to remember your own name, who is going to pay for your nursing home? Maybe you should be kissing the butts of the 'slaves' who are going to be paying the bills when you can't wipe your own ass anymore.
It makes me laugh to hear poker described as 'dangerous' or in any other similar light. Playing a card game is not dangerous, glamorous, macho, or anything like it. IT'S A CARD GAME.
When is the last time you held any kind of job? And what kinds of jobs did you have? Maybe you had a job pumping gas or lifting heavy objects, and your boss was a jerk. Maybe YOU felt like a slave. And maybe you think that grinding out 15 bucks an hour sitting slumped in a bad chair is preferable to that way of life. I might agree with you.
But most of us who have the intellect and discipline to play winning poker at a higher level are also able to hold good jobs THAT WE ENJOY, commonly making 100K per year. You should also know that, for many of these types of jobs, the old '9 to 5' days are over. Most companies do not make their employees adhere to a strict hourly schedule anymore. My brother makes 80K a year as a computer programmer and can wander in at 11AM, leave at 3PM, take days off, and generally do whatever he likes whenever he likes as long as he gets a respectable amount of work done.
You're telling me that poker is better than that? I don't know anyone who, in their right mind, would trade a crappy 20-30K a year AT BEST with no benefits for what he has.
Poker Vet, I think I know what your problem is. I imagine that you had a few jobs, never did very well at them, never got any respect from your co workers or boss, but somehow thought you were too good to work with them. You always thought you were somehow better. That attitude is reflected in your postings.
The fact is, you weren't anything special, but you let yourself get bitter rather than try to face your limitations and better yourself.
Finally you found a way to make some money without having to do the work that you were too lazy, or thought you were too good, for. However the bitterness is still there, and you rail against the rest of us because we can succeed where you couldn't.
Don't treat us so harshly since we'll be paying the bills when you can't go to the bathroom by yourself anymore. And by the way, you're welcome in advance.
-SmoothB-
Bit harsh Smooth one. You say you are in college and I respect that I have 2 in college too - But get off your high horse OK - we all have one thingin common here - we love poker and the cnallenges it gives us.
We all make choices in life and even if you don't agree with someone it is not good to lose it OK.
Like the 7-4 discussion - sometimes it is not always obvious what one is saying until we understand the full picture.
I wish you success.
You're exactly right, Rounder. SmoothB does not know the full picture. He has had to fill in the pieces of my life story the way a fiction writer would - which is understandable. What really happened was that I was number one in my class in college when I started to frequent a local card club to play 5 card draw jacks or better. It made a great impression on me because I could almost never have a losing session - I was playing against 80 year old retirees (who I'm sure are all dead by now) who just didn't know what they were doing. I, on the otherhand, was armed with Super/System. The consistency of my profits, along with my disrespect for authority figures, made me quit school. It was a very easy decision. Anyway, to make a long story short, when I turned 21, I started to play holdem and guess what happened? As fate would have it, I won a humongous "bad beat jackpot". Out of imature overexcitement, I tilted off half of it in a few weeks. Then I got my head on straight and quadrupled what was left in a few months. I have done consistently well since. I've never held a job in my life and never will. And I continue to have my disdain for authority. God brought us into this world as individuals and I intend to die as an individual, not as a clone. There is no dignity in "security". There's nothing like poker to stir one's soul.
Poker Veteran wrote: "I've never held a job in my life"
So, then you really don't have a single freaking clue what you're talking about when you go on-and-on about the "ass-kissing 9-to-5ers". Since that's the case, would you just shut up about it? It should be clear to anyone who's read your post above that you're just another punk who has very limited knowledge yet thinks he knows it all. Your lack of experience in the real world has limited you in many ways, and you don't even comprehend what they are. Everyone tends to be very idealistic in college, and you've essentially never left that frame of mind, but took it with you when you dropped out and started playing poker full-time.
Poker may be the right choice for you, I wouldn't know. But when you advocate that everyone should think and believe the same as you, you're demonstrating the type of ignorant idealism typical of a college student. The real world is much too complex for simple answers to resolve all problems completely. The best you can do is find the simple answer that does the best job of solving the most problems. Your answer is so simplistic, it's inaccuracy is evident. If everyone did as you suggested and played poker, who would grow the food we eat, build the houses we live, make the clothes we wear, make the tables and cards to play with, etc.?
Either wake up and learn more, or go to sleep and shut up about things you just don't understand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Your lack of experience in the real world...". Are you implying that poker is not the real world? Are you trying to say that poker pros are just living in a dream? I think not. To the contrary, poker pros are the most self-dependent, realistic, pragmatic, practical, and self-honest thinkers and doers around. They have to be or they don't prosper. Losing streaks are real. Bad beats are real. Adversity is real. Crisis is real. Change is real. The good news is that danger, adventure, opportunity, and individualism are real too. And these are the real things that make the pro poker life worth living.
You're right about this. I did a poor job of selecting my words when I used this phrase. Of course the poker room is the real world. I shouldn't have tried to find a shorthand term. Instead I should have said "the world outside the poker room".
The point is, you've never worked for a corporation, big or small. Yet, based upon your many posts on this topic, you gave everyone the impression that you had, that you hated it, and finally you quit to play poker instead. As it turns out, you have no direct experience whatsoever with the subject on which you act like an expert. You say everyone in a corporate job kisses ass, but how would you know? Some people like to complain, and most of them do so at the poker table (I do know this, I'm there also). Apparently, you hear these people complaining, and assume that their complaints reflect the bulk of their day on the job. Maybe that's the case for a few of them, but most are not so unlucky.
After you've finished your degree, gotten a corporate job, and worked 9-5 for a few years, then you can tell us how we all kiss ass. At least then we'll know it reflects your actual experience.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A big majority of workers think monday is "blue monday", wednesday is "hump day", and thank God that it's friday. This is a clear sign that they hate what they are doing from monday to friday. In fact, they hate it so much, they can't wait to "clock out", they can't wait for "the weekend", they can't wait for their "two week vacation", and they can't wait for their "retirement". Think about it, God gives them 7 days in a week, and they only look forward to living two of them. God gives them 52 weeks in a year, and they look forward to only living two of them. And what do they do during these two weeks(out of 52) and two days (out of 7)? They play poker!!! There's a message in there somewhere. And I think I know what it is: "No one in their deathbeds ever wished they had spent more time in the office". Anyone who disagrees with me on this is in denial of the truth.
Poker Veteran,
You wrote: ” “No one in their deathbeds ever wished they had spent more time in the office". Anyone who disagrees with me on this is in denial of the truth.”
It may be true that few on their deathbeds wish they spent more time in the office, but I believe most people at the end of their days tend to regret that they didn’t spend enough time with the one they love, their friends and their family.
Regards,
Rick
"...but I believe most people at the end of their days tend to regret that they didn't spend enough time with the one they love, their friends and their family". This is the truth too. Thanks for pointing it out. That's the great thing about poker. You're in total control of your time. Your vacation and your vocation are essentially one and the same. On the otherhand, a lot of "blue monday" and "thank God it's friday" working people are living lives of denial. Denial of dreams, denial of ambitions, denial of doing what they truly love to do in life. These are the people who when their lives are flashing before eyes while they're lying in their deathbeds, see a lot of blanks that they wish they had filled back in the days when they were still healthy and vibrant enough to stop and smell the roses. All this for the sake of what? "Security", an idea that they will finally realize never existed.
When I am on my deathbed, I am sure that I am not going to be thinking that I should have spent more time at the office - but I also will not be thinking that I should have spent more time checkraising your ass at the poker tables either:).
I haven't read all the posts in this thread but the whole discussion seems rather silly. I mean isn't what one wants to do a matter of personal choice? Who are you to say that I do or do not like my job (I do like it by the way).
There's nothing wrong with your choice to play poker for a living either. If you can do it and like it, more power to ya but good luck trying to get a mortgage for a 300K home on the strength of your occupation.
I agree. I used to work at a large Credit union as a teller while I was still in high school, and there was nothing worse then getting up right after the sun did and having to face 8 hours of boring ass work. The only thing to look forward to is a paycheck. I work part time at a doctors office (it's just a favor to my mom who works there- it reduces her workload) and after like 1 hour all I am thinking is "i need to go hang out with my friends or play some poker". Work sucks for me but I am glad to know that there are some people who enjoy their jobs. There is no need to argue who is right or wrong, its just a matter of different strokes for different folks.
Where did you get your money to start playing in the very beginning(work, parents)? This question is not meant to be an insult, but if you had to work for it, it can make it a little harder to play with(and that work can also be your reasoning for not wanting a job). Also, not everyone can win a big jackpot with a losing hand. They have to do something to get a bankroll to play with, and what other means besides working can you do that legally? Not everyone can win. If you decide to do it, I wish you good luck, but remember your words in the middle of a long losing streak, everyone has had them at one time or another. It isn't as easy as it can seem in the beginning.
" Adversity is real. Crisis is real. Change is real. The good news is that danger, adventure, opportunity, and individualism are real too. And these are the real things that make the pro poker life worth living."
Actually, all of these in the context of a poker game are not real. Reality strikes when you cant just get up and walk away. Reality strikes when your decisions affect not only your own personal life, but the lives, livelyhood, and health of others around you. Wake up or don't. It doesn't matter to me.
When I'm 50 and retired I'll be able to come into your casino and play winning poker. Then I'll leave. You'll have to stay because you have to make your nut. That's when you'll realize what real is.
You really can't wait to retire, can't you? You must hate your job. You probably can't wait for the weekend either. Work sucks doesn't it? Very typical. Your looking forward to your retirement is a clear sign that you don't enjoy what you're doing today. Let me tell you this. If you can not enjoy what you're doing today, you're not going to enjoy your retirement either. In your retirement, you'll rot faster than you're rotting now.
Is there anything that I, or anyone with like opinions, can say without it getting twisted by your little mind? Each point that goes counter to your thinking is quickly dispatched by you. I guess you figured us all out now, huh?
Anyway, I wasn't going to get into this kind of shouting match with you, but I started, so here goes.
I do enjoy my work. It is nice to come home and know that I produced something beneficial. I find my work interesting, and enjoy learning about the aspects of my job and company that i haven't already been trained for. I also do look forward to the freedom of retirement. I want to be able to golf/fish/play poker when ever I feel the urge. You are quite correct in that regard.
However, I'm talking about a permanent retirement. I want to know that everyday will present me with the opportunity to make my own decisions. Were I to be a poker pro, I could conceiveably take off anytime I wanted to, but I would know, in the back of my mind, that I would have to return to the tables to make my nut. how free is that? I greatly prefer to be chained to a job that I enjoy for twenty years than to a poker table for life. Every afternoon at about four I leave my office and go play poker, golf or go home. I spend every evening with my wife and most weekends doing what I want to. As a poker pro, how many evenings do you get off? The big fish come out at night, so I would have to guess that the number is small. I wouldn't presume that evenings off are as valuable to you as they are to me since, most likely, you don't have the social skills or schedule availability to commit to a lasting personal relationship. "sorry, honey, I wanted to go to dinner with our friends, but, you see, this rich ass kissing business man came into the club and I had to stick around to try and take his money."
You know, I think I just figured it out. You are jealous of me (the collective me, of course). I've accomplished things that you quit on. you want to take my money at the poker table because you can't take my accomplishments. You may have been #1 in your class, but you're just another dropout. Oz is a well documented college dropout, but he did something!! he contributed to society!! he wrote his books, and established his company!! As far as I know, you have done nothing.
As i sit in my seat at a hold em table, I can't help but chuckle when i think of your posts. You call me an asskisser who is a slave to my job, yet i'm the player (the recreational player) that you must beat to survive. You are chained to my schedule just as i'm stuck to business hours. not only are you a quitter, you're an ass kisser right along with the rest of us. Only this time the sucker will take your money.
P.S. I agree with FossileMan: Goodby!!
Money won kicking ass is ten times sweeter than money earned kissing ass. Good bye!!
I pity most of the pros I have ever met (and they don't even play that good). Playing poker for a living? As a last resort, maybe. A real man should at least do three things in his life:
Have a child, build a house, write a book.
You gotta leave something behind. Young man, I strongly suspect you will only leave an empty space where your body used to be.
---
Hey Izmet,
What's with this build a house thing? Real men ar nomads! Plain and simple.
vince
Build it for somebody else, Vince.
---
"plant a tree"? "give some love"? You sound like one of those hippies from the disco era.
And you sound like a nobody.
---
Man, this guy has never had a job in his life and he's trying to tell us what having a job is like.
Poker Vet has no clue. Lots of people really like their jobs! This is the year 2000 and most companies have to kiss their employees asses or else they'll just go to another company that will!
You should see the deals that companies are making to attract people in my line of work. 15K signing bonuses, all moving expenses paid, lots of paid vacation to start, awesome medical bennies, stock options, investment plans, all sorts of stuff.
Plus, when you have a job and have a bad day or bad week for whatever reason, and aren't especially productive, no one gives a rats ass. What happens when you have a bad week at the poker table? You could lose your bankroll and be on the street.
I don't live in vegas - I'm sure some of the pros there do very well and have nice cars, a house, etc. in my neck of the woods (LA), the 'pros' I see do NOT look like they are prospering for the most part.
If you like that life then keep it - like I said, don't ask me to pay for your nursing home someday. Honestly, do you think that tiny bankroll will be enough to retire on? Gimme a break.
-SmoothB-
"Plus, when you have a job and have a bad day or bad week, for whatever reason, and aren't especially productive, no one gives a rats ass". This is exactly the problem I have with the workplace. If you don't perform, you still get paid. This is irresponsible and corrupt. By saying this, you are essentially admitting that in the workplace, you are getting paid based on your ability to kiss ass, not on your ability to perform.
I think that those lucky enough to have a skill that is in demand should realise that the only reason for this is that the employer can profit from them. The moment this changes, they will be history. When Poker Veteran talks about security being an illusion he is correct to this extent.
The present fashion in corporations is indeed one where "ass kissing" is not required, but this will probably change when some management guru writes a book that "proves" that you make more profit by treating your employees like shit.
How did pay for College? How did you obtain your initial buy-in and bank-roll for your early draw games? How did you afford to live while at College? How did you survive for the years it took to win the bad-beat jack pot?
I suspect it was off the backs of a typical pair of "gutless", "ass-kissing" "9 to 5"ers. Namely your parents.
Do you have the same disdain for them as you do for all the other gutless ass-kickers. You remind me of so many other "teen rebels", complete lack of respect for their parents and others like them, however they sure take the free ride. Most mature, you have not.
God made us in His likeness. how individual does that sound?
Rounder - please don't take what I said the wrong way. I have absolutely nothing wrong with playing poker professionally. I have even considered doing it full time myself.
I was just responding to Poker Vet's harsh attitude. I'm not going to judge anyone for their choices, and I don't want anyone else judging me for mine.
I have decided that I want to get a good job and play poker in my spare time, whenever I feel like it. And I can spend my extra income on whatever I like - vacation, car, whatever. That was my choice and I'm happy with it. Who knows, if poker still exists when I'm 55 maybe I'll even retire early and play more poker and spend more time travelling. Who knows?
It's just that a lot of the people who live off the system, like Poker Vet will if he's fortunate to live that long, resent those of us who foot the bills. I really hate that attitude. I'm paying for his medicare and retirement home and he has the nerve to insult ME?
I'll make poker vet and all others like him a deal. I won't get offended when you bash me for supporting you when you are old and broke, if you'll sign a waiver to ALL entitlements. That's right, if you're too decrepit to play anymore and you're broke, tough crap. You die in the street. Is it a deal, Poker Vet?
-SmoothB-
There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist.
SmoothB & all of the rest of you responding to these particular facets of "poker; playing for a living; job; fring benefits whatever" are giving 'on balance' good honest advice based on their experience in the poker world and the more common norm "the working world"(of course there are overlaps in these worlds -- you all know that)."
I would guess there are (A) only about one thousand( plus or minus some number) pure world class poker players on this earth who make 80 or 90% of their living on poker alone; (B) There could be another twenty thousand(+ or minus x) who survive as serious players in the poker world for various reasons (they write books, they teach poker, their spouse has a good job, they are proposition players, poker table ambassadors", poker dealers or floor persons ...etc ... whatever).
Long story short: If you have the talent to work at some job you like "other than poker", then work at that job until you are solidly vested in the long term benefits "pension, medical, 401(k) of 403(b)tax shelters." Why....
I have seen many old gamblers end up in the "poor house." When you are old and don't have adquate medical insurance, you will not get the proper cure treatments. I know some old professional poker players who amassed a bankrole of 100k or more but are in danger of losing it all because of today's various expenses. Medical bills, need of a new car, rent....
SmoothB & all of the rest of you responding to these particular facets of "poker; playing for a living; job; fring benefits whatever" are giving 'on balance' good honest advice based on their experience in the poker world and the more common norm "the working world"(of course there are overlaps in these worlds -- you all know that)."
I would guess there are (A) only about one thousand( plus or minus some number) pure world class poker players on this earth who make 80 or 90% of their living on poker alone; (B) There could be another twenty thousand(+ or minus x) who survive as serious players in the poker world for various reasons (they write books, they teach poker, their spouse has a good job, they are proposition players, poker table ambassadors", poker dealers or floor persons ...etc ... whatever).
Long story short: If you have the talent to work at some job you like "other than poker", then work at that job until you are solidly vested in the long term benefits "pension, medical, 401(k) or 403(b)tax shelters." Why....
I have seen many old gamblers end up in the "poor house." When you are old and don't have adquate medical insurance, you will not get the proper cure treatments. I know some old professional poker players who amassed a bankrole of 100k or more but are in danger of losing it all because of today's various expenses. Medical bills, need of a new car, rent....
Security is no longer available in the corporate world. Employees no longer feel loyal to their employeer and employeers no longer feel employees I an mot sure what came 1st but it is a fact.
Talk to the millions of upper and middle managers "down sized" in the 80's these guys ended up starting successful businesses and/or making our e-commerce economy prosper.
SmoothB has a point and I hope every young would be poker pro follows his lead and gets an education a good job and plays for the extra money while they are raising a family. Never allowing poker to interfer with his home life and the way the family lives,
I hate seeing the losers of lifes lottery hanging around card rooms trying to pick up a few crumbs - all the guys who have tried to sell me a watch of car in the casino - very sad - they have left themselves NO OUTS and are looking for that one card in the deck to bail them out of trouble - except that one card in never their. Hell I can remember winning a tournament in California where I was given a couple of racks of $25 chips for the prize - I got panhandled all the way to the cage. I am sure none of these guys are posting anywhere if they ever had a computer they hocked it long ago.
I've loaned money to people in casinos and was repaid from 1/2 an hour to 6 months - always got the money back and never had to ask for it.
Thing is I love the life the excitement of entering the poker room checking out the games deciding which one to play scouting the other players or the adrennaline rush when the tournament says "cards in the air" I am not addicted but I do love to play specially when it is my A+ game.
I've done the corporate thing - was a senior executive for a major corp. until 1987 when I decided they were killing me so I left my 6 figure job and started a couple of successful businesses. Those eventually bored me.
I may not work again until my move back to Illinois I was making a nice living at poker - now I can barely find a game worth playing.
Oh well I guess I've go on to long it's early in the morning and I'm bored.
It is no suprise that the word "security" does not compute in your head.
Your posts reveal you as probably the most insecure person I've ever seen. There is you and there is the rest of the world, who apparently are all "gutless ass-kissers" - Except of course for the "silent majority" who see things your way.
Priceless, man, just priceless. I find your posts highly entertaining if nothing else.
Live however you want, it doesn't bother me or anyone else. Your goal is to make a living at poker - fine, nothing wrong with that.
There is also nothing wrong with being a sucessful businessman, engineer, doctor, or ditch digger who plays poker for fun and uses these boards to try to gain insight or improve as a player.
By the way, can you go more than one post in a row without using the term "ass-kisser"? It doesn't offend me, I was just wondering.
A majority of the people reading this thread agree with me. And I respect their silence. Silence is indeed the strongest form of approval. Only a few - the Anti-Poker Activists, who form the loud minority - disagree with me. My way of thinking is more widespread than you think.
If this lifestyle is so wonderfull why do you have such a need to let everyone in on it. The there is only so much to go around. It kills me that every week I see the same group of people playing at the 40/80 HOSE game where I live. These people are misserable a--holes. I would say that 6 of them are proffesional players. How does that work??? I would that they would want to keep their success a secret and be pleasent enough to welcome high income people into the game. But, it is possible that I am wrong and that %60 of poker rooms should be filled with pros--giving the everyday player a better shot at winning in roullette or slots. I guess what i'm suggesting is that you are digging your own grave. Don't get me wrong i appreciate the input from the more experieced players, rounder in particular--- i would imagine that there is only a finite amount of fish out there, do you want everyone else taking them from you?
Poker Pro:
We bond, brother, especially on your thoughts about "security."
I was attracted to this thread by the title. So happens I wrote a VERY short essay on how to become a poker pro. I think you'll get a chuckle. Check it out here:
http://members.aol.com/tomium/index.html
Email me if you want a new pal.
Tommy
I certainly would discourage most serious poker players from quitting their day jobs. However, it is possible for some very strong players (with excellent emotional control) to rely on poker as a source of income; I have done it for years. [And in CA, poker pros do have the right to a healthy, smoke-free environment.] One downside is that poker requires a high level of skill to make a relatively low income. Most successful pros live modestly or have other sources of income. Other "pros" are gamblers who play (and live) too high for their bankroll, risking bankruptcy. As a grinder, my income is more secure than that of many people in business. I will always have customers and I can't be fired. I may quit before too long, however; I do not enjoy the game as much as I once did.
How long have you been at it?
Puggy
I have made my living in poker for about 6 years.
At your age,you're making the correct decision.Go get your career,I hope it works out for you.However,one of the drawbacks of youth is inexperience and in your case naive thinking.The concept of Security is generally a hoax perpetuated by the corporate world.You are a commodity,if you're smart you will make yourself a valuable one.Recently,the LV paper ran an article on several middle aged Aerospace workers who had lost their 75,000 a yr jobs in Calif.and are training to become Blackjack dealers(minimum wage plus groveling for tips).For the intelligent middle aged person who chose an industry that phased him out Poker could be a good option.People and their situations vary trying to apply judgements on everyone is'nt the right way to go about it.
It must be near, because I agree fully with SmoothB!
Nice post, and I agree that poker is a tough job but a great hobby, and that Poker Veteran really doesn't know what he's talking about on this subject. His opinions may be right for him, but they're way wrong for the vast majority of us.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks to Anti-Poker Activists - like yourself - who are hell bent on using doomsaying propaganda in order to discourage today's youth (like SmoothB) from travelling the noble path of full time pro poker play, the end of poker as we know it may actually be near at hand. If the field of professional poker dies down in the years to come, the Anti-Poker Activists should be blamed.
You really don't have the slightest freaking clue what you're talking about, do you?
When have I ever told anybody not to become a pro poker player? I have made comments that it is a tough career path, but I have never said everyone who takes that path is mistaken.
In any event, so what if the career of professional poker player dies out? That has nothing to do with poker dying out. Poker games consist of at least 90% amateurs who do not turn a profit in a typical year. So, even if we lose all the pros, poker will still be there, with just a slightly smaller population.
Also, you've been carefully avoiding my question above. What makes you think you're such an expert of the lifestyle of the typical corporate employee if you've never been one yourself? Secondhand information is notoriously incomplete and inaccurate, yet that is apparently all you have to work with. It should have happened months ago, but this will be my last reply to any of your posts.
My silence does NOT mean I'm in agreement with you. Despite your psychological delusions that everyone who doesn't speak up must be on your side of a debate.
(MUCH) Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.
Poker Veteran is actually probably correct that a large percentage of the population are far less than thrilled with their jobs. He is also right that Poker is a challenging road to varying degrees of potential freedom (freedom in a relative sense).
Poker Veteran is quite wrong in many of his blanket assertions, however. He may not realize that what is right for one person is probably not right for many others. He also appears to be under the common delusion that one's own field of endeavor is the(choose from among the following adjectives, add your own adjectives, or look up his previously posts--I'm not going to bother): best, most challenging, noblest, most free-enterprising, most creative, least confining, etc.,). It is amazing how often people who are immersed in one field develop tunnel vision. Pro poker players often think their game is the most competitive, hard, brutal. Pro chess pl;ayers often think theirs is. And I wouldn't be surprised if pro athletes, the beneficiaries of huge sponsorships and cash salaries, might not often think that their game is the hardest and noblest row to hoe.
Truman Capote compared writing a book to high-stakes professional gambling--you might invest several years in a work and even then you don't know for sure if you have something.
Poker Veteran needs to realize that it is diversity that makes the world turn and lets him do what he wants to do. Without others doing different things than he, he wouldn't be doing what he is doing. Without others thinking their field is the best, noblest, most interesting, or just something they have to do and doing it, nothing much would get done.
While PV may be right about a significant percentage of workers, his blanket statements are simply inaccurate. I would bet if he really thought about it, he would not be able to say that playing poker is any better or more free than, say, free-lance writing, free-lance consulting, or any number of other types of self-employment.
For those who can handle the regular schedules and demands of the modern corporate world, they too may view it as challenging and perhaps a fast track to early retirement (while PV and many others may still be "grinding it out.")
Bottom line: Do what you want to do and what you have to do, but don't judge others too harshly until you have stood in their shoes for a while.
To SmoothB:
I'm struggling to figure out why you sound so angry. If I choose to live in a box in the woods, why would you be concerned? If I choose to play poker for a living, does it really matter to you if it rains on my box?
I'm glad that you enjoy your work, that you are making money, and that your retirement is in line. I am a full time poker pro, and have been for ten years, and it so happens that I too enjoy my work, am making money, and have a solid retirement that I've been building through 20 years of monthly investment in blue-chip funds. I've never sold a share. I enjoy all the "rights" that you said were impossible, a healthy work environment, health insurance, etc. I am 42, and I could retire today, albeit modestly, all from poker.
I'm not trying to blow my horn, or show you to be wrong. I just think that if we are to get along with others, harsh judgementalism is a stumbling block. Each person has different priorities. Two of mine are to not have a boss, and to have no unwanted constraints on my time. Those are FAR more important to me than making more money than I need. One of your priorities seems to be that everyone adhere to your priorities. I can't figure that out.
In any case, be well.
Tommy
I am an east coast hold ‘em player who frequents AC, FW, MS, and various NYC games. I have managed to build myself a decent bankroll over the past month through some tournament victories and some big pot limit hands.
Because of this I am considering spending a number of weeks in the Los Angles poker area in the near future. I am seeking some information about poker there and general comments about my plans.
I have chosen LA because I think that it is most suited for what I am looking for. While I am a winning player in limit games, I find it very boring, tedious, and frustrating. When I do play limit I prefer the high action ramin-jamin type games that were prevalent at the former Diamond Club (may it rest in peace), and from what I understand are prevalent in the California.
What I do enjoy most and am primarily looking for is hold ‘em tournaments and pot limit cash games. Based on what I have read both HE tournaments and PL games are most readily available in Los Angles. Tournament information is available to me in Card Player Magazine and other similar sources, but if anyone would like to give a general overview of the tournament scene in LA I would appreciated that. I would most like to read some general comments about the pot limit games in LA, as well as:
Which rooms spread PL HE regularly?
How often and on what nights do they go?
What are the blinds and buy-ins for these games?
What is the skill level of the players in these games?
I have been and played in both Las Vegas and Phoenix, Arizona. While each poker destination has it’s pros and cons, I do think LA is best suited for an extended stay for an out of towner. Do the readers agree to with that? Casino Arizona was a wonderful experience, and for the casual low stakes player, I do believe that there is no better place to play on earth. However to come in from out of town would require the large expense of a hotel room and to rent a car to travel to the various card rooms and tournaments. Las Vegas is probably the cheapest of the three as far as room and transportation, yet based on what I have read the game selection and quality is nothing compared to what is available in Los Angles.
What I therefore would like is information and suggestions on where to stay in Los Angles. From what I have gathered from RGP and here the best places to play are at Hollywood Park, Commerce, and Hustler. What I would need is a card room that has a hotel very close by with a very good rate. I remember reading somewhere that $35/night at the Commerce was attainable. Can anyone confirm this? Additionally, I would have to get around town to go to the best Pot Limit games and tournaments. I wonder what transportation from room to room is like there in California.
Which room would be best to use as my “home base?”
What is the cheapest hotel near one of the main rooms?
What kind of rate could I get on a daily, weekly, or maybe monthly basis at one of these hotel?
How does one get from casino to casino with out renting a car? Taxi? Subway?
Do the card rooms have shuttles that go back and forth?
For example, suppose I determine that I want to stay at the Commerce. I get up one morning and have breakfast while playing 6/12 Omaha. There is a 2pm tournament at the Bike, then a 5-10 Pot Limit game is going at 6pm at Hustler, and I want to round off my day with some ramin-jamin 20/40 back at the Commerce. How easy or difficult is it going to be to get from place to place. I would really like to avoid the expense of renting a car.
I want to thank everyone in advance who responds to this lengthy post. I am new posting here, but I have reading and learning from 2+2 for over a year now. Now that I play seriously I intend to comment on other’s posts and post some of my experiences so others can learn from it.
Kinish kinish21@hotmail.com
I know you can strike a deal at Crystal Park - I know someone who stayed there 6 months for free - he got a full comp. It is posible - I usually only pay $10-$20 a night when I go there. Talk to the card room manager explain your situation and I am sure they will do something for you. It is not to far from the Commerce or the Bike (in California way of thinking} and an OK place to base out of.
All the LA card rooms seem to run tournaments that is what I go there for - I'll let Rick and the rest fill you in on the games but I play a NL game at Commerce once and a while.
Just a little background – I’m 26 years old and graduated from college in ‘95. After working for a few years as an electrical engineer, I quit my job at Northrop Grumman in Baltimore in May ’98. I was ready to travel for a while and take some time off (jobs for people in my field were and obviously still are plentiful). I wasn’t crazy about the company, and the work was getting to be just plain boring. While living in Baltimore, I made lots of weekend trips to AC. Some of my better friends are also poker players, and one of my best friends was and still is a successful AC pro.
Anyway, I backpacked across Europe for 3 months, met an incredible German girl in Portugal (more on that later), and came back to the states. I moved in with my friends in AC to just take some time off, relax, play cards to pay the bills, and see what I wanted to do next.
From September 1998 through April 1999, my only income was poker. I played all stud - $10-20 through $30-60 and managed to win about 3/4 of a big bet per hour during that time.
My experience was interesting. Some days I just couldn’t stand it anymore. The monotony really started getting to me. But a lot of days I really enjoyed myself. I had my ups and downs just like everybody, and it’s hard not to let it affect you emotionally. Playing poker is a great job when you’re winning every day, but going through a 2 month losing streak will test your patience (and that’s not even that long). I was lucky enough to have a nice size bankroll, so I didn’t have to worry about going broke. I couldn’t imagine playing under that pressure.
I think one thing that SmoothB has to consider is that playing professionally does allow you a certain degree of freedom which is VERY hard to come by otherwise. From your posts, I guess that you are in college or graduate school. All I can say is try working for 4 or 5 years (let alone 20 or 25) with 2 or 3 weeks of vacation per year and then come back and tell me that having that freedom isn’t worth a tremendous amount.
Sure, one can make a lot of money doing a lot of things, but I know no one who truly enjoys his job AND has a degree of freedom anywhere near that of a pro. Money is not the only thing, and if you play solid and rise to the middle-upper levels in poker, there’s no reason that you shouldn’t be able to make at least $60K per year which is plenty for most people.
Of course, there’s many other problems with being a pro which everyone knows about – credit, family situations, social situations, feelings of contributing nothing, etc. I just want to make the point that that the only one of my friends who can say, “You know what, I’m going on vacation for a month starting TOMORROW” is a professional poker player. Anyway, I moved to Germany last April to be with the girl that I mentioned earlier. I currently work for an aerospace company here making good money as a freelance engineer. I probably play about 4 or 5 hours of poker per week on Paradise. When I head back to the states next year, I plan on taking another half year off or so to play, and then re-evaluating.
My perfect world would be to work for 6 months, and play for 6 months, then repeat. I’m going to try to make that happen, but if I have to face the choice of the 2 weeks vacation again or making it as a pro, all I know at this point is that it would be a very difficult choice.
One sidebar is that I find it very difficult to take poker seriously and have a full time job as well. Try working 40 hours per week, playing cards a decent amount, and having any other sort of life besides that. It’s just tough. Of course, you could always play maybe 5 hours per week or something – but after playing only 250 hours for the whole year, tell me how frustrated you’ll be when you’re losing for the year.
One new problem is now that I have a serious girlfriend, I obviously want to spend a lot of time with her. I simply will not sacrifice when it comes to her. This means that I will not be playing on the weekends or staying up until 5 in the morning. Another hurdle – since these were the best action times in AC.
Hope someone gets something out of this, and sorry if it was long winded.
Puggy
You played professionally for less than one year and you say the monotony was really getting to you. Imagine what it would feel like after 2 years? 20 years? 40 years?
There are VERY few pros who make 60K+ per year. That's a fact.
And what happens when you have that inevitable 6 month losing streak? How much fun will poker be then?
Here is something to consider :
You can make more money if you have a job and play part time than you could if you played full time professionally!!!
Think about it - you play professionally full time. You have a monthly nut of 3000 per month. It goes without saying that you are not living the good life, but you're doing ok.
Let's say your bankroll is about 12000. You can play pretty comfortably up to about 20-40. Anything beyond that is risky, but occasionally you take a shot at 40-80 with mixed results. Every time you do it you risk going bust, even if the game looks juicy.
To make your monthly nut you have to work about 100 hrs per month. 25 hours a week is not bad. Don't even kid me about taking a month long vacation - maybe if you had a super lucky month, but not otherwise. Your bankroll can't handle it.
Someone like me, on the other hand, can make much more than you. Let's say I play once a week for 8 hours, and occasionally twice a week. I only play when the games are best - Fri and Sat night. That's one bonus. I haven't burned out from grinding it out with the rocks all week.
I go to the Bike and I watch some games from the rail. I notice that the 80-160 game looks particularly juicy. I can sit and play in this game. You can't. You have to play in that tough looking 30-60 game because you need to make 1500 by next Tuesday, but your bankroll can't afford the hit if you get crushed. And, you can't play in the 10-20 because you won't be able to make enough to make your nut.
Why is it that all of the semi pros (lawyers, etc with good jobs who play on weekends) tend to make more playing poker than people who play 50 hrs a week?
1) Can play in whatever game they like.
2) Not bored - the game is refreshing and relaxing to them after a week of doing something different - not the same grind day in and day out.
3) Not afraid to lose. Losing 2000 bucks won't put a scratch in them so they never play scared. I've seen some pro's on losing streaks and their play really seems effected by it.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB,
I agree with you about the monotony. I wouldn’t want to play poker as my only source of income for 20 years. That is why I said my ideal world would be to work for 6 months, play for a while, work again, etc.
You are probably correct when you say you can make more money with a full time job and playing part time than if you played full time professionally. Here you completely missed my point. Like I said, try working 40+ hours per week, playing a decent amount of poker (I’ll say 10 hours), and having a full life outside of that. I’m not trying to argue the merits of becoming a pro, I’m just saying these things you have to consider.
In my book, freedom and the time to do whatever you want is worth far more than an extra 10 or 20 grand at the end of the year. If you really care that much about money, you’ll probably go work for some big time law firm who pays you $150K and you’ll work 70 hours per week to earn it. Then we’ll see how much time you have to play poker.
Anyway, when you say “you” in your post, I assume that you are talking about a generic “you”. My situation is very different than the one you describe as the typical pro (i.e. my bankroll is much bigger). I also have several friends who started off with very little and now make over $100K per year as pros after just a few years of playing. They have great lives and enjoy themselves just as much as anyone. I agree that this is not easy to do, you need a lot of emotional and intellectual intelligence. I’m also not saying it’s for everyone, just that it is an alternative and the portrait of the “starving pro playing 50 hours per week with no vacation and living in a trailer” is not the way it has to be.
Puggy
If your point is that you need a large bankroll to be a comfortable professional poker player, you are right. If your point is that if you can make more money at something besides poker, you are right. If your point is that this means that people shouldn't play poker professionally, you are wrong.
- Andrew
Try living off of 60k a year in So. Cal. If that's all you can make playing poker put yourself out of your misery and find a new career. Let me rephraise that a bit, if you are young and single that's fine, but if you have a family and a house note every month good luck?
Bruce
Puggy,
You bring up a point that is so important- Freedom. With a regular job you don't get any compared to that of being a self employed poker pro. A quick example of somebbody who would totally agree with you on the freedom thing would be my dad. He is retiring 5 years early and because of this he is giving up (between salary and added benefits of staying until you are a certain age) about $3million. He says that the extra money is not worth 5 more years of work. Maybe this is an example of how much the grind of work can wear one down until they are willing to sacrifice big money just to have freedom.
Sure could play an awful lot of poker with that kind of backing. Say, where does your Dad work? Any openings? ;-)
Just to clear things up.....That money would be a combination of salary plus the extra money he would be giving up for retiring early. He is an aerospace engineer and you don't want any job in that industry according to him :-)
I've been involved with the design, analysis, and testing of Department of Defense systems (mainly Air Force) as a DoD contractor since 1973, so I know something about the aerospace industry. I'm just a technical weenie (MS Physics) and make more than reasonable $$$$. Still, giving up $3 mega-bucks over just 5 years is simply inconceivable to me, unless your Dad is looking at being sent to Thule. He's gotta be in a nasty, high stress, management job.
There is no question that being a professional poker player can be tougher than many think. However, it can be a great second job.
Dear Mason,
The word "professional" must never be used in relationship to human endeavors categorized as "jobs" even if the word second precedes it!
Vince
...or a great retirement activity.
Years ago, someone said to Jack Niclaus, "I'd give anything to be able to hit a golf ball like you do."
Jack replied, "No, you wouldn't."
Jack DID give everything. I do to. To me, total freedom is everything. So I risked everything to gain everything. Seems like a fair trade.
Tommy
Whenever I read posts about being a pro player and comments about freedom and not having to work the "daily grind", I think to myself, am I the only guy in the world who truly likes what he does for a living and likes going to work? I play poker for fun and have worked in my field for 12 years. I make 80,000 a year, have full benefits (medical/dental, vacation/sick leave, retirement, 401K) and I enjoy what I do. I work in a challenging, exciting environemnt where every day is different. When someone asks my 6 year old son what his Dad does, he is proud to tell them. (I work in law enforcement). I happent to be the boss at where I work so maybe that has something to do with it. I would never give this up for the "freedom" of being a pro or to avoid the "daily grind". I am not putting someone down who is or wants to be a pro, but I do feel like I am one of the fortunate few in this world that truly enjoys their job. I do think it is a sad comment on life today when most people do not enjoy their jobs or view them as losing their "freedom" or being a grind.
Mike,
Rest assured, we have no disagreement. Sure, there are lots of folks like you who enjoy your job and take pride in it, thereby increasing the likelihood of fulfillment and happiness. Likewise, I would not be surprised if some poker pros are unfulfilled. Each person's capacity for "fulfillment" and "happiness" are intangibles that transcend surface features such as career choices. But having an enjoyable career certainly helps.
All we can do is find our nitch as best we can. Sounds like we have found ours, and that's the main thing.
Tommy
I love hold em, and I have played in AC and vegas and a little in new york. However, I live in Maine and New hampshire (seasonally), and I can't find a game in either state with decent stakes.
Can anyone help me?
Yes Sir officer Sir
Posted by: Sysop (a.zafari@cableinet.co.uk)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Gomez (gomezed@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Gomez (gomezed@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Rock_of_Sages
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Nick
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 11:57 a.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bistream.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: PacPalBuzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Ladybeth (larc@lvcm.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:02 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 7:32 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 3:55 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 2:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Jimmy R.
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jed
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Jed
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 9:00 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bistream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: Pete
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Barefoot (Barefootbob44@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: Sysop (a.zafari@cableinet.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Barefoot (Barefootbob44@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: Kim Lee
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.vom)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mojo Jojo
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mojo Jojo
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hptmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: abe (abe11@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 3:58 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 9:34 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 3:13 a.m.
Posted by: Don
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: I give up
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 6:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 8:27 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: abc
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 7:34 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: abc
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 6:03 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:25 p.m. You don't have what it takes to engage in the most adventuresome intellectual profession known to humanity.
But if you have guts, courage, discipline, and the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this country the great nation that it is, by all means go ahead and take up poker as you profession. You'll have the grandest adventure that life has to offer.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: chipshot
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Mike
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 8:30 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 August 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: Student
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Student
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: clf-NY (chriscarine@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Jakell (jimfireguy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 9:19 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: the nuts (thenutts@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 6:32 a.m.
Posted by: BETTOR THAN YOU (BETTOR@HOTMAIL.COM)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hptmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: SaveFerris (SaveFerris@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 3:24 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: SaveFerris (SaveFerris@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: J (jotto@jotto.no)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Kim Lee
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: CarlWmJames (cwjhein@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Elie Doft (edoft@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: CarlWmJames (cwjhein@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: CarlWmJames (cwjhein@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Elie Doft (edoft@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 6:28 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Izmet Fekali (plant a tree, give some love, find a cure, teach a child, change the world, invent a thingy...
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hptmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 6:21 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rock_of_Sages
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Rock_of_Sages
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (danncy12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: es
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Grinder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Grinder
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: MS (Margol2@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 9:47 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: The Kinish (kinish21@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 6:58 a.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Tuesday, 12 September 2000, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hptmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (MikeCO2@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Ashok (Goldtab99@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
The Gambling Forum Archive
General Poker Theory
August 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo