![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Is there any computer software that will keep your records for you? I'm a college student and am looking for a program to keep my records with. I play mostly 3-6 or 5-10, occasionaly 10-20 when I can find a good game.
Excel does anything you would need here.
I agree with chris. If you've already got excel, use it.
I agree with the other posters that a spreadsheet program is perfectly adequate for tracking your mean and standard deviation.
I have developed an Excel spreadsheet that will do this. It also, will give you your mean and standard deviation measured in big bets and dollars. Plus you can restrict the games that go into the calculation by type of game and by limit. So you could look at the results on you 3-6 games, or your 3-6, 4-8, and 5-10 gamees combined.
The spreadsheet is called analyzer, and can be downloaded from:
http://www.geocities.com/happy_flop/
In the current issue of Poker Digest Magazine (the one with the Regent in Vegas on the cover), Rolf Slotboom wrote a great article entitled "Some Tough Decisions". The reason I liked the article so much is because it reinforces my view that the skill factor in big bet poker (no limit and pot limit) is greater than in limit poker.
I recommend everyone interested in this subject, read this article. The article covers a pot limit Omaha game with $5-$5-$10 blinds and a $500 buy in. Slotboom made a brilliant and difficult decision to call a $1000+ bet on the end knowing full well that he could easily be beat since his set of Eights was no where near the nuts. His discussion brings out all the reasons why big bet poker is the more skillfull form of the game.
P.S: I hope Mason Malmuth and John Feeney read this article and provide their comments.
I don't know when I'll get to the article, Jim, but based just on your post it looks like it highlights that a decision in PL may of course put more money at stake. Still, I don't think that makes the decision any more skillful. Not knowing the details of the hand, I would just ask, could not a player in a limit game make the same (or a very similar, or a more complex) decision, based on the same (or similar, or more complex) considerations?
Anyway, I think I've said about all I have to say on this issue. It only goes in circles. BTW, I have stated that I really have no opinion on it. I've just raised questions.
I also want to point out that I have only compared limit hold 'em to no limit hold 'em or pot limit hold 'em. I have never addressed pot limit Omaha which is of course a different game. The reason I have never addressed it is that I don't consider myself knowledgeable in it at all.
By the way, who is Rolf Slootboom?
Mason,
I have see an couple of his articles. Seems pretty up front to me. His newest is on PokerPages. I understand that he is a Pot Limit player, however I am not sure where he plays.
BTW, his latest article located http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/slotboom02.htm
He has some interesting things to say about the small blind situation in Limit Hold 'em , that he folds 70% of the time. What do you think about this?
Zander
I read the skimmed through the article. Saying that you fold 70 percent of the time in the small blind isn't good enough. You have to be more specific. How often is he folding when there is no raise? How often is he foldig when there is a legitimate raise and the pot is short handed. (If he plays more than 5 percent of the time here he is probably a loser.) What if there is a legitimate raise and the pot is multiway? How often does he play against a steal raise and does he just call or reraise?
.
.
I have read the article, and I don't see how this illustrated the greater skill of the PL player. Sure, it was a well thought-out decision, but no more so than if it occured in limit. The only real difference is the amount at risk. In limit, you would just pay off or raise, but the wrong decision in PL is more costly.
If you read Tommy Angelo's post about set over set in NL, you will understand that this decision in PL is no more important than if it was in limit. In the long run, you will win more bets than you lose, and that's all that matters.
3 Bet Brett, in limit poker this would never be a decision. You would call every time with your set of Eights given the pot size. In limit poker it is a no-brainer once you get more than a dozen bets or so in the pot. It really doesn't matter whether the game is hold'em or omaha.
But then in limit poker you would only win a pot of size X plus a river bet. But in pot limit your decision to call the river bet results in you winning a pot of 2X given your opponent is making bet of X which matches the pot.
On the other hand, if you routinely call in these situations in pot limit, you will go broke. Not so in limit poker.
Limit poker is about showing down the best hand. Pot limit poker is about making effective bets, raises, and calls.
Jim Brier, you are confusing Omaha and Holdem. In omaha, you would not call this bet every time. There are two straights on the board, and all you have is a set. If you routinely called in this situation, you would be a big loser. The pot size cannot be compared to limit, because in limit it wouldn't get that big.
One question unrelated to the differences between limit & No-Limit: From the paragraph that ended with Rolf shouting "Call!", did you get the impression that Rolf made the call, at least in part, due to Wolf's choice to do nothing to stop Rolf from folding his hand? I really got that impression from the build up, but then he doesn't even mention that as being a factor when he was put to the "tough decision."[I guess because it had nothing to do with the point he was making overall].
Yes, I did. I think Rolf was trying to get a reaction and when he didn't that was one of the factors that led to his decision to call.
TA wrote : "None of the ones I know well enough to know if they do it do it. "
highly confusing sentence! does this mean you these people do calc their Sds or that they don't
I was confused as well, but since this was the only response I got, I just dismissed it.
What Tommy means is that he knows some pros well enough to be privy to whether or not they track their SD. And those that he knows this way don't track it.
I think a majority of pros don't track it, but I don't know how big that majority is.
Now if Tommy can come up with some more zazenchendangolistic sentences like that, he can leave a legacy to poker players everywhere as they busily "interpret" him well into the future. ;-)
Of the ones (players) that Tommy knows well; of those players he says "None" keep track.
Of all the others (he doesn't know well) he doesn't know.
I play low limit, so there are normally several players seeing a given flop. How do I watch them all? Should I key on one rather than another? Is it better to watch pre flop raisers?
I know, questions? questions?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Fitz
If you have a decent player who raised, you knw he/she has a decent hand for their position. You can pretty much guess whether the flop was likely to help or not.
With players that have styles lending towards maniac play, you never know what they could be holding. I watch the ones I have to be concerned with. Usually the loose aggressive players or the player(s) at the table who are toying at this limit waiting for their game to open up.
i will be in New Orleans and was wondering if anybody knows the name of the hotel casion there, and what games they play and limits. thanks in advance
Harrah's has the best poker room I've seen in New Orleans. They are on the edge of the French Quarter, and can probably point you toward a room close by. I was there a couple of weeks ago and saw; 1-5 stud, 4-8 HE; 4-8 Omaha; 15-30 HE and Omaha, and several tables where they deal a round of HE and a round of Omaha at the 4-8 level. The games I was in were pretty soft. There are probably 15-18 tables total.
Harrah's casino is not allowed to have its own hotel, this is Loisiana politics at its finest (bring in a buisness and rape them until they leave). That being said, there are plenty of hotels within walking distance, and plenty more within a streetcar ride or a quick cab ride. The poker room is very nice (called the blue dog, because of all of the artwork). It spreads 7-stud 1-5 and sometimes 2-10 (mainly weekends). HE 2-4 and 4-8 (though I have seen bigger games when the well known or well to do are in town). They also have a half HE, half Omaha for higher limits (15-30 I think) and they tend to have either a 10-20 or 20-40 omaha. The stud games tend to be soft (mostly what I play), and from what I see, the HE games are too. Scout the tables a little and I think you will find it to be a fun and profitable experience. Also, don't expect to comp food or anything like that (more La politician brilliance- keep em handcuffed so mississippi will take all of the highrollers). Email me if you need anymore advice on where to stay, etc. Good Luck!
Here are some theories of mine to determine if you're a winning player or not. I'd like people's thoughts on them if they are true or not.
When you win money, you tend to win it at a much faster rate then when you lose it. Ex. You play for 200 hours and lose 50bb, you go through another period where you win 100bb in 50 hours of play...you might be a winning player.
You have more winning sessions then losing sessions...you might be a winning player.
You're opponents fear you and don't play their game against you...you might be a winning player.
Any comments?
If you've played more than 1000 hours and are ahead.
"You're opponents fear you and don't play their game against you...you might be a winning player."
Fear is greatly over-rated in limit play. There is really no way to make a bet large enough to inspire fear in an opponent and you should not fear anyone else at the table.
You are in the black. Period. If you have won money, then you are a winning player. It seems pretty simple to me. Am I missing something here?
Unless you're talking about knowing when you are a winning player without keeping track. In other words, those players who have to guess whether or not they are winners because they haven't won or lost enough for it to be unquestionable. Then I see what you're getting at.
But anyone who keeps track and is up by $1 is a winning player, nest pas?
I myself am not. :(
natedogg
ff
IYP,
I think I see where you're going here; don't try to define winning as
"being happy even though losing money"
Content to lose for entertainment perhaps but we better leave winning as pertaining to money.
;-)
I'm a statistics buff. Lets say you have four equally skilled players playing approximately the same limits of hold'em, omaha hi'lo (8 or better), omaha hi, and 7-stud. In the long run, who makes the most money?
Just curious :)
THE HOUSE!
My guess is Hold"em, OmahaHi, Stud and Omaha8 in that order - the 1st two are real close IMHO.
Answer to: "I have a curious question... posted by EnderFFX."
The obvious answer to your question is, "the long range luck factor would determine who gets the most money. Essentially they would all almost break even. But the longer they play -- the bigger the deviation would be among their final holdings "who gets the most money." I could take time and put this in better probability terms but I won't. Time is valuable....
Assuming these four guys are playing in a casino "just the four of them," then the casino would make essentially all the money. If they were playing in a casino full ring game -- then the skill of the other opponents would determine who gets the money but again it is just long term luck for these four.
If you are a true beleiver you would know that there is no "long range luck factor" it is supposed to even out "in the long run" However, no one has ever told me what the long run is but there is supposed to be one - it is the premise that S&M have based their entire poker theory on.
Sounds like a cult to me! lol
natedogg
Just wondering how many of make this call.
You are in a NL HE game doing well - you have every cent to your name on the table - everything you own is sitting there - over 100K.
A new guy sits down you don't know him from a bar of soap. You are delt AA - he bets 5k you raise to 10K he bets your entire stack. Over 100K.
You know you are favorate but are you willing to lose it all and start over.
Just wondering.
With that hand, yes.
Al's answer is ok, but incomplete.
There are two ways of looking at this.
The first way takes us "outside the box", if you will, by sidestepping (somewhat) what Rounder has in mind. The answer is "Of course", because I would not have put everything on the table in the first place if I was unwilling to put it in at some point. That is, I wrestled with the question earlier, and made my decision then. This seems to beg the question, but it makes an important point - only put on the table what you are willing to lose.
The second approach is that of utility theory. The answer is then very dependant on the player risking everything. If (somehow) I got to that situation without thinking about it beforehand, and foolishly putting everything at risk, then I would fold and leave. The 200,000 I would probably end up with is not that much more important to me than the 90,000 I have, and neither are worth the (~20% or so) risk of losing it all. But that is just me. Were I younger and without a family, then the answer might well be "Yes".
Eric
This question is basically a personality test. A question about how much one values playing it safe vs. going for broke. Security vs. adventure.
There is no real correct answer. Even though you're going to win this 85% of the time against any random hand in the long run, anything can happen in the short-run making it nothing but a gamble. I mean, how many of us have experienced getting AA beat by a match weaker hand.
Another thing to take into consideration are the individual's needs. One guy might have a family of 4 with one daughter in the hospital while another guy may be single and have no financial obligations whatsoever.
Personally, I would put my 100k in in a heartbeat. But that's just me.
Most of us are gamblers. We must take these odds. Probably shouldn't have our entire bankrollon the table.
But yes, hypothetically.
Absolutley not. The difference between having a 100K bankroll versus a 200K bankroll is insignificant in the games I play in ($10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40). The difference between having a 100K bankroll and being totall busted is vast and would put me out of action forever. I would never put anything close to my total bankroll on the table.
Jim Brier is correct, of course. Another point, what bankroll your opponent has? If he is Donald Trump, or Bill Gates, they might be bluffing. IMHO.
You have AA. No matter what they have except AA, they are bluffing.
Upon further reflection I say I would fold and never again put my entire bankroll at risk.
Regarding: Re: "BIG BET" poker Jim Brier -- Thursday, 1 March 2001, at 3:03 p.m. Jim this is a great reply. and: IYP post In Response To: Re: "BIG BET" poker (Jim Brier)
Jim Brier is correct, of course. Another point, what bankroll your opponent has? If he is Donald Trump, or Bill Gates, they might be bluffing. IMHO.
IYP your point might be an interesting point -- but it is entirely a moot point. It doesn't matter at all if the bet was made by a "Bill Gates or Trump type" or a gambling fool who put his last 100 K in the pot.
Dear Sir: I repeat, Jim Brier is correct. No change here. For my comment, I say, It is a little of a joke, if you please. Think about it, they might have 47o, and feel that you will never call them. My point is, IF, a big IF, you were to call the bet, is something to considered. I think you are thinking Odds, %, etc...only. How about the differet human aspects on every bet? Huh?
Sorry IYP. My two responses on a time basis got out of order -- you can check this. I guess you were just having fun with a simple "what-if" question.
and has NO gamble in him. He turned down Doyle when invited to a 300-600 so Doyle didn't autograph his book. Gates is a poker weasel - he does not toke anyone not dealers not waitresses he is a jerk.
I also read somewhere that he playes very low limits, however I didn't know he was such an *ssh*le, I can understand a struggling pro not tipping well, but not the richest guy on the planet. That is just bad business.
Correct? How can Jim or anyone be "correct" on a question like this? Jim's answer is correct for Jim. To say a "yes" answer is "incorrect is the same as someone askeding you if you like apples or oranges, and when you give you preference, they tell you your choice is wrong.
Tommy
jim is wrong!
lol, j/k.
but it is a silly question. if you wont put all your money in before the flop in hold'em with aces then only how much money you would put in with aces should be on the table.
nate
Bluffing or not bluffing, your opponent can't have a better pre-flop hand than you.
(if my memory serves me right) A cal-tech type scientist -- last name Wilson -- published a book on gambling about forty years ago: He essentially said that a professional gambler told him that, "a true professional gambler would not bet every thing he had (say a million dollars)that the Sun Would Rise Tomorrow." The point is, it is not prudent to do this. Ther are people who really would do this "bet everything," and I know many people like this. These people are either broke or get their poker income from from another source -- from publishing gambling books "etc.," or from loans from poker friends, or from their wifes or girlfriends. The poker pros in CA and Nevada could tell us many stories of this nature. Almost all surviving poker tournament players made deals when they get down to a few players at the final table.
It is easy to talk the talk -- but....
Anyone who is willing to sit down with their whole net worth should have made that decision before they sat down...so therefore, if I was at that table with $100,000, and it is all I have, then that means that I would have had already made that decision (to call with AA)....however, honestly, if $100,000 is all to my name, I would not have sat in that game with it all (and frankly, I have more than that, but I wouldn't sit down with more than 10K - I guess that shows my conservatism a bit).
.
If the conditions are that he definitely does not have aces too, I would definitely call. With no such conditions, against a player who I know would only make that bet with AA, I would fold.
Tommy
If you are _POSITIVE_ he has A-A. Then theres what? 90% -- 95% chance of tying? Chances of winning and losing are very slim. So by folding your simply giving up over 15k of your 100k bankroll. If I was positive that he will only make that bet with A-A, I would call -- otherwise it'd be a waste of 15k.
If I think this player will make this bet with virtually any other medium-strong hand. I would most likely fold. Chances of winning will be much higher. But chances of losing will be higher then going in against A-A. Remember the best hand against A-A is 5-6s
Would he make that bet with 5-6s? Almost surely not. But perhaps he is just some rich high roller fish. In which case I would fold. I'd rather call at a good solid player here holding K-K or something similar. Then trying to show the "fish" whos boss..
THere really is no good answer to the Rounders question. Thats why its such a damn good queston.
Actually it's a dumb question because good players don't put their whole bankroll on the line. It would never come up.
From what I've read in biographies and many articles, legends like Doyle Brunson, Bobby Baldwin, Amarillo Slim, Puggy Pearson, Johnny Chan, and Chip Reese put it all on the line regularly early in their careers. But they are an entirely different subject because they are great players not good players.
And I am by no means saying that this ability to bet the ranch is the reason behind their successes. But it sure says a lot about the type of attitudes they possess regarding risk and reward.
While I know that these players went broke a number of times, I don't think they would actually ever risk all of a reasonable bankroll at once.
For instance, the story about Chip Reese and ? showing up in Vegas with $500 between them or something. This is more of a "taking a shot" attitude than "risking a bankroll". And sometimes the lines become blurred... if you've lost 90K of your original 100, does playing with the other 10 count as risking a bankroll? or taking a shot to keep one?
no, its not a realistic question, because given that you have sat down in the game with all your bankroll, you should have made up your mind already beforehand.
Danny,
You wrote: "If I think this player will make this bet with virtually any other medium-strong hand. I would most likely fold. Chances of winning will be much higher. But chances of losing will be higher then going in against A-A. Remember the best hand against A-A is 5-6s"
I realize some players make these kinds of decisions based on chances of not losing the pot. Personally, I make these kinds of decisions based on mathematical expectation.
AA loses less often against AA than against 65s, so you might prefer playing it against AA. AA has a higher expectation against 65s than against AA, so I prefer playing it against 65s.
Different people have different utility functions.
Mark: If AA loses more often against 65s, it can't have higher expectation. Am I right?
it can't have higher expectation against 65s.
"Mark: If AA loses more often against 65s, it can't have higher expectation. Am I right?"
Careful. Think about this. Suppose you play A,A against A,A heads up. All in pre flop. It's a wash. The only loss is when one hand makes a flush against the other. It it happens an equal amount of times. Losses are wins and equal. Lets say each makes a flush 1% of the hands. In 100 hands there will be a tie 98 times and each will win 1. Expectation is 0.
Against 6,5s you will see more losses on the A,A side in a 100 hands but the A,A will also win a great deal more hands than the 6,5s, giving it a higher expectation.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Suppose you play A,A against A,A heads up. All in pre flop. It's a wash. The only loss is when one hand makes a flush against the other. It it happens an equal amount of times. Losses are wins and equal. Lets say each makes a flush 1% of the hands. In 100 hands there will be a tie 98 times and each will win 1. Expectation is 0."
Actually, in the long run, a hand like AsAh will lose to a hand like AdAc over 2 percent of the time (and win over 2 percent of the time).
But, yes, AsAh will have an expectation of $0.00 against AdAc if we make the standard assumptions (heads-up, all-in pre-flop, no rake, no tip, no exposed cards, no shuffle tracking, no cheating, etc.).
You also wrote: "Against 6,5s you will see more losses on the A,A side in a 100 hands but the A,A will also win a great deal more hands than the 6,5s, giving it a higher expectation."
You are right, again! In the long run, a hand like AsAh will lose to 6c5c nearly 23 percent of the time (and win almost 77 percent of the time). And if the pot contains $40, the AsAh will have an expectation of $30.78 against 6c5c if we make the standard assumptions.
Gee 2 for 2 and I'm only semi-lucid. Go figure. Must be a Mark Glover analysis.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Gee 2 for 2 and I'm only semi-lucid."
Let's not be greedy, okay?
Nobody said you were 2 for 2. There were at least eight errors in your earlier post. I just didn't rub your nose in them.
2 for 10 and I'm still semi-lucid. Not bad!
Vince
Tommy,
You wrote: "With no such conditions, against a player who I know would only make that bet with AA, I would fold."
Do you really mean this? Or do you have a third thought?
That was a really dumb answer by me and I don't want to talk about it anymore. lol
See other post.
Tommy
Here's what I get from it.
It's not about aces or $100,000 or having it all the line. The odds of aces holding up and the amount of money are both arbitrary. It'd be more to the point to ask, "Would you bet it all on a coin toss if someone offered you such-and-such odds?"
Pick a number. 6-5, 3-1, 30-1, whatever.
And it doesn't even half to be "bet it all." Would you bet 1/x of your net worth getting such-and-such odds. Again, pick a number.
For each of us, various combinations of these sliding scales straddle our risk/reward thresholds. Just a matter of where we draw our lines about putting it on the line.
Tommy
I would put it all in. First, because it's "only" 85k more but more importantly, 100k is just not that hard to replace. You can work for 50-100k/year, borrow some, and get $$ from credit cards etc. If the credit card and borrowing options did not exist, then I would not, as I don't want to be broke, no matter what.
If it was one million, then I would not, because 1M is very difficult to replace and almost impossible to make back in poker in a short period of time.
Just my thoughts. There certainly are no right or wrong answers here.
Great post. It has all to do with risk aversion and utility--always an interesting concept.
A better question would be, you started with 200k (all your money), were stuck 100k, and then had this opportunity. I bet more people would take this prospect (see prospect theory by Tversky and Khanaman).
If you put it on the table then you must put it in the pot.
You have scraped up your last cent to play in a $10K buy in game. Which is very possible, so all the posts saying that if you put 100K in the game you had to put it in - I never said that is what he started with.
It was fun reading all the responses.
BTW - I have gambled every cent I had not on cards but on business - hell it's only money.
The last (business) gamble I took paid off in spades but as much as I get AA cracked I think I take my profit from this game and head off with my tail between my legs cuz this guy who tried to put me all in has bigger balls and bankroll than I do.
Rounder,
You wrote: "Which is very possible, so all the posts saying that if you put 100K in the game you had to put it in - I never said that is what he started with."
Does it matter to you whether the 100K was your initial starting bankroll or the result of a good session?
Mike,
This is an instinctual play. Exactly what you are hoping for happens. Everybody that plays poker will want to make this call. But some won't. Some have a risk threshold. If you change the sum to 1,000,000 more would not call than at 100k because of what 1m means to them. 10m more won't call. 1k everybody calls except Mason. He's cheap.
vince
If you are not willing to lose 100K in one session don't play with 100k in front of you
In his books, Mason recommends keeping session records to generate hourly expected rate and hourly standard deviation. This is obviously a good idea.
My question is: does keeping session records generate enough data points to accurately determine hourly standard deviation (and expected win/loss rate for that matter), or should we be keeping recording hourly results as well to generate this data?
Obviously, recording results on an hourly basis is both more labor intensive and can generate an unfavorable image (if aware opponents see you recording info at the table), but it would seem to me that the resulting statistical data would be that much more representative and precise, especially for the first few thousand hours.
Thoughts?
Jason
Sucking out is the game, not just part of the game.whether i suck out on you or you suck out on me. whether we do it on the flop..turn...river....it's the card we've been waiting for to put our opponent(s) in the poor house. we don't offer a refund because we sucked out on a hand.we wait for the next hand where we can entice each other into bankruptcy ON THE LAST CARD. Oh it's what we live for. The Kill.
thanks
slim
(inspired by those who complain about the suck out artist)
Thanks for the mantra. But I'm not quite sure I see the relevance to the original question...
Jason
I record limit, location, length of session, and net gain for the session. Some people keep more statistics, but I barely play frequently enough to make use of the ones that I do keep.
With this you can estimate your hourly mean gain and standard deviation by limit and location. You can also convert each session's gain into big bets, and put all of the sessions together. Although I would not advise pooling together 5-10 hold-em games with 30-60 games, it might make sense to pool together 3-6 and 4-8 games.
Your estimate of your mean hourly rate will not converge any faster by recording your gain at each hour of play, but your standard deviation will. Still, my experience has been that the standard deviation estimate stabilizes long before my hourly mean estimate does for any limit. So it is not really worth while to record your stack size at the table every hour.
...on the Which Jesus is Your Jesus? banner ad.
I don't read a lot about game selection other than passing references to it. I sure wish I had more games to choose from. I think it's one of the most important parts of the game...you shouldn't play when you don't have the edge. And the bigger edge the better...
To maybe get a thread going I am going to post four session results. Two were passive loose sessions and two aggressive loose sessions alternating starting with the loose passive.
HE $4-8
13 hours loose aggressive -$80.00
Almost 5 hours loose passive +$140.00
I didn't raise a single hand in the loose passive games.
Both game types can have a high deviation, but the passive games are usually a pushover. There is hardly any raising, and people are happy to give you their money. You just have to understand how to play to keep the game so soft.
Usually the passive loose games change because some big ego'd, small brained player(s) sit down and aren't having enough fun.
Many players do not take any action to keep the game in a style they can play well in. They just sit down and start playing. Do you find this to be true?
Thoughts?
by never raising you are costing yourself alot of money. you can keep raising down to good situations but not raising is wrong. i suspect you play too passive yourself so you may have trouble beating the more aggressive games. you are right though that loose passive games are the best and it pays to keep them that way.
My idea of a good game is one where there is a mix of players - no more than 2 loose aggressive a few tightish and the rest passive.
As for raising - don't be afraid to raise the good hands in a LP, game trick is out playing them after the flop.
Mike - "I didn't raise a single hand in the loose passive games."
A bit extreme. I don't think you have to go quite that far to keep the game passive. Certainly no pre-flop raising, though.
"the passive games are usually a pushover. There is hardly any raising, and people are happy to give you their money. You just have to understand how to play to keep the game so soft."
Exactly!
"Usually the passive loose games change because some big ego'd, small brained player(s) sit down and aren't having enough fun."
Ain't it the truth! Sometimes it's not even that. Someone new sits down and starts playing with a too-aggressive-for-the-table style. Very quietly, but also very quickly the game changes. People get up and leave. Those who, like you, have adapted and are playing more passively than normal start playing their (probably) better, more aggressive, normal game. And the fish swim away from the sharks (by leaving the table, one by one).
"Many players do not take any action to keep the game in a style they can play well in. They just sit down and start playing. Do you find this to be true?"
Yes, I find it to be true. No way around it though. No way to clue them all in.
Good post.
Buzz
I am considering running a private game in a city where gambling is illegal. I would deal 10-20 hold'em. The other games in town take 10% to a max of $6, with a $1 drop for a bad beat jackpot. I think this rake is too high. A lot of the bad players go broke too fast and the games struggle to survive. What would be the optimum rake for a private game like this? Could someone please explain how the cardrooms in California charge time? Would this be better for the health of the game.
Thanks, Don Juan
The LA cardrooms charge $5 per half hour to play 10-20, but you'll have a hard time selling that to the players if they are used to paying a rake. As far as how much the rake should be, it's easy to figure out how much you can make. You could get rich off $1 or $2 per hand. Especially since you don't provide all the services that a regular cardroom does.
In the private game that I am familiar with, the house also takes 1/2 of the dealer's tips. I don't know of any that have a jackpot, but if the players want one, rake an extra dollar for it.
first comment is to 3 bet brett - if you think you can get rich on $1-$2 per hand in a home game then the only thing i can say is you have either never run a home game, you have grand illusions or you are stone cold crazy. can i borrow your rose colored glasses? or if you are having a home game with that rake, can i play in it? where is it? our DC game gets out about 30 hands per hour and the 1//2 omaha split, 1/2 hold em game gets close to the same. there are numerous variables and many expenses to cover. the "normal" rake around here is 4 or 5 per hand - and i know of several people around here that would get a huge laugh out of finding out they should be getting rich on this!! my advice to 3 bet brett - don't ever become a business owner of any sort - it'll screw up your pretty world.
You're right, I didn't get rich. I only made about $20,000 a month. That was 10-20 HE, dealing about 40 hands per hour. Max $2 rake, and I took 40% of the dealer's tips. They didn't get rich either. After a 12 hour shift, and after I took half, they only took home between 500-1000. Obviously, my comments were out of line.
Look at it this way - if you are playing HE you can deal 35 or so hands an hour if the rake was $3 then you have $70 an hour from the game. If you charged time you'd have to charge 10 players $3.50 a 1/2 hour to make the same.
I guess it boils down to what do you want to make on the game.
$7 is way to high per hand so take it from there. I think $3 is a fair rake here.
In the 10-20 game i normally play, the rake is 0 is the pot dont reach 100$ and 5$ if the pot is over 100$ (even a 600 pot is raked 5$). I think its a fair rake. However, the host also provide players with some food and is makin no interest loans to losing players. If you do, u must expect that from time to time, it may be a bit long before u get your money back and maybe some people will disappear. U must be very careful with that i guess. If u dont lend money, the games will broke early because u dont have replacement player in a home game like u see in a casino!
ALso, make sure to treat well your social losing players, they keep the game going...
CHarlie
most players are too stupid to think about the rake and worry more about the food. thats how it is. since you are risking alot by running an illegal game you need to be rewarded for it. i hate big rakes but when running a game like this you cant expect it to last. if you loan money you will be the loser for sure. have the best food and you will get the customers. dont have a jackpot or when you get halled into court the proscecutor will tell about how everyone was playing for many thousands with this jackpot thing and your game will sound like an underworld casino.
Listen to Ray!
Rake big, compared to casinos, and spend it on the best food. I used to cater from good restaurants for the main meals, and had the fridge jammed full, always. I ran once per week and my average game lasted, no kidding, 34 hours. My food and beverage cost was steadily $10 per hour.
The absolute toughest hurdle in the lending. I think it's okay to have some rollover debt going at all times. It's damn near impossible to avoid. The key think is to set each customer's limit at about 1/4 they'd like it to be, and be firm! Lend to much and you not only lose money, you lose customers because they can't come up with enough to pay back AND play. Don't lie and explain why you can't loan. Just say no.
Tommy
If you are in an area with several games for the players to choose from, the rake has to be competitive. And the sad fact is, with a small player base, if you don't have a "book" you don't have a game. When my place went down, I lost about $20,000 in bad debt. It was worth it.
One thing you need to make the players understand is that even if they can't afford to pay, you would rather they come in and play with whatever money they have than for them to go play somewhere else. Then, when they cash out a winner, have them pay a little bit, don't try to take it all.
I ran illegal $10-20 for years back home before moving west. My rake was the lowest in town, and my game was by far the best attended.
I did it Nevada style, raking as the pot grew. $1 on each $30 in the pot with $5 max per hand.
As to dealers, I tried a variety of methods. The best way depends on your competition and your relationship with your dealers. What worked best and smoothest for me was to lump the rake and the tips all together and pay the dealers on percentage, ranging from 20 to 33 percent depending on seniority, performance, and devotion, meaning, helping our mutual cause instead of hampering it when out and about at other games. And I don't mean recruiting customers. I mean keeping a tight lip, especially about our customers.
I frequently gave bonuses. My favorite was, I had one guy I paid five bucks extra for every down that he did not talk.
I can speak freely about this now because I got busted, as expected, and plead guilty, as planned.
Tommy
"I can speak freely about this now because I got busted, as expected, and plead guilty, as planned.
Tommy "
This may be too personal, but what was the penalty?
Danny
$50 fine plus six months in jail, jailtime was waived pending a soft one year probation. All I had to do was not get another gambling charge. No reporting in to an officer. I actually LIKED the probation, because I wanted to be done with the whole scene.
The cool thing was, it was one Sheriff that was busting the games. Typically a game-runner would get the "gaming house" charge dropped to something without "gaming" in it, like disorderly conduct, by snitching on another game-runner or a bookie. Then open up the next night since they still had their first-violation freeroll. (A second gaming offense was an automatic fifth-degree felony.)
By pleading guilty, I "won" the battle with the Sheriff (at least in my mind), maintained integrity, and was forced, as wanted, to move on. A triple win.
Tommy
In FLorida it is a 3rd degree felony.
A buddy of mine spent 15,000 on legal defence, and took pre-trial intervention and got 18 mons. probation.
It was a first time offence.
For those interested we have just posted a new essay by Ray Zee. Just click on Essays in the left column.
This essay is true about reading and playing. First of all I didn't have the guts to play in a ring game in a casino until I read 7csfap. That gave me enuf of a push to play in a ring game. I now own about 15 or so books and have played O8, HE, OH, 7CS(H/L)in ring games or OL. Without the books I'm almost positive I wouldn't of played in ring games in casinos. I enjoy playing alot more now than before when I was just gambling without any knowledge of what I was doing. Today if I lose with certain hands I can always go back to one of the books and 90% of the time it's in there and explains why these hands lose or your opponents hands win vs yours.
Paul
I was a litte shocked to see it was more than a paragraph.
I agree with all the sentiments in the article. I also think that online poker is similiarly good for the game. The more exposed the merrier.
Perhaps we should shed the "keep the fish in the dark" attitude (I don't have this and don't like the word fish) and encourage learning among new players. The path is long and ardous and few make it. Many never start and the weak die along the way anyway.
Regards.
I used to hate deck changes. After all, I'm paying by the half hour to play this game, and I want to see all the hands I possibly can. Besides, the new deck has the same 52 cards in it that the old one did. Or at least it's supposed to.
Yesterday, I changed my mind. A rather large pot was awarded to a player who held the KsTs. After the pot was pushed, and while the winner was still stacking the chips, a railbird ran over to our table. "There are two Ten of Spades in that deck" he said. The dealer checked the deck, and found both Ten of Spades.
Just as she was calling the Floorman (see the Other Topics forum for why this takes so long), a waiter was delivering food to the player in the One seat. He reached down and picked up the Five of Spades from the floor, between the One seat and the Dealer. Who knows how long we had been playing without it, and with the two Ts.
This is when I realized that those whiners that are always calling for a new deck are actually helping the game. By keeping new decks circulating in the game, these problems are a lot less likely to occur. And if they do occur, they will not affect the game for very long. From now on, if a new deck has not been called for every 15 minutes, (I know this is not allowed in LV, where it is only changed when the dealers are pushed), I might be the one asking for a new deck.
Which brings me to the rule of requiring both cards (or all 7 cards in stud, or all 4 in Omaha) to win the pot. Whenver someone shows me just one card to win the pot, I always say something like "Show me the other one, because you're not going to win if you have 2 Ace of Spades." I always make them show, but usually I do it just so I can see the piece of cheese they called my with (if they have a good hand, they always show both anyway). The incident above shows that my attempt at humor is really a very good reason to show both cards.
What happened to the player who hold KTs?
Did he got banned?
Charlie
I agree I want to see both cards too weather I'm in the hand or not - should be a rule in all casinos - I also would like to see deck changes cost the requesting player a couple of bucks that is put in the next pot.
Maybe that would stop them from wasting all out time.
I too have seen cards missing or repeated in a deck but this is so infrequent it is not a good reason to call for a set up.
I am more concerned about the bad playersw constantly caling for the "other" deck or a set up like that is gonna help their miserable game.
I'm with you, Mike. If it was MY casino, anyone asking for a deck change or a setup would have to post a live Big Blind. Of course, most of these clowns see virtually every flop anyway, so maybe that wouldn't slow 'em down anyway.
I'm not so concerned about a fouled deck sneaking its way into the game because the dealers are very good about counting down the butt every half hour or so, and there are just SO many requests for deck changes that it would be very difficult for a deck to get mixed up.
Some nights it is just ridiculous. Every 15 hands or so for hours on end.
In AC, players cannot request deck changes. The decks are changed on the half hour with each new dealer. This does provide an opportunity for a "hold out" artist, who could return an extra card right before the dealer change. However, the dealers do count down the deck at least every 10 minutes.
I like this system much better than the constant demands for setups in Las Vegas. In AC, the only thing a player plagued with "unlucky" cards can say is, "Give those cards a real good wash this time."
I have often wondered why casinos even allow the "I wanna see that hand" rule. Most don't even know why it is there in the 1st place.
I have never asked to see a losing hand except if it is showed to another player but that is not part of this rule.
As usual Harras has taken a rule and bastardized it - they have a rule you can only ask to see a hand once every 1/2 hour - what??? Why not just eleminate it completely.
ON second thought - as a player who tries to use every available scrap of information available at a table I think the IWTSTH, set up and "other" deck requests actually help me - as it is rare for a solid player to make these requests - so anyone making them immediately goes on my weak player list until proven otherwise.
I ask for deck changes all the time for that very reason
You ask for deck changes all the time in order to get on Rounder's weak player list?
there is an ongoing discussion about decks with wrong cards in them. one important job a dealer needs to do every time a hand is over and there is time, is to count the stub of the deck. it only takes a few seconds and can be done without holding up the game at all. in a full game there should be 26 cards left. a dealer that rarely or never does this is not protecting you as a player and desereves little in return. if the houses doesnt tell the dealers to do this simple thing, ask why. and if they give the dealers the option ask the dealer, or respond accordingly. a dealers main job is to protect the player. thats what dealers were put in for.
I agree entirely. I have never had it happen in a game I was playing in; however, given the manner in which they wash/sort the decks, it is surprising that a deck doesn't show up with the wrong cards more often.
Relative to dealers and decks: It constantly amazes me how little the dealers actually shuffle the deck prior to another hand. If I interpret the results in Statistical Logic and Gambling correctly, it requires at least 7 or 8 good shuffles to randomize a deck of playing cards. Dealers seem to shuffle only about 3 to 5 times.
Is that enough to randomize the deck, or does it just make it unlikely for players to be able to predict which cards will appear next?
The 7 shuffles is more appropiate for game in which the cards "re-order" themselves between shuffles, like bridge. While there is a mild grouping effect in HE (the last hands in are more likely to match the board and are gathered together) a cursory wash and three shuffles are more than sufficient to couter act this.
IMHO,
Zooey
I think the wash should count for several shuffles, so 3 shuffles after a wash should be good enough to make eveything random.
"in a full game there should be 26 cards left."
11 opponents =22+ the board (5)= 27 from 52 = 25 cards left
hillbilly - I passed algebra, but met my demise in calculus. (maybe I should have gone to class)
9 opponents, board, and 3 burn cards
18+5+3
and I knew I should have been making apologies in advance.
hillbilly- one step forward, two steps back, all the way up that hill
dont forget to count the burns..............?you know what they are right?most good dealers will count the deck as action continues on the table you may never see him or her do it!in a omaha game just a spread of the cards and you can count,w/o even holding the stub,same w/7-card stud,hi-lo the only game you would need to pic the stub up and count one byone would be hld-em!watch a little closer next time you would be surprised how many do count the deck!i can feel in my hand when a stub is short for the most part.after ten years.just like a butcher can pinch off a lb. of ground beef and be right on the money!give most of good dealers credit!
AC they routinely counted cards remaining when i last played there...In tunica last weekend I only had one dealer count the cards once in twenty hours of playing
Ray,
I hope you are not suggesting that cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted. I wouldn't want Mason to have to take you out to the woodshed. ;-)
Mark,
So do you think Ray's comments are inconsistent with Mason's position on cheating in card rooms? Just curious because I don't.
Vince
Vince,
You asked: "So do you think Ray's comments are inconsistent with Mason's position on cheating in card rooms?"
Which of Mason's positions are you referring to? He's taken several different positions over the past few years.
Mark,
I wasn't going to respond to this because I believe you are being an ass. But since this is an interesting subject I'll disregard your sarcasm. I am referring to Mason's position that there is little to be feared with regards to cheating in Casino Card rooms. I was a little surprised with Ray's post but I do agree with him that dealers should do their job and count down the deck when possible. I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often.
Mark if your not careful with your little sarcasms people here on the forum may begin to question if you are who you say you are. They may think Mark Glover is an alias for Gary Carson or Steve Badger. No those two are not smart enough to be you. Maybe they'll think your Vince Lepore. They have accused others. I guess cause I'm easy to imitate.
Vinceare
Vince,
You wrote: "I am referring to Mason's position that there is little to be feared with regards to cheating in Casino Card rooms."
Oh. I was thinking about his position that cheating never occurs in public cardrooms. Or at least in the games has has played. Or at least in the games he has played during the past 25 years. Or at least rarely.
You wrote: "I was a little surprised with Ray's post but I do agree with him that dealers should do their job and count down the deck when possible."
I think most of us agree with that.
You wrote: "I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often."
I hope you are not suggesting that cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted. I wouldn't want Mason to have to take you out to the woodshed. ;-)
You also wrote: "I wasn't going to respond to this because I believe you are being an ass."
I seem to have upset you somehow. Perhaps you are overly tense or frustrated. Last month, you declared, "Hey from now on I'm only gonna play with myself!" Now might be a good time for you to go play with yourself. ;-)
Let me say this again. It's very clear to me that you have probably never played poker in a public cardroom. Your lack of any idea as to what goes on when you enter a cardroom is obvious.
Mason wrote: "It's very clear to me that you have probably never played poker in a public cardroom."
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where the sun aways shines, the grass is always green, and the cute little bunny rabbits never die. (There are lots of rabbits in Mason's world.)
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where nobody ever cheats at the poker table, even in cardrooms where dealers rarely, if ever, count down the deck.
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where he is a god. He sees all, knows all, and never makes mistakes. He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad and good. And he knows how often everyone goes to public cardrooms.
It's time to wake up now, Mason.
Since I don't pretend to be omniscient, I'm not sure why you have reached your conclusions about the lack of cheating in public cardrooms. I suspect the four most likely reasons would be:
1. You are not very observant.
2. You don't get out of the Bellagio very often.
3. You have a very narrow definition of "cheating."
4. You believe the poker industry is better off covering up its cheating problem rather than discussing it in public.
"the cute little bunny rabbits never die."
Mark, I would think you, of all people, would know just how close we are to this sort of thing becoming a reality.
Mark,
You are now in a world that interests everyone. You seem to believe there is wide scale cheating in Casino Poker rooms. You owe it to all the readers here to back this up. If this is just some ego driven effort to try and embarrass Mason, then shame on you. Come on give us the proof. Now do not say prove that it doesn't happen? Cause that's just silly.
Vince
Vince
I can give you proof of cheating in a public card room if you like.
Not something from the old west. Something from 2001 !
Howard
Howard,
Although I asked for examples showing wide scale cheating any cheating should be brought to the attention of all honest poker players. I believe you should share your proof with everyone on this forum. Please.
vince
Vince,
I have a very good friend who told me he and his friend(now pass away)played partner.
I played three-handed with a live one and former world champion, a floorman(champion friend)sat in the game they started to raise put live one in the middle when live one out they flashed their hand to me before threw away it was nothing, I thought they wanted to let me knew what going on but they didn't cheat me. I quitted.
I saw two prop send signal by touch their nose and ear.
I played three-handed when one guy told other guy to raise his bet(they were friend and thought I didn't understand english)I quitted.
While playing in a tournamant at the Stratosphere, on January fourth of this year..........
We are down to three tables in a no-limit hold'em tourney. I am in the one seat. Rgp lurker from Vancouver( not T.Chan, I said Lurrker,although T.Chan did play in this Tourney BTW) in the two seat. Jeff Bridges look alike in the four seat.
All of a sudden during the play of a hand that seat two was involved in (I believe pre-flop), seat four yells out "It's a marked deck". I should note that both seat four and myself (as well as others) had already folded by this point. Anyway,the dealer calls over the floor. Seat four says that one of the cards just given to seat two is marked. They look at the back of the card and make the ruling that "yes it is a marked card,but still play the hand out". After they play the hand out, Jeff Bridges (seat 4) asks seat two if he can see what card it was (it was not the winning hand BTW)
Ace of hearts. When Mr Bridges sees it was an ace, he goes ballistic. After some ranting and raving he explains to us at the table, how this card is daubed. Shows us all the daubing on the back and then while waiting for thr floor to come back over to the table, decides to rip up the ace of hearts up, saying "This card will never be in a game again".The rest of the deck was then taken away by the floor.
He went on to tell us how he learned of daubing from his many years of playing in the card rooms of L.A. He said that he hates cheaters and that because he has long hair he has been approached from time to time to join cheating rings in L.A. Of course he tells them (the rings in LA) where to go.
I know very little about cheating but as crazy as his story about being recruited to join a cheating ring sounds, I must say that it has happened to me also.
Before I go into that story, let me finish a few thoughts on the incident at the Strat two months ago.
First, I am convinced that Seat two had nothing to do with the marked cards.
Second, I would bet my bottom dollar that seat four had nothing to do with it.
Third, I know I had nothing to do with it.
Not knowing much about cheating I wonder..............
Was one of the other players at our table guilty?
Was it marked in a cash game and just got noticed in the tourney?
Was it something I'm not even aware of?
Another note: When this first happened I was going to post about it (either here or on rgp), but decided not to in order to not drag the Strat poker room's name through the mud.Why should they suffer a bad rep because of a cheater(s) in their mist.
Well now the poker room is closed and the incident on 1/4/01 can be talked about without the fear that it will hurt their business.
Getting back to being recruited.
Many years ago I came in second in a weekly tourney at the Plaza. A young man who was seated at my table when the tourney started asked if I would like to go have a meal at Binion's coffee shop and talk poker. Since I just won a nice chunk of change (for me anyway), I said "as long as I buy". We talked poker for awhile and at one point he introduced me to a friend of his. Him and his friend then proceeded to tell me if I wanted to make smart money with no risk I should join them in their team play.I should note,they were talking about low-limit cash games, not tourneys.
Anyway, I declined. Like Jeff Bridges at the Strat(when he was in LA) I could not help but wonder "what made them pick me?")
I never saw these guys again. My guess is that they were cheater wanna bees,had a little success and then went broke. I don't know if that is what happened, but that is my best guess.
*********************************
In closing I should point out that I believe that the games are clean for the most part. But as these incidents point out there are things going on at times that we are not aware of.
Good Luck
Howard
PS
I have other memoires to tell but I'm the world's slowest typist.
Thank you Howard. I need to think about your post.
Vince
I should add Vince that If I ever see Jeff Bridges again (he's a great player from what I saw BTW) I am going to ask him if he will do an interview with me to be posted here if Mason will allow it.
I am not a reporter or journalist nor do I yearn to be, but I think all of us could learn a thing or two from him, of what to watch out for in order to help protect the integrity of the game.
Good Luck
Howard
Howard: As long as the interview is based on good poker content, and knowing you I'm sure that will be the case, there should be no problem and it will be welcomed on our site.
Mason
2+2
Re: To Ferris Bueller aka NJ Fred aka Ed
Wolf There is an interesting post on our Internet Forum from Doyle Brunson that addresses this exact issue. So here it is.
Posted By: Doyle Brunson In Response To: Re: To Ferris Bueller aka NJ Fred aka Ed Wolf (Mason Malmuth)
From the beginning of poker [at least for the past47 years] it has always been the cry of the marginal or losing players that something is wrong with the game. 99.9% of the time it isn't true. Poor Ed.===Doyle Brunson www.highlandsclub.com
Mason,
I've seen plenty of cheating occur in many different public cardrooms. After your keen, logical argument, however, I guess I'll just forget what I saw and continue playing poker in blissful ignorance--not!
It was nice of you to go to all that trouble to quote Doyle. The next time you want to appeal to authority, though, perhaps you will seek someone who has a less obvious personal interest in agreeing with your claim. If I'm not mistaken, Doyle is affiliated with www.highlandsclub.com, an online poker room. Perhaps that doesn't bias Doyle's view on possible cheating, but perhaps it does.
Furthermore, you might want to limit your appeals to authority to those cases when experts have some special insight into the issue under discussion. I've seen instances of cheating with my own eyes, and I don't think Doyle's statement will change what I saw.
When you quote Doyle, you give the impression that you concur with his statement. Is that really the case here?
Just because marginal or losing players believe cheating occurs, do you expect us to logically conclude that cheating, therefore, must not occur? I know losing players who believe AA is the best hand to have pre-flop. Does that mean AA is not the best pre-flop hand? I also know winning players who have observed numerous instances of cheating. What am I to make of this?
There seems to be several flaws in your thought process and logical reasoning. That might surprise some members of this forum, since you once wrote: "In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well."
Mark wrote: " I've seen instances of cheating with my own eyes,"
Does anyone see the logical problem with this statement?
Mark wrote: "and I don't think Doyle's statement will change what I saw."
Can anyone see the deeply flawed logical implication of this statement?
Referring to Mason's quoting Doyle Brunson, Mark wrote: "Furthermore, you might want to limit your appeals to authority to those cases when experts have some special insight into the issue under discussion."
Marks thought process seems to be deteriorating here. Maybe you should get more rest Mark.
Mark wrote: "I also know winning players who have observed numerous instances of cheating."
Does anyone see the profound logical error here?
Mark, there seem to be some problems with your logic and thought processes. That may not surprise many here, but may be news to you. Sorry to have to be the messenger.
There was a response from cisko kid that you deleted which asked about the other .01 per cent. I believe it asked about having people who complained about being cheated buried in the desert by Doyle's friends from Chicago. A good question here is whether Sklansky or Malmuth could ever qualify to own a Casino in Nevada?
I believe that the answer is rather clearly : NO.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 March 2001, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Glove Marker
Posted on: Thursday, 8 March 2001, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Willy
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 March 2001, at 8:23 a.m.
I have played AC for 10 years, never have seen any cheating. Mason rules. Mason is God. Now, pick on somebody else. Or we all are going to think you are a fanatic.
New Yorker,
Welcome to the Two Plus Two forums. I hope you eventually become a valuable contributer to this site.
You wrote: "I have played AC for 10 years, never have seen any cheating."
I find that to be rather interesting. How often do you play poker? How do you define "cheating?" How observant do you believe you are?
You also wrote: "Mason is God. Now, pick on somebody else. Or we all are going to think you are a fanatic."
I find this to be very interesting. You believe Mason is God, and yet you believe I am the one who is in danger of being considered a fanatic.
Have you seen the "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Quiz" thread, above? As a "cool cat," I think you might find it groovy. I'm guessing you will score 7 or 8 correct answers. ;-)
Mark,
For some reason, people don't think you have a sense of humor. Now, if you could only be converted from a contrarian to a proselytizer.
John
Mark,
I'm begining to think you really like Mason (I know you worship me, but that's a different issue.:-) and that trying to pick arguments with him is just your way of saying so. It's like the little boy who goes up and pushes the little girl that he likes because that's the only way he can express his feelings, feelings which may also be a bit too threatening for him to experience fully consciously. Something in your tone suggests this. Mark, why don't you go ahead and just give him that hug, in words, that you really want to give him? Go ahead kiddo; you'll feel better for it.
John,
You wrote: "I'm begining to think you really like Mason (I know you worship me, but that's a different issue.:-) and that trying to pick arguments with him is just your way of saying so."
I'm beginning to understand why you seem to prefer poker to psychology. I hope your analyses are better at the poker tables.
Speaking of worship, have you ever found an error in any of Mason's writings? And how well did you score on my GAMBLING FOR A LIVING quiz?
Really Mark, you simply must deal with this overwhelming hero worship you feel toward Two Plus Two, its authors, and all it represents. Somehow resolving it would relieve you of your obsession with Mason, David, and all those little teensy weensy points you like to dissect. (Hey, maybe that's it. Dissect! You know, biology... Nah, you don't think so... do you?) You'd be able to see them as simple human beings. Well, you might continue to address David as "El Supremo", but that's just common courtesy. I know it will be hard work to come to see the authors more realistically. You are, after all, one of the founders of the church of 2+2. But see them more realistically you must! So think of me as your deprogrammer, tough but loving and here to help.
Now Mark, one little question: Do you drink coffee?
"Now might be a good time for you to go play with yourself. ;-)"
It is always a goot time to playing with myself. You should try it. No not a good idea for you, Mark, you already talk to yourself way too much. Don't want you to play with yourself and become a recluse like the Unibomber. Oops, I didn't mean that Mark. I hope I didn't put an idea in your head that you must now act upon. Forget that I said Uni bomber. Please. I realize I am being a little paranoid here but after all you read:
"I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often." and from that you derived: "cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted."
Careful Mark John Feeney is watching and I believe his couch is always avaialble.
Vince
Can someone please explain the basic principles, betting, blind structures, and overall game play of a Pot Limit game? I think I understand it but would appreciate someone knowledgeable to just lay it all out.
Thanx!
By how much does the value of a hand change as the position of a player changes?
Let's say that pocket Aces, in a given ten-handed, tight-aggressive hold'em game has an EV of 5 small bets from under the gun. What is the magnitude of the increase in its EV in that game as a function of position as you move closer to the dealer (obviously in particular situations it could vary greatly depending on whether there were multiple raises to you, etc., but there should be an average value that only depends on position). Does anyone have an idea? (I'm not looking for a specific number, but just an idea of the magnitude of the increase -- how much effect on EV does position really have).
Like any good essay, Ray's essay on the effect of quality books about poker makes us think at least as much as it informs.
It seems that the primary beneficial effect of these books is the tremendous expansion that poker has undergone. So far this outpaces the negative effects. This should not always be so. At some point we must reach an equilibrium/plateau/stasis/what-have-you. What then? Poker will be good for a while, and it might seem like a golden age of poker, but unseen will be the beginnings of the fall. (For those who read Asimov, think of the last few centuries before the fall of Trantor.)
What will drive poker after the expansion has stopped? Probably new games. Online poker, perhaps. The new games will beget new books and the cycle continues. But is it truly a cycle? That is, will the pattern of new game - new book - new boom (with the leaders feeding off the trailers) continue after any given sequence? I don't know (though I have some ideas), but Ray's essay raised these questions for me. What questions am I missing; do you have any answers?
Of course, poker may die after the expansion, as many other games and sports have faded over centuries or millenia. Perhaps in 50 years we'll all be playing sabbac.
Good night.
Eric
My question is what role, in Ray Zee's opinion, did Doyle Brunson's book Super/System play in helping to promote the "poker revolution"? I ask this question because, as everyone knows, this book is considered by many to be "the Bible of Poker" yet he fails to mention its significance in his essay.
"What will drive poker after the expansion has stopped?" Answer: A quantum leap of some sort. Perhaps in the area of "moron" poker - a subjective set of skills that the theorists don't seem to believe is teachable.
Or it could be a kind of game that makes for good television - like 9-ball is to pool. Before 9-ball, "straight pool" was the game of choice that although popular with the players was very boring to watch on TV. If a new kind of spectator friendly poker game would come up and catch the mass public's imagination, Texas Holdem could drown amidst that new game's popularity much like the analogue Swiss watch makers in the late 60s/early 70s were drowned out by the digital watches that were made in Japan (Seiko, Rado, Citizen).
the future of poker: my guess is up with some lag periods; like the stock market; the underlying force: aging of population.look at many card rooms today; during day hours: might be a meeting of AARP. jmho...long live poker...
Would you really expect a 2+2 author to mention a book published by another company?
- Andrew
in his Gambling Theory book. Besides the 2+2 books, Super/System is a must read for anyone interested in gaining additional knowledge to improve their poker game.
David Sklansky wrote the High-Low Split section which is excellent. Many of the concepts written in this book still apply today. Here's my favorite quote. "Because so many players make so many mistakes at High-Low Split . . . you should find the game very, very profitable. It generally has more weak players than any other game. If I had "X" amount of dollars to win(and that's all I could win), I'd rather play against weak players at High-Low Split than Hold'em . . . even though Hold'em is my best game. This is because your chances of losing playing High-Low Split against bad players . . . well, you're just hardly ever going to lose." I find that this statement holds true today. Furthermore, if you like money in your pocket, study Ray Zee's book. Maybe that's why his book is the most expensive 2+2 book.
Second, read Doyle's General Poker Strategy section. It's filled with gems of wisdom on people skills.
Third, the poker strategy for No-Limit Hold'em contains important strategy that can be applied to tournament play, especially the section on "The Ante."
Fourth, its the only book I know of that has a section on how to play Deuce-to-Seven Lowball. Last year this game was resurrected at the WSOP.
Fifth, I'l quote Mason from the Gambling Theory book. "The structure of limit hold'em has changed, and this dramatically affects some of your strategy decisions." This is true due to the blind structure change, but you will still find useful strategy information and see where some of the ideas for the two plus two Hold'em books came from.
Finally, I'll quote Mason again. "However, the section on seven-card stud is still excellent and the book contains much general overall poker wisdom."
Furthermore, don't respond to this post unless you have read the book and have valid criticism. I will ignore general gossip and comments unless there is some thought put in your responses.
P.S. mah does not stand for MAson malmutH.
I agree with everything you say about Super/System. It is a classic which can teach the reader principles which are absolutely timeless. As long as poker continues to be played, that book will continue to be a must read - decades or even centuries from now.
I read the General Poker Strategy chapter EVERYDAY in order to inspire myself and to put myself in the zone. IMO, that chapter covers the "human element" better than any poker book ever written.
In terms of individual games, the 7-stud chapter, I believe, holds up the most. In limit holdem, my main game, I stick with HPFAP mainly because it has been written to reflect the current blind structure. My favorite part of the no-limit holdem chapter is the one that discusses the small connectors. IMO, these hands are the bread and butter of no-limit. When I was just starting out, Jacks or better was my game and the draw chapter was my guide.
The book being this great was the main reason I was surprised Ray Zee didn't mention it in his essay as being a contributor to the "poker revolution" that he writes about. But then, he didn't mention Theory of Poker (a 2+2 book) either.
"I read the General Poker Strategy chapter EVERYDAY in order to inspire myself and to put myself in the zone"
Man I thought I was the only one twisted enuff to do that!
hillbilly- short term memory loss could become a problem one day
Call it self-inflicted-brain-washing.
"The book being this great was the main reason I was surprised Ray Zee didn't mention it in his essay as being a contributor to the "poker revolution" that he writes about. But then, he didn't mention Theory of Poker (a 2+2 book) either"
TOP is not a very useful book for someone who has never played poker. HPFAP probably had a much greater influence on the poker revolution becuase it tells a beginner exactly how to play in a given situation. The problem of course is that the examples in HPFAP are there to illustrate a general poker concept and most people won't realize this until they have played for awhile.
There are still the guys who play any 2 suited or the 80% winning computer Q7 and the music group J5. But they are fewer and farther between.
The old addage - "a good player will win a lot more from a bad player than a great player will win from a good player" has never been more true.
A while ago when I lived in an area where it was possible to select games I'd look for games with a lot of younger players (among other things) - today the young ones are probably the "inlightened" players at the table.
Tie the better players in with the confiscation known as the rake it is getting harder to make money at this game. We have to play smarter and become tricky, creative, imaginative, deceptive players. As Ray says it is no longer eneough to just play tight aggressive.
So a whole new type of player profile will emerge as the dominate player - well be seeing more creative plays and imaginative tactics on the felt by players improving their games to the next level.
The ones who don't progress will not make it.
Rounder - Well, yes and no.
Yes, the skill level necessary for success playing poker will increase as players become more knowledgeable and as losers quit the game.
No, "more creative plays and imaginative tactics" will not move players to the next level. The main skill in poker is reading your opponents. Moving to the next level involves being more aware of what your opponents are doing, and being better able to predict what they will do when confronted in one way or another, not learning fancy plays. That will not change.
Books increase knowledge of poker and shorten learning curves. To be good, you still have to be able to read your opponents.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
I want to know who did the caps and punctuation for Ray...
i Did
well then, everyone who was afraid that if they stopped using caps they'd forget how, can now rest assured that they'll remember when they need to. hooray for no caps!
Playing Hold'em a few years ago, and flop had a 7h on it, then the dealer turned another 7h. Everybody got their money back, the deck was counted out and was found to be missing the 7 of diamonds.
I also wondered how long we had been playing with a bad deck, because at that time nobody could remember when the last deck change had occured.
:-)
A Tournament champion, who everybody knows, was at my table in a hold'em tournament last night. In a particular hand that had started out with five people, it had narrowed down to two people by the river...the tournament champ and a novice player. The dealer had read the board wrong and started pushing the nice size pot to the champ. Just before the chips reached the champ, a guy(not involved in the hand) pointed out that the other player has the winning hand, and sure enough he was right. As the chips were being push to the novice, the champ made it clear to the guy who had spoken up that he should have remained quiet during the hand. This started a little scuffle, where at one point the champ said to the guy, "It's none of your business, it was between me and him(the novice)." "That's a crock of $h_t" I told him, since the outcome directly affects me and everybody else. The champ told me I was wrong.
What do you think, was it everyone's business or not?
You are correct. Who the chips go to impact everyone in the tournament. Plus, it is cards speak.
Cards speak, but sometimes not loudly enough. What would be the correct ettiquete if this were not not a tournament? The result still affects everyone perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent. I would think it is up to each individual, but there is no ettiquette in letting a mistake go uncorrected.
Once the cards are turned up any player at the table may speak up.
If the cards indicate that the World Champ wins the pot but the dealer is mistakenly pushing the pot towards his opponent, who's a weak player (we're assuming the World Champ doesn't notice this!), the correct play would be to keep one's mouth shut.
And to act surprised, if some busy-body points out the mistake, anyway...
:-(
If you mean ethically wrong, we have an argument. If you mean wrong from the perspective of maximizing one's chances at the tournament, you are wrong.
That would be smart thing to do, since you're not obligated to help. And when the pot belongs to the rookie, you can just speak up and claim it's the ethical thing to do if somebody bitches. The best of both worlds.
....the pompous one in the political forum, condones quasi-cheating at the poker table, if it should help weaken the stronger player?? I always knew you were an arrogant hypocrite. Good ole double-standards Cyrus. You should stick to singing karaoke.
"Now, now Cyrus, the pompous one in the political forum, condones quasi-cheating at the poker table, if it should help weaken the stronger player?? I always knew you were an arrogant hypocrite."
Boy, you must have quite a long axe to grind, to stalk me all over the web!.. Mildly flattering, this.
Just for laughs : this isn't cheating, it isn't even "quasi-cheating". Check your definition about hole-carding again, for example. (By the way, something is either "cheating" or it sin't. No such thing as "quasi-cheating". Your morals are showing, doc.)
I do not condone the practice of cheating. I happen NOT to cheat, ever, as I assume you don't either.
The difference between you and me (well, one of the differences anyway!) is that you think this makes you a better person! Talk about "pompous"!..
....very good :)
BTW, not stalking you, but you show up everywhere. I take up poker - here you are babbling away in your pompostic Clinton-esque obfuscation of details to suit your double-standard b.s.
...
"....babbling away in your pompostic Clinton-esque obfuscation of details to suit your double-standard b.s. ..."
You have been staring at the monitors for too long. I tell you, no amount of money won from your bookie is worth your sanity. Take a break.
Your eyesight is next.
...I thought it was the lobotomy, but now I'm realizing that it was probably the discussions about karaoke that threw me over the edge.
Sports was very good to me this past year - how'd you know?
:-)
The Champ is a chump! You are the man! Let's play poker!
vince
The initials BC come to mind - but I don't think Brent ever won a world title.
Two years back Steve Badger crowed about screwing a new player out of a pot in similar curcumstances. No one at the table spoke up and Badger made it clear this was expected of tourmament regulars. I was stunned as it struck me as fundementally dishonest to the core. A long discussion ensued. Only other crooked tournament regulars would stick up for Badger's point of view.
The end result was that I won't let one nickel of my money end up in the hands of these tournament regular scum. You shouldn't either. Many/most are ethically challenged and you will not be given a square deal.
.
Long time fan - What's with all the Badger bashing? Steve Badger is a nice guy who makes a positive contribution to the game. He has a difference of opinion with someone involved in 2+2. Let's all hope they can work out those differences on their own.
Suggesting that Steve may be the person who might have made the remark is simply outrageous.
I agree with the original poster that whoever made the remark should remain anonymous. Who amongst us has not felt some bitter disappointment when a pot about to be rewarded to you is re-routed as a result of someone who is not in the hand (acting correctly and) pointing out the error.
I agree with the rule that an error should be pointed out by another player, the dealer, or the floorperson, when it is discovered. All the same, it hurts to have that pot moved away from you, even though you may know it is the correct course of action. And in times of hurt or disappointment, we all probably have said things we may regret.
Let it rest, LTF. You weren't even there! Don't suggest someone was the guilty party if you cannot possibly know who it was. To do so is despicable.
Buzz
I never said it was Badger, only that cheating of this sort certainly fits within the twisted ethical structure that is Badger (and many/most tournament regulars as well). The entire pro poker tournament circuit is so full of shady characters that you couldn't find an honest man if you needed one (a few exceptions, yes).
Not only is cheating common place, it's accepted. It's expected. It's not for me. Have fun playing with yourself.
Sounds like you are the one who will be doing that. Enjoy yourself! I'll be out there competing with others.
Competition brings out some of the best in people, but also, sadly, some of the worst. You have to try to rise above it.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Excellent point Buzz, "..in times of hurt or disappointment, we all probably have said things we may regret." That sure applies to me.
-Don
Me too, Don.
Thanks for the support.
Buzz
Rule book, Section A, rule #19:
Any player, dealer, or Floorperson who sees an error about to be made in awarding a pot has the ethical obligation to speak up.
And tell us who it was. If you were there and saw it with your own eyes, what on earth is wrong with saying who it was?
It's just like this "change the hand histories to protect the innocent" crap.
by stating who it is, you just end up with the same problem that occurred with SmoothB and his story about Steve Badger, unsubstantiated hearsay.
Anybody who can't guess who this is hasn't played poker. This is a total no-brainer.
.
I play in a loose and somewhat aggressive dealer's choice game (O/8 is played very loosely). In what game is position most important? HE, OH, or O/8??? I suspect it is O/8, but I'm not sure.
Certain players usually play the same game, and I was wondering if I should take this into account (along with a player's style) when choosing my seat.
Thanks.
At the $3-6 and $4-8 HE tables lately I have had (for me at least) the pleasure of being seated close to regular $10-$20 players who for some reason do not wish to play their regular game. I don't have a clue why.
Normally, by these game standards I am without doubt the tightest player at the table. When judged against these $10-$20 players, I am almost a wild man on a spending spree! They almost make LL stud rock's look loose.
What is surprising is I rarely see these folks play any hands that would be lower than a HFAP 1 - 1.5, with the exception of [rare] small suited or one gap suited connectors. They seem to play their blnds about normal. They sometimes have a large downside before the pots roll in, but their wins would make almost any player happy.
I think what makes the difference too, besides being so much tighter is their pickiness about flop texture. It has to meet certain criteria which is still a little hazy to me. At any rate I enjoy the lessons I am receiving, I am glad they are willing to share knowledge at the table.
I am curious if you are a LL player, whether you have had higher limit players at your table for any length of time and what you have noticed about their style of play? Perhaps winning is a matter of more patience than hand probabilities?
brain death...got my subject and email backwards, probably like my play.
While opinion for the size of your bankroll will vary, I think everyone will agree that you need an adequate bankroll.
I've started playing on-line and have been building up the bankroll. But, it's the same old question: How big should your bankroll be?
I read one rule of thumb where bankroll should be 300 times the BB. Since I've been playing 2-4 HE, that means keeping a $1200 bankroll. While I've been winning overall, I've had some bad negative swings so it's a message that you should have enough in your account.
300 times BB? Honest? Really? What do you pros think?
In the past I've been pretty much a recreational player where my last paycheck was my bankroll. But when you're winning over $100/week, it's time to be a little more serious.
I'm thinking of building it up to $1000 and then periodically cashing out anything over $1000.
Thanks for any thoughts on what I know is a well-worn subject.
If everyone subscribed to the 300 big-bet concept, it's doubtful 2+2 would even exist.
I think the 300+ BB rule is applicable when the bankroll is not easily replaced. For a recreational player at low limits, I don't think this is as applicable. My advice: think of how much you are willing to invest in poker altogether before quitting. This amount should be considered your BR, in my opinion. (If this money is assumed to trickle into your poker account slowly, then more sophisticated math must be done which takes into account hours played per week, etc.)
However, I do think it is important not to declare yourself a 75 or 100 BB Bankroll player, and promptly move up in limits every time your Bankroll grows. Here's why.
Say I give you an advantage game: a fair dice, in which you lose if a 6 rolls and win on anything else. Sounds great, right? But the catch: you bet your entire BR every roll. Eventually, you will be broke. Similarly, say we're flipping a biased coin, which comes up heads %55. If you bet too much of your BR, you asymtotically lose money. (Do a web search on Kelly Betting if you want more info http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm )
So, you can play higher if you want, but if you jump limits too soon, you are facing a very steep climb, even if you are a winning player.
Best,
Zooey
So $12,000 for 20-40? If you had no means of replacing it (or no simple means), you'd be taking a significant risk. That's any series containing a net of 8 to 12 full loss sessions.... Maybe if you always play your best game. Pressure, pressure.
True, that would be risky. But for some, the greater risk is to not take the risk.
Huh?
When you are considering bankroll requirements, there is more to consider than just the "rule of thumb". Caro writes about how you should be more careful with a large bankroll which is difficult to replace, than you should be with a small bankroll, which is easily replacable.
So 300 BB might be great for 10/20, but would be silly for 2/4. And, as you mention, 300 BB might be a bit small for 20/40. If you play 20/40 on a regular basis, I'd think 400-600 BB would be more comfortable.
But remember, most people don't play in a game where the big bet is 1/300 of their bankroll. There just isn't that much variety in limits. While you may start playing 20/40 when you get to $12K, you certainly shouldn't move up to 30/60 till you have about a $25K bankroll. Till then, you'll be playing 20/40 with between 300-600 BB.
- Andrew
For entertainment purposes, I have prepared a short quiz covering the book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (GFAL).
1. At the poker table . . .
a. . . . it is absolutely necessary to play your best at all times.
b. . . . you should concentrate enough to generate a good EV but conserve enough mental energy to play well during the number of hours you want to devote to this session (i.e., maximize your session expectation).
c. . . . focus enough to win but enjoy yourself.
d. . . . don't worry, be happy.
--
2. Who understands well the concept of position?
a. The big blind, who just got raised on the river by the button.
b. Some professional poker players and some non-professional poker players.
c. Only professional poker players.
d. Members of the world's oldest profession.
--
3. When an expert is up against a reasonably good player, how often can she tell you exactly what her opponent's cards are?
a. Frequently.
b. More often than many players suspect.
c. Rarely.
d. It depends on the alignment of the planets.
--
4. True or false? If you are going to ma