![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
When I arrive on a the hold'em table , I can take the free seat that I want . I know who are the bad player the kind who raise with ace anything or call a reraise with 10-2 suited . Is this better for me to have those guys at my left or at my right ?
Left and right has their advantages .
Lets analyse the left ... In this situation i sould play more tight because , my call will often be raised . But when I hit a good hand on the turn , I can check-raise . I check , the " Mister bet and call anything " will bet , other players will call considering that a bet from this man is not so dangerous and I raise . All the game this man could bet and raise for me giving me bigger pot .
The disadvantage of having a bad player at my left is that I will have more often someone who talk after me and who will raise my call .
put him on your right.
Both can be used to your advantage. I like them on my right but can cope with them on the left - frankley I feel like I'm gonna take them down where ever they sit so long as I get anykind of run of the cards.
I prefer to sit where I can see the most faces.
As Zee says put him on your right. The only people you WANT on your left are the MOST predictable of them all: those that are so tight they fold all the time, those that are so loose they call all the time, those that are so suicidal they raise all the time.
Find and read Caro essays on this topic.
- Louie
Caro? I beleive Mason was the first one to publish this concept.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
A while back I remember Rounder saying that he never (or rarely) plays suited connectors. What an idiot I thought. There are of course certain situations where suited connectors must be played. Even though I would personally prefer to have a pair at any time over suited connectors, there are situations in my opinion where you must not only play them but raise and re-raise with them! Sometimes before the flop!
Well, I've been playing a lot lately and quite frankly suited connectors never win. They are useless. Doesn't matter the position or the number of players they are only going to cost you money. I have completely changed my opinion of them. Let the sucker play them, and they will. I give up with suited connectors. They are only going to cost you money. The temptation is too great to play them in certain situations, but I have given up on that temptation and it has been profitable.
The only value I can see in them is when you can isolate a player that you have a good read on. Now you at least have some kind of a hand to work with. In multi-way pots however they aren't worth much at all, contrary to popular opinion.
Rounder was right. I apologize for thinking you were a looney bird. After weeks of watching them win absolutely nothing I have finally seen the light. Suited connectors are a complete waste of time and not worth anything. Last night I threw away ten-jack suited, with six limpers in front of me on the button!
Good-bye suited connectors--and good riddance!
it takes many trials to establish a true pattern. if you base your play on things that happen to you in a few weeks period, you are destined to be playing a hopelessly losing game. just like the time i moved all my chips in against richard demasse many moons ago and he showed his two aces and threw them away and said "im not going to get them beat again." you may think you are a new man but i suspect it will be a blue man.
I suspect even Rounder would not throw that hand away.
Maybe try a deck change, or a different seat, or switch religions for a few weeks.
D.
Y'oughta be banned for life for ever suggesting someone call for a deck change; makes games move even slower than this website....
p.s. Rounder IS almost always right, but he plays JTs(or even 98s) in this situation.
I play small and mid connected cards in late position weather they are or not and tend not to play suited cards if I wouldn't play the ranks unsuited.
I do give a bit of value to suited big cards where the exception is made.
I truely believe most people including S&M in their groupings give way to much value to the suited aspect of the hand.
Hell the other day I played 5h6h on the button and flopped a flush - coldn't get rid of a player who spiked an Ah on the river and took down "MY" pot. I knoe that is just a story of one hand but it happens way to much to "suit" me.
I don't suggest mucking JTs on the button but it ain't no sin if you do.
Last night I had AKc, flopped KxQcJc, bet like crazy, and lost to KJx when the last K came up on the turn...needed Tc or any A to win on the river...didn't get it. Maybe I should throw away AKs...hehe, just kidding Rounder.
Mark
New Man,
You wrote: ". . . suited connectors never win."
First, I suspect you don't really mean all "suited connectors." AKs is a suited connector that you probably like to play.
Second, I suspect you don't really mean "never win." Why, just the other day, my pocket rockets were cracked by 43s. Perhaps, you meant to suggest they "never have a positive expectation." In that case, you would be less incorrect.
You also wrote: "Doesn't matter the position or the number of players they are only going to cost you money."
Perhaps you meant "they are only going to cost some people money in the long run."
You also wrote: "The temptation is too great to play them in certain situations . . ."
Perhaps you meant, "I personally find the temptation too great to play them in certain inappropriate situations . . ."
You wrote: "The only value I can see in them is when you can isolate a player that you have a good read on."
Certainly, you also could see how they might have at least a little value when you get a free ride as the big blind and flop the nut straight flush (e.g., 6h5h flops 2h3h4h).
Is anybody here who could ell me what is a "limper" ?
A limper is anyone who calls the bet preflop. sb posts, big blind posts, if anyone else enters the game without raising they are said to have limped in.
Three questions about the rule that allows players to see called hands at the showdown:
1) When was this rule made standard? 2) At that time, was the sole purpose of this rule to protect against collusion? 3) If the answer to #2 is yes, then, is that still the sole purpose of this rule?
Thanks for your time,
Tommy
The purpose of this rule is so that brain-dead worthless scumbags can red-ass someone that just lost a pot.
Half of the time someone asks to see my hand they dont even look at the cards--they just do it to burn my ass after I've lost a big pot because they know most people don't like it.
This is the WORST rule in poker and should be eradicated.
If you suspect someone of collusion tell the floor. They should have the power to look at anyone's hand at any time--especially at the showdown. Otherwise this rule has gotten WAY out of hand.
It's time someone put an end to it. I hear that at 30-60 and higher at the Bellagio you can't request to see someone's hand at the showdown. Why only 30-60 and above? Make it the rule for all the games. Jesus I get sick of the same old people asking to see 50% of the hands.
End it now.
At the Peppermill Hotel and Casino in Reno, their poker room has a rule that players cannot ask to see the hands at showdown unless the losing player shows his hand to someone else. Losing hands are simply mucked.
I play $30-$60 at the Bellagio and I was not aware of this practice. Since I never ask to see hands at showdown, I just did not realize that they had a different rule for games lower than $30-$60 than for games $30-$60 and above.
Jim,
That is also our rule at the Stratosphere. A player can discard his hand face down at any time and rel;inquish all rights to the pot.
Randy Refeld
your certainly right about that. it doesnt do anything for collusion as the two involved dont go to the end of the pot. in cal. they even make it worse as someone can ask to see your hand but you cant ask to see theirs later on as that considered retaliation. what bunk. the losing hand should go in the muck or the losing players can ask for the floorman to check to see if there was any improper conduct. when someone asks to see mine i alwaya get even somehow. i will wait and ask for their hand after they lose a big pot or rib them every time they lose one. ill also play in such a way that they cant win in the game and even tell them so. that stops the crap from those that do it regularly
Ray:
I was suprised at your response - it takes a lot of time and energy to be that vindictive and retalitory. I have found that there are two things that put most players on tilt. The first is asking to see their hand and the second is slow rolling your winning hand. I don't care for either of these tactics myself, but make it a point never to let them put me on tilt.
Irish Mike
r u same Irish Mike who plays mostly stud but decided to try HE a couple years ago? spitball
Spitball:
Yes, that would be me bucko. I still prefer stud but now play $10/$20 to $30/$60 Hole'Em almost exclusively. There are no decent middle limit stud games in my area and on road trips I can always find higher limit HE, but frequently only $1-$5 stud. In addition, nearly all of the larger tournaments are HE. I still believe stud gives stong players more of an advantage over weaker players, but can't argue with the action and money you find in most HE games.
Irish Mike
cool.
I'm the poster Mike Caro went to town on re:talking at the table. I play almost exclusively on-line now:)
BTW - I hear 8-16 stud on-line is usually a soft game. spitball
it can be very costly for someone to make you show your hand. the whole table gets to see exeactly how you played a losing hand. it isnt that it may put me on tilt. its that you must not let players get away with actions that are not in your best interests. it encourages others to take shots at you as well. besides while at the table you have lots of time to be vindictive and might be fun spending it being creative.
One regular player in my game asked to see my hand at lease one time (up to 4 or 5) in a session, and it was usually when I lost a big pot and felt sour. I had never asked to see his hand once. I will see his hand everytime he loses a big pot from now on to stop this, although I have not seen him for over a month. I hope he is broke.
regards,
jikun
i hope he is broke also.
Ray,
You wrote: "your certainly right about that. it doesnt do anything for collusion as the two involved dont go to the end of the pot."
I understand you believe you've had very few encounters with colluders. Thus, you might not be aware how often colluders actually do go to the end of the pot.
First, many (perhaps most) colluders are relatively stupid and don't really think about having one partner exit the hand before the showdown.
Second, even clever colluders sometimes deliberately opt to have both partners reach the showdown. The reason, of course, is that aware players will become more suspicious when two players repeatedly get into raising wars and one almost always ends up folding before the showdown. It raises fewer eyebrows if both partners get to the showdown and one inconspicuously mucks.
You wrote: "the losing hand should go in the muck or the losing players can ask for the floorman to check to see if there was any improper conduct."
I think most of us agree there are better alternatives to the current rule, including the one you suggest. I'm curious why more cardrooms don't adopt these alternatives. I suspect many are concerned about slowing down the games and overtaxing the floorpersons.
i think many cardroom managers dont understand the ramifications of their own rules and are always reluctant to change anything. as for the colluders, ones that raise back and forth go broke the fastest as they give 2 to 1 to their opponents too often. ive played many times with those that were trying to partner up and almost always they go broke quickly. its generally a rare occurence in the casino games where people play with the same opponents regularly, as it becomes evident too easily. a few times ive been sure it happened in a pot i was in i grabbed one of their hands to get a look. make sure you know what you are doing before you attempt this. and know what you are going to say if you are wrong. it stops them in their tracks.
"a few times ive been sure it happened in a pot i was in i grabbed one of their hands to get a look."
What was your other hand on!! I hope one of those lovely peashooters you own!! Not recommended for the unarmed!! Now I understand the Montana Hideaway!!
paul
Ray,
You wrote: "as for the colluders, ones that raise back and forth go broke the fastest as they give 2 to 1 to their opponents too often."
Yes, the stupid whipsawers generally are losers. Watch out for the smarter ones, however. Of course, it helps to know what to look for.
You wrote: "ive played many times with those that were trying to partner up and almost always they go broke quickly."
I guess you must have seen most of these would-be partners in private games, since I was led to believe you feel collusion in public cardrooms is rare.
You wrote: "its generally a rare occurence in the casino games where people play with the same opponents regularly, as it becomes evident too easily."
Ah. Maybe it's your belief that collusion is rare in public cardrooms where people play with the same opponents regularly.
Change "especially at the showdown" to "especially BEFORE the showdown" and I completely agree.
I don't understand the feeling of almost all of you on this forum. It seems to me that if my opponent has paid to see my hand then I have paid to see his hand as well. If you want to call the bet on the river, then you should be prepared to show your hand down. I ask to see the opponents hand from time to time, when I think that I will gain information from it. I think it's totally justified. If you don't want anyone to see your hand, then fold the damn thing.
And to actually take revenge on someone for doing something they are completly within thier rights to do is reprehensible.
Just my oponion.
Mike,
You wrote: "It seems to me that if my opponent has paid to see my hand then I have paid to see his hand as well. If you want to call the bet on the river, then you should be prepared to show your hand down."
First, the "right to see any showdown hand" rule generally applies to all players at the table--not just those who have paid money all the way to the showdown.
Second, it generally is considered poor poker etiquette to ask to see a losing hand (unless you reasonably suspect collusion), even if you have the right to do so. Many players feel you are "rubbing salt into their wounds." You probably have a right to fart in a public elevator, but it's still impolite to do so.
"And to actually take revenge on someone for doing something they are completly within thier rights to do is reprehensible."
Serious logic error here. You suggest that action taken "within rights" is perfectly OK, and you suggest that taking revenge is reprehensible, yet such revenge (as described in other posts) is "within their rights".
So, IF doing what one has the right to do is the only criteria for "morality" then there is nothing "wrong" with revenge. And if there really IS something wrong with "revenge" then there may also be "rightful" action which is morally wrong; ... thus letting us have our opinion.
- Louie
Mike -- Another thing is that, as a skilled player, you should be better at reading hands than your opponents. Thus, if no one asks to see anyone's hands yo should have an edge in getting a line on your opponents' play more accurately than they do on your play. But if you start asking to see hands, you just encourage them to ask to see your hand too. Once they get to SEE your hands, rather than having to deduce them through hand reading, you have partially erased that edge you had on them before.
I virtually never ask to see anyone's hand. I think I've done it twice ever, both times in response to someone who had asked to see my hand one too many times.
This is also related to the behavior of forcing a player to show his hand when he has said something like "no pair" or "I missed" or "ace-high" after you have called his bet on the river. Some players here refuse to turn over their obvious winning hand until the "I missed" player either folds or shows. This is another thing I think you should avoid. Same reasoning as before. Unless you know this is a known angle shooter who may be trying to get you to show a losing hand before turning over a miscalled winner, then show, perhaps after a tiny "negotiation" in which, if your hand is marginal, you say whatever narrows your hand enough to confirm it as the winner. e.g., he say's, "no pair", you say, "ace high", he say's "that's good", you turn your hand over and take the pot.
I'll respond to both Louie's message and Paul's message.
I have to partially agree with Louie in that players have the right to take revenge if they want to, but the nature of that revenge is what may be reprehensible. If they just target that player and within the confines of the game try to take revenge on them, that's okay. But to be openly rude to that person or to take revenge in other ways would be where I find the fault. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with wanting to see the other person's hand, but I do think there are certain things that a person can do in revenge that would be morally wrong.
Paul, your statements are valid, but the fact of the matter is that I know that the other player has the right to ask to see my hand just the same as I have the right to see his. I will gladly show my hand, if asked, and sometimes even if I'm not asked. I don't consider this a disadvantage and most times I actually think it creates an advantage for me. As you know, any good player varies his play considerably, so any hand that I show down does not give my opponent any insight into the way I play. In fact, it gives them false information, because it's very possible that I would play the same hand completly different under similar circumstances later on in the session.
I have to respectfully disagree with the forum on this one, but I appreciate the responses.
1) When was this rule made standard?
I'm not sure.
2) At that time, was the sole purpose of this rule to protect against collusion?
I'm not sure if it was the sole purpose, but it was one purpose.
3) If the answer to #2 is yes, then, is that still the sole purpose of this rule?
It is the reason that is most frequently used to justify the rule. And, yes, it really does help to protect against collusion.
I've also seen this rule used when neither showdown player wanted to be the first to reveal their cards and the dealer didn't want to force the issue. After 30 seconds of this nonsense, another player asked to see both their hands. It broke the deadlock.
I suppose the rule also could be used in the hypothetical (and not-so-hypothetical) case where a bad beat jackpot is about to be won, but the pot winner threatens to muck his unshown hand unless the table agrees to give him a greater share of the jackpot. The soon-to-be-bad-beat winner could ask to see his opponent's hand. (In most casinos, this would mean the opponent's hand would not be considered dead and would be allowed to win the pot.)
All that said, I agree this is one of poker's most frequently abused rules and cardrooms generally should do more to stop this abuse.
How about when player (A) bets on the end, then player (B) calls. Now player (A) tosses his(bluff attempt)hand without turning them up, then player (B) scoops the pot without showing his hand. I've seen this done countless times over the years, and I've never heard anyone ever ask to see the winners hand. Why? Are only the hands that are called obligated to show? If this is true, then why is it okay to ask to see the other players hands after the called hand has shown?
"Are only the hands that are called obligated to show?"
If there are multiple showdown hands that still have claim to the pot and the cardroom has an "ask to see showdown hands" rule, then you can ask to see any unmucked showdown hand (regardless of whether that hand merely called or made the last bet). At least this is the case in all cardrooms with which I'm familiar.
In cases where: (1) the cardroom has an "ask to see showdown hands" rule, (2) multiple hands reach the showdown, (3) all hands but one are mucked, and (4) the remaining hand has not yet been exposed, then I've seen different cardrooms (and even the same cardroom) handle this situation in different ways.
Some cardrooms will not allow anyone (other than the floorperson, obviously) to demand to see the winner's cards. Other cardrooms will allow other players to force the winner to show her cards. Still other cardrooms will not allow the dealer to push the pot to the winner until the winner exposes his cards--even if no player requests to see the hand.
I have never seen a "strong" player ask to see a losing hand. I rarely am asked to see my hand probably because I usually am on the betting end of a show down and have to show 1st.
This happened a few days ago - I'm on the cut off with 5h6h worst player at the table on my left and the blinds in the hand + 2 limpers. Flop comes with 3 hearts - It is bet I raise turn is a blank passed to me I pass knowing the wacko on my left will certainly bet he does I check raise and It's me wacko and bb left - river is a Ah bb bets and Know I'm beat and just call wacko mucks his (probable 3rd pair no kicker) and Imuck when I see the Kh he played K3o out of the bb. Wacko the worst player I have seen in a long time plays every hand (mucked pre flop once in 3 hours) and stays until the river most of the time aske to see my hand. It didn't bother me one little bit I think I played the hnad flawlessly strong and since I was taking down the wacko anyway so what.
I think only the players who have cards on the river ask to see all cards. and you must show YOUR cards first if you want to see someone elses.
What I hate is when some over calls me and mucks his hand on the river, then wants to see my hand when he already has mucked his hand.
I agree it is the weak players who want to see.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Tommy,
This to me is a right's issue. Who's hand is it?? If it's totally mine, than isn't it my right to do as I chose with it. If I want to muck it and it's mine than why can I not muck it!! If your saying that the house rules that it is not mine by allowing other people to have rights to see my hand, even though I am not winning the pot and gaining anything from the house, then why should they care if I muck it. This rule sucks, it is truly the worst rule in the house as far as I'm concerned. People who pull this against me find themselve leaving the table shortly after pulling such a stunt because it makes me concentrate better on them and noticing any little thing they do that might tip their hand to me. Plus they do not feel comfortable with me and tend to either play wrong or mostly are so uncomfortable after I have made them feel like a total a--h-l- they go to another table. And I always say "We'll see you again!!! Have a Nice Day Elsewhere"
Just Venting Paul
Paul,
Thanks to you and all for the replies.
I could write for hours on my opinions. They are many and strong. But what I was after was feedback from the community, so as not to misrepresent the average sentiment in an upcoming article for Poker Digest. I've also been polling players and floorstaff in real life. The reactions there, and here, are so strong that I'm going to put the other 30 works-in-progress on the backburner and get this one finished up.
One of the most troubling things about this rule is the varied opinions as to its purpose. All 20 floorman I talked to said that the purpose of the rule is still, as it always was, to protect against collusion. Yet some players, one of whom posted here, feels that asking to see hands strictly for the purpose of gaining information is technically AND etiquettely okay. Of the many players I talked to in real life, it seems that the younger the player is, the more likely he is to feel that the rule was actually designed to allow free information exchange. I do not see this trend as a black mark on younger players, but rather, as an understandable confusion. If I were starting poker now, and I saw the frequency with which called hands are asked to be seen when there is no suspicion of collusion, I too would assume that it is "okay" to ask.
At the end of the article I will propose two optional rules to the current standard. In any case, I now have no doubt that this rule needs addressed. Even if the rule goes on unchanged for years, a review is in order.
Thanks again,
Tommy
THIS IS THE URL FOR THE BILOXI MISS BULLETIN BOARD
http://pub40.bravenet.com
Thank you for this valuable contribution to the general theory of poker.
This week , I am BigBlind with AJs , 2 limpers and the puck raise . I know that this man raise 40% of his puck . I call . Flop come : A J J . I slow play . I check , limpers check , puck bet , I call , 1 limper call other fold . on the turn ; Q . I check limper bet ( he has K10 ) . Puck calls I raise , they calls . The river , is an Ace ( Shit ! I will have to split the pot I thought ) . I check Limper with the straight check obiously and the puck bet , I bet , the other fold . The puck shows AQ ! . His 3Aces over 2queens beats my 3aces over 3jacks . The third pair is never good and now I know that the second triple is worse than 3 pairs . What should I have done ?
Be more aggressive on the flop : bet or check-raise the flop ? or I have well play , it was badLuck ?
...for revenge wait this man in the parking with a crowbar or put his daughter pregnant ?... (I'm kiding )
You were just gonna lose this pot and some money in the process. Nothing you could have done to get these guys off their hands in a limit game. Just accept it and move on.
Yep, I agree. AQ won't lay this hand down no matter what you do. Maybe if you rolled your hand over face up and showed it to him on the flop.
Reminds me of a hand I played where I made the bad suckout.
We were playing short handed (4 players). I was in the SB with AK offsuit. Button raised, I reraised, other 2 folded. Button and I saw the flop headsup.
Flop came K 7 7 rainbow. I checked, he bet, I raised, he just called.
Turn was an ace. I bet, he raised, I just called.
River was an ace, I bet, he just called with a sick look.
I had the nuts. He rolled over KK - he flopped kings full. The only way I could win the hand would be to catch 2 running aces - a 3 outter follwed by a 2 outter.
Thing is, no matter how hard he played this hand I would not have laid it down. Top pair nut kicker on the flop, top 2 on the turn? In a headsup confrontation? No way. For all I knew he had KQ, AQ, or something worse. I didn't think he had a 7.
-SmoothB-
You also could win with running 7's.
This happened to me with pocket K's against a board of K77. Winner had Ax and showed the Ace after thinking for about 2 minutes when the river 7 hit.
I don't think you can move him off the hand. I think you played correctly.
is it ever correct to lay down pocket ace's. the reason that i ask is that it is rumored that one of the stronger players in my area once folded ace's, in middle position, when there were two raises in front of him and nothing but callers in a 20-40 game. im assuming that he figured that they were dogs to that kind of action. just currious and ofcourse its just a rumor i've never talked with him about it.
I assume, you think about laying them down preflop.
I only can imagine 1 situation, where it is correct to fold AA preflop: In an NL HE supersatellite, when you are big stacked AND an other big stack raises all in AND at least one other player will be blinded out in the next round AND you only need to move up one mor place to be a winner of the satellite.
It definitly is a favorite in limit HE preflop, no matter how many players are in. Of course you will loose them often, when there are 8 players going to the showdown, but in 100 hands you will surely win more than you loose.
Regards
M.A.
Of course we are talking pre flop!
Not in a live game or in 99.9% of tournament situations.
One might consider laying them down for strategic reasons in a super satellite or tournament but those cases are rare.
Interestingly enough...there was an article in Card Player magazine with this exact situation. Basically in one of the big no-limit HE tourneys the final table consisted of 4 players...UTG raises all-in, Button calls, SB calls, BB has poket A's but folds. All players had the same amount of money as this was the first hand of this round. top three get money. So here is a specific situation where folding is probably correct.
DrBrAiN
It is never correct to lay them down pre flop, with one possible exception (extremely rare) that I'll get to in a minute.
I also believe that it should essentially never be correct to lay them down on the flop. On the turn is another matter. If you NEVER lay down aces on the river then you are probably not winning as much as you should with them.
1) Here is where you can fold them. Let's say you get 2 black aces. You can see everyone elses cards and one person has 2 red aces, and the others have both black cards of each of the following ranks - K, Q, J, T, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I am sure this isn't the worst possible scenario for pocket aces, but it's pretty bad. AA has very remote straight and flush possibilities, no set making possibilities, and cannot hope to do better than tie with the 2 red aces (barring a very unlikely flush.) Any 2,3,4,5,T,J,Q,K gives someone else a set. That leaves 16 'safe' cards in the deck that would have to fall. The thing is, ALL 5 community cards would have to be one of these 16, and even then, TT and 55 will occasionally make straights when these cards come. And the red aces will make some flushes.
In this case the 2 black aces are dogs and should be folded.
2) I can't think of very many situations where I would fold AA on the flop. Even if the flop came all one suit, and I didn't have A of that suit, I don't think I would fold. Most people, when they flop a flush, will try to slowplay it unless their flush is rather small and they want to charge people for drawing against them. Anyone else betting may be betting their big flush card in the hole. Or just betting top pair.
3) The turn is another matter. Flushes and straights will be trying to get paid off now. I've cut aces loose many times against boards such as:
J987 all one suit when I don't have the A of that suit
when there is a bet and a raise. I think you'd be a fool not to.
Obviously I will never fold a set of aces before the river, but I have folded them on the river before.
If the board is A QJT9 with 4 flush cards, and I don't have one of them, and there is significant action I will lay the set down. In this situation I think few people, with more players left to act, will bet without AT LEAST having a king, and most won't raise without having AT LEAST the 2nd nut flush. But if there were any significant action (bet and a raise) I would fold my set. It depends on the players too - I wouldn't do this automatically.
-SmoothB-
Are you Sklansky incognito - it is a simple question not about "seeing the other cards or which color they are. It is simple - it is not ever correct to lay down AA in a live game pre flop.
My tournament exceptions are rare but valid.
Here is a story. I was playing $10-20 hold'em in the old Golden Nugget cardroom in 1978. I raised the pot on pocket queens, and some people called. Max Fanning was in the big blind with pocket aces. He had been playing all night, losing, and was very angry. He showed the aces to the table, then threw them at the dealer saying, "You SOB's have beat my aces the last 27 times I played them, and are not going to get me this time." My two queens held up and won a nice pot. The aces would have won, so I flipped Max a greenie. I guess you could say he was on a freeroll after he folded...
Bob,
Your's is a wonderful poker story! From someone that plays poker it is, in my opinion, "the nuts"!
Thanks,
Vince.
Laying down aces before the flop can be correct when you know that one of your opponents has the other two aces and you have no money invested in the pot. You will be playing for only half the pot and be forced into a defensive calling position. Some weak opponents will only raise with aces and others will fail to protect their cards when they get a big hand.
Problem is you never know for sure - you may think you know but you never know. Laying down AA is foolish unless theother guys shows you his hand and you are heads up.
You don't need to know for sure. I can think of a handful of players that I would fold against in the situation described in the original post. These players virtually never raise without a pair of aces. I could offer 20 to 1 that they have aces and make money.
You think it's foolish to fold a pair of aces in this situation. Would you fold a pair of kings in this situation? I fold kings and queens all the time in this situation. I treat them as small pairs when trying to decide whether or not to play.
Head to Head is the one time you should play. You will always know exactly where you are in the hand and you will get to split the dead money most of the time. You may even be able to make a move on the other player and win the whole pot if the board gets very scary.
come on now guys he wasn't against another pair of aces. im sorry but the story goes that he thought his aces were an underdog to win the pot, and thats it. i would think that you should peal one off and see how likely it is that someone hit two pair or trips or less likely a solid draw on the flop and still see the show down unless youre playing someone easier to read than steven king.
I would have to agree with Rounder here. I have never seen a player that will only raise with AA. In order to know for sure that this guy has AA, then 100% of time he raises he must have AA. I doubt this is the case.
If it is the case (which I doubt) then I still think you play. Let's say it is heads up with this guy, if he is the type of player who only raises with AA then I think you can raise him out of the pot on the turn and river by representing you have two pair or a set. After all you have nothing to loose because the worst you will do is chop the pot.
Good point - a few days ago I almost got a very tight semi/weak player to dump AA we both had them Pre flop was capped and I reraised him on the flop with a Q showing he was afraid I had a set of Q's. We chopped the pot but it almost worked. I put him on KK or AA but you never know.
I've never layed down pocket aces or kings before the flop at limit hold'em. I've layed down kings twice in 3000 hours at no-limit. I can concoct a fantasy scenerio where I might lay down aces at no limit, but the deciding factor would obviously have nothing to do with the cards.
I play twice per week in a 10-10-20 blinds, $40 to go, no-limit game. Let's say I buy in for $2000, and that long hours later I've got 15K. I'm tired, and I'm eyeing the door, and I just forgot to bluff a couple times because I was playing like a wuss, worried about blowing back and feeling like a chump in the morning.
Then I get AA in the big blind. Let's say the button and I both have $15,000, and everyone else has $4,000. The opener moves all in. Four people call $4,000 all in. And the button moves all in for $15,000.
I might think, "Okay, I've got to either shove in now or quit the the game, cuz if I ain't gonna play this hand there's no point in even holding down a chair."
Granted, this is a far fetched scenerio. But if something like this happened, I might fold and quit and run for the door, insuring that tomorrow's coffee tastes good.
But more than likey , I'd shove in. lol
Tommy
Could someone please inform me of how to get to the rgp forum? I can't seem to get there through www.remarq.com anymore.
Thanks in advance, I appreciate it.
try deja.com
Sammy - Try
http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker
or
http://www.deja.com/group/rec.gambling.poker
I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to write the above so that you could click on it and be transferred.
For newsone.net I tried using (among other things) "BASE href= http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker.html" and put the pointy bracket things on either side and didn't use the quotation marks.
Anybody know where I went wrong?
Buzz
Yeah, I sorta do, but off the top of my head I don't know how to show you without the html disappearing once I post this. So just right click my post here, then choose view source or view frame source. Then you can just look at the html I used to make the active link. I'm not sure if I got every space etc. exactly right, but it works.
John - You did it. I got there. Neat. Thanks.
You wrote "So just right click my post here, then choose view source or view frame source."
Where is "view source" or "view frame source?"
Buzz
Pac Bell Buzz,
Right click on the frame and you will find it.
Rick
Rick - Thanks. I appreciate your effort on my behalf.
Alas, following your directions didn't work.
Probably the trouble is that my computer is a Mac. The mouse for my Mac doesn't have a "right click" and a "left click." There is only the one click button, rather than two, like there are on non-Mac computers.
However, I clicked and double clicked all over the place (screen), including the frame, all to no avail.
I enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks again for the kind attempt.
Buzz
You're in luck. I use a Mac!
If you're using Netscape Navigator, click once on the frame contents. (A web page can be subdivided into "frames." 2+2 uses three frames: one on the upper-left, one on the lower-left and one on the right (where the messages are displayed on a probably yellow background).) I suggest clicking on the yellow background. Once you have done this, go to the "View" menu and select "Page Source." A new window full of HTML code will appear. If you can't find anything recognizable in this window, try the procedure again. (Or try harder to recognize what's in the window. ;)
If you're using Microsoft Explorer, hold down the control key, point at the frame contents (again, on the yellow background), and hold down the mouse button. After a second or two, a menu will pop up. Select "View Frame Source" from this menu.
Thanks.
John - I guess you can't get the html to disappear. You need to copy your coding for the link, then substitute "(openbracket)" for the "left pointy bracket" and "(closebracket)" for the "right pointy bracket."
Zbigniew suggested something that worked for me. I held down the control key and clicked on the screen where your message appeared. A pop-up menu appeared and I clicked "view source." A marvelous screen magically appeared which had your message somewhere in the middle of it. I highlighted and copied your message (apple+c on my Mac), then pasted, (apple+v), then substituted (openbracket) for the left pointy bracket and (closebracket) for the right pointy bracket. Below is the pertinent part:
(openbracket)P(closebracket)(openbracket)a href= http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker(closebracket) click here for newsone(openbracket)/a(closebracket) (openbracket)P(closebracket).
Zbigniew deserves the credit for showing me the way.
You deserve the credit for getting me interested.
Thanks to the both of you.
Buzz
Okay, but there's some way to show those pointy brackets as they look on the "source" screen, without them disappearing in the post. I seem to recall Abdul doing it once. Presumably, it's just some other html tags. Maybe it's here, but I haven't looked. Or if you want to tear Abdul away from his sports betting maybe he could fill us in.
I just remembered that we can display those brackets without them being interpreted as HTML by referring to them with the code < (less-than) and > (greater-than). That's ampersand-lt-semicolon. Thusly:
<A HREF="http://url/">A Description</A>
Ta-da! Take a look at the Source of this message and you can learn other tricks, too. Woohoo! Am I geeky yet?
Zbigniew -
<Nah, you’re cool!>
(And anyway, I prefer the “n” word to the “g” word.)
Buzz
>
I know what went wrong: you said "BASE" when you should have said "A." The code would look something like the sample below, where "(open-bracket)" = "<", "(close-bracket)" = ">" and "some-url" = a "web address" like "http://www.twoplustwo.com/".
(open-bracket)A HREF="some-url"(close-bracket)Some Text Describing the Link Destination(open-bracket)/A(close-bracket)
Here it is in action:
PacPalBuzz also recommends RGP@deja.com.
Finally, you might want to look at A Beginner's Guide to HTML.
Zbigniew - Thanks. Here it is below for newsone.net:
(open-bracket)A HREF="http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker. html"(close-bracket)newsone.net(open-bracket)/A(close-bracket)
Alas, I get a message stating that the news group requested (newsone.net) does not exsist on this server.
What server? aol? But I already get newsone.net on aol.
Here it is below for Deja.com:
(open-bracket)A HREF="http://www.deja.com/group/rec.gambling.poker"(close-bracket)
Deja.com/r.g.p.(open-bracket)/A(close-bracket)
Works for Deja.com but not for newsone.net. Go figure!
Thanks again, Zbigniew. (How do you pronounce that?) You made it very clear.
Buzz
The reason the newsone.net link that you created does not work is because you added ".html" to the end of the address that works. I don't know why you did this. (Do you? ;) Note that computers can be very literal:
http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker.html
is not the same as
http://newsone.net/nnr/browse/rec/gambling/poker
Don't despair. Computer people make these kinds of mistakes all the time.
Zbigniew - You wrote, "The reason the newsone.net link that you created does not work is because you added ".html" to the end of the address that works."
I didn't add ".html." I copied the address intact from the place where the address is displayed on my aol screen, then pasted it into the document I was writing.
I performed the same operation for the Deja screen, somehow successfully. I wondered if the difference had to do with a different type of internet hook-up (like r.g.p. is a different type of internet hook-up than 2+2). Maybe Newsone.net is a different type of internet hook-up than Deja.com. Something like that.
Anyway, Zbigniew, thanks for your help. Interesting that I started out to help someone else (Mike) and you ended up helping me.
Buzz
Zbigniew, I tried sending you a copy of the quiz like you requested but there is something wrong with your e-mail address. Could you try contacting me again? Thanks!
I'm currently working as a dealer at the Montreal Casino. This is a nice casino but it could offer a little more for the player. My mission is to convince management to open up a card room and sports book. I believe that a 16 Table Poker Room can generate plenty of revenue for the casino. It essentially occupies floor space that can be used up by slot machines which are more profitable. Without a poker room, the casino is missing out on a opportunity to cater to a whole new clientele. I don't know many poker players who don't gamble at other casino games occasionally. I would like to get some feedback from anyone who believes a poker is beneficial to the casino's bottom line.
Steve - Sadly, I think you have an uphill battle on your hands if you want to convince casino management that poker is more profitable than slots. Alas, to be truthful, at least in the short term it seems clear slots are more profitable for the casinos than poker rooms. This is probably especially true where there is no choice of where to gamble.
Years ago when I visited Las Vegas on gambling excursions, before I had read Ray Zee's book and felt confident enough to play Omaha/8 in casinos, I thought the casinos without poker were classless dumps and avoided them. However, I don't know how many of the general public have my discerning taste. :-)
For the non-expert gambler, the more activities a casino has, the more appealing it probably is. I used to budget a certain amount of money and travel to Las Vegas a couple of times a year with a group of friends, going from casino to casino, blackjack table to craps table, slot machine to video machine, trying this and that until I had lost the budgeted amount. My friends did likewise. Sounds foolish, but it was fun! Even now that I know better, it's still fun to pull that handle and spin those wheels with the lemons and cherries. Some of the newer games, like "let it ride" are fun too. And lets not forget keeno where you can be in on the action while you're eating dinner. It's all fun!
I realize the above is sacreligeous writing on this forum, but there it is - the plain truth.
I think a lot of people are like me - recreational gamblers, willing to pay to have some fun. Of course it's more fun to win than to lose. That's why we read those 2+2 books.
The problem with poker in casinos is that people probably do not want to risk their money playing against other people who obviously know more about the game. I have yet to sit down at a non-tournament poker table in a casino and try anything but Omaha-8, the one game at which I feel I have an advantage.
Don't know if any of the above helps you much - but my heart is with you.
Buzz
As a poker player, I don't go to the local casino's that don't have Poker. I also don't bring my wife, my friends or co-workers. So they are not just losing my money in the Poker room, they are also people I go with that love Keno, Black Jack, Craps, Roulette or any of the other games.
The Emerald Queen Casino in Washington State had one of the biggest card rooms in the Seattle area. They decided to close it down and put in slots. Several months later they have re-opened up the Poker room. Someone obviously realized they needed it back.
Ken
Of course, slots are more profitable. However, casino management should look to see if the 2000-4000 slots they currently have on the floor are 80% in use before closing a poker room and putting in additional machines. If a poker room is operating in the RED, it probably won't be around long. Management likes to use the "slot reasoning" for closing a room when it is generally something else.
Iggy
If the casino is choosing between a poker room or slots and/or blackjack one has a difficult argument unless there are already under utilized tables and machines.
However if one can add a poker room without reducing the number of blackjack tables etc. then it seems to me that a poker room will bring in new players and create loyalty.
In my own case I don't go the casino except to play poker but while I am waiting for a seat I often then play blackjack, craps and even hit a machine.
Good luck.
It probably isn't - slots make a lot more net profit per sqft than poker tables. BTW I don't play anyother casino games just poker.
Hi Steve; we know each other from the poker room at AMC.
If you can figure out which buttons to push at SCQ to get poker rooms going in Montreal and Hull, I will enthusiastically join you in your mission. The Hull casino is even nicer than Montreal (IMO), but I almost never go there. On the occasions that I do, it is very busy so I would guess that convincing the powers that be to remove machines or BJ tables to put in a poker room would be tough from an strictly economic point of view. The best angle to work is probably the customer service one, but given the amount of private games that go on around here and the general population base, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that poker rooms in Quebec casinos would be money-makers; they might not be as lucrative as slots, but they could come close enough. Plus there are side benefits like the one you mention (getting in a new customer base), and drying up the private games, thus getting the SQ and OPP off of the backs of otherwise innocent people.
Getting sports books going might be impossible. There are already sports lotteries in Canada so there is probably some sort of irreconcilable conflict there.
There is a major expansion going on at the Hull casino now. There is a 20-storey luxury hotel going up, as well as conference facilities and probably a golf course. So it's not like there's no room for a little philanthropy.
Let me know what you find out, and how I can help.
Tom.
From a purely $ per Sq. Ft. basis, slots will outstrip poker tables every time. But at the end of the day, do you want to patronize a slot barn, or a casino? IMO, a nice facility that offers a variety of table games in addition to the bottom line generating slots is a much more socially and aesthetically pleasing set-up than rows and rows of noisy slots.
I also believe that a room that offers blackjack, craps, roulette, etc. will attract customers that just might wander over to check out the poker scene and get involved in the game. Little chance that the stereotypical middle-aged woman slot player will get into the poker scene if all the slots are busy, IMO. Good luck with your efforts at Casino Montreal. From what I've heard, it is a beautiful facility and poker would enhance the place, I believe.
1) Many poker players bring their wives/girlfriends to the casino, who then play other games and generate revenue.
2) Many poker players play other games while at a casino, but would not visit a casino just to play blackjack, and very few would visit the casino just to play poker.
3) Poker rooms make money from a different segment of the populace than slots. If you make out your slots, you can still make more money by also adding a poker room. If you have limited sq ft, slots will probably win out :(.
When I travel to a casino it is for poker. While there I will play a fair amt of video poker, sometimes more hrs than live action, but video poker by itself would never draw me in the door.
Hi Steve ! We might know each other since i used to be a dealer at the Montreal Casino and i sometime play at Akwasasne (i'm gonna be there saturday...)
Like the others said, slots probably make more money than poker, but what the casino's management has to realize is that in the north east (eastern Canada, Vermont, northen NY ...)there isn't any 1st class casino which offers Poker, the closest is Foxwoods, and it's about 7 hours away. So i'm sure that a lot of players would come from outside Montreal to play, some of them for a few days at a time, and a lot of them would come with their wife or girlfriend, which are probably more intrerested in playing slots or blackjack than poker. Therefore, in the end you would also attract new slot players. If you add that to the money made by the card room, i think it becomes profitable for the casino.
Don't hesitate to write to me if you need any help, or if you need a couple of players for a home game ;) My e-mail is ps1@videotron.ca
Steve,
I suspect that you are battling a general trend in the gaming industry. The short-term benefits of slots outweigh the ones of poker, so dump the poker rooms. The Empress in East Chicago dumped its poker room back in May, the Diamond Jo in Dubuque, Iowa is apparently closing its down in the next month, and the ones in the Quad Cities, Iowa are in danger of being closed down. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lot of short term thinking in the industry.
Best, dp
Has anyone tried the Card Player Analyst (CPA) software for recording session results?
Hi--
Could anyone help me out with this math issue? As I understand it, the problems with playing super-duper tight are:
1. The antes/bring-in/blinds will outrun the expected value on your premium hands; and 2. In the real world, you may not get any action on your big hands if you only play absolute top hands.
I'd like to disregard #2 for the purpose of this, and assume a 1-2 stud game (because the math is easy) with no ante and a .50 low card bring in in which players will disregard your hand selection (i.e. will play their basic requirements no matter what you do)
a. Does it make any sense to add together your expected "overhead" for playing (.50/8=.06 cents per hand), then adding together expected values for each hand to find a rough break even point?
b. Is the math insanely complicated to do so?
Obviously, what I'm wondering (from a theoretical rather than "real" perspective) is whether a strategy of only playing, say, rolled up trips and pairs higher than kings has a positive e.v. vs. extremely weak opposition.
Thanks...
I did some analysis regarding 1-5 spread limit stud, $1 bring-in, and the minimum looseness you had to exhibit. If I remember right, assuming unobservant opponents, you only had to play rolled up trips, Aces, and Kings to break even in the long run. It was a pessimistic analysis, so even that might very well be profitable.
Of course, you'd be leaving a lot on the table depending on the game conditions.
- Andrew
Averaging your overhead over an orbit has less merit than it appears. Certainly a 50c bring in has more value than a 6c ante since you keep equity in the pot when you bring it in and can, at least some of the time, make a playable hand by 5th. Never-the-less I use this very approach when confincing neophites to be selective: if the first three cards cost an average of 6c, why invest an additional 50c to see on more card just in case it MAY give you something on 4th?
I think you should pick some hand you think may be marginal, such as 8JJ when someone has a Q, and calculate your chances. I don't see much merit in figuring out which hand (or better) will allow you to break even since this will presume you abandon weaker hands that are still profitable.
But to answer your question, I would recomend that new players ONLY play pair hands that are live, are face cards, and when nobody has ANY card bigger than your pair (fold 8JJ when someone has a queen). Add to that live 2-face card 3-flushes and beginners are on their way to a boring $6 win.
- Louie
I don't know about the math part of your post - frankley is bores me - but the 1st part of your question is interesting to me. I think it is possible to play intelligent semi/thight by using your position and betting to dictate what hands you play and in what position.
Playing your premium hands early and drawing hands later. IE: you wouldn't consider playing a 78 UTG but it is a great hand to play on the button with no raise in and 4+ limpers. I think it is foolish to just play premium hands and unless in LaLa land you aren't gonna get much action.
Being predictable is death in poker.
87 on the button with 4+ players is playable *only* if it's suited.
- Andrew
To pose such a question regarding Stud, I can only assume that however you are playing, it is too tight. Oh! I was right. I looked and read, the last few lines of your post, which describe a losing strategy. Regarding the "math", even if you knew it, it would be of no value, without a lot of poker playing experience.
I have been playing cards for about 1 1/2 years now, for about a 1 year seriously. I have played several times at foxwoods,but mostly home games. I recently read hold em poker for advanced players, but ifeel that the content is too advanced for me from where my game is right now. So i bought Hold em excellence by Lou Krieger, More hold em excellence:a winer for life, and Lee Jone's book on low limit hold em. I felt that i needed to start my "poker career" over by going back to the basics to help me out with my looseness at the table. My main question is, where do i go from here after reading these books on basics and low limit?? also, beofre I read Hold em poker for advanced players, is it a good idea to read sklansky's first hold em poker book?? I also purchased inside the poker mind...which i plan to read later, if anyone can help, please do so! lots of thanks.....-Mike
I think you have most of the standard books on hold-em. You may want to check out Bob Ciaffone's book "Improve Your Poker" since it has a lot of excellent, practical advice. Keep in mind that 2+2 books are aimed for medium limit games ($10-$20 or higher). If you are just going to play low limit ($3-$6 through $6-$12) some of the strategies may not be apropos.
But I really believe that the best way to improve is to write down specific hands you are involved in and post them for comment or have someone more experienced review them with you. Having a weekly chat group with some other good players to go over hands might be more helpful than books.
You could also take lessons depending upon how much you can afford. Bob Ciaffone gives lessons for about $25 per hour and you can contact him directly through his ad in Cardplayer or here on his website under favorite links. I believe David Sklansky gives lessons for about $300 per hour and you should be able to contact him through 2+2. Just a thought.
You might also try the three books on Hold'em by Anday Nelson. They are short, easy to read, and have some good advice. In particular, chapter 3 in the Advanced Book is a gem on categorizing other players.
Best, dp
I like Roy Cooke's book also.
Although not strictly holdemrelated, you willprobably find the The Theory of Poker more helpful than another holdembook at this stage (assuming you havnt reas and studied it properly already).
Arrash
following one of the above advice could turn you into a long term loser maybe. read all the books available to you and learn to find whats wrong in many of them and only then can you say that you are understanding the game.
a plug for 2+2 books--there will be very little in them that a great player would refute. cant say the same for many others.
Mike,
Read Feeney's book NOW.
Good Luck,
Lou Gibbons
Are long-term value plays as important to consider in tournaments as they are in ring-game play?
Thanks
Obviously not.
Dave most of us use the forum to get solid advice from the knowledgeable players that are at our disposal on your site and it would be very appreciated that you respond with solid knowledge as to our questions. Your expertise from my standpoint is invaluable but to respond as you just did says very little to our questions.Obviously if we knew the answers we would not ask.Sometimes our questions make little sense to others but to the individaul its significant. I for one crave to learn everything I can from you guys.I as well have many of your books and others as well. By teaching we will be taught ... By learning we will be knowledge..
jg
With due respect to DS - I think he is stuck for an answer if he can't quantify it in a math equasion. That is probably why the scientific types don't mess with NL very much.
The stepford approach to limit hold 'em is OK but poker is an art not a science - anyway that is how I like to approach it.
I don't think the answer requires much explanation. In a tourney, you need to play in a manner where you win every hand you play. While percentages may be important, the best "long term" play for a particular hand is irrelevant.
David,
What a great answer. I have one problem with it though. It seems to me that there was a discussion a few months ago in which both you and Fossilman argued for calling a hand because you were getting good pot odds. The hand was a Tournament hand. I, superstar extrodinaire, on the other hand, argued against calling based on pot odds because of elimination considerations. I agree with Rounder's answer to this question and now I guess you agree also.
Vince.
Well, first, what exactly is meant by a long-term value play? Does he just mean playing the hand in the way that maximizes chip EV, analogous to a ring game? If so, then you don't make these plays as often in a tourney, because late in the tourney you must factor other things into your decision. Additionally, in the discussion between Oz and I you mention, it was early enough in the tourney that EV considerations still were all that really mattered.
If the original poster means long-term value as in image creation or maintenance, calling just so an opponent knows he can't run you over easily, and the like, it depends. How much will you play against the same opponents in the future, whether in a cash game or a tourney? It is the frequency of future interaction that would seem to be most important to me, not whether it's a tourney or a cash game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"It is the frequency of future interaction that would seem to be most important to me"
Excuse me mister lawyer but you seem to be discussing poker as if it were sex. Well, then again, I seem to be getting screwed at the table lately so maybe you are correct.
Vince
"Excuse me mister lawyer but you seem to be discussing poker as if it were sex. Well, then again, I seem to be getting screwed at the table lately so maybe you are correct."
Don't you mean, that you're getting screwed so infrequently away from the table, that you've got sex on the mind even when discussing poker?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Not by a long shot. In tournaments (specially NL) pot odds are BULL. You can't rebuy you have to play strategy and stacks a lot more than pot size.
So when you consider drawing to that open ended straight with nothing else to hang your hat on you might be better off just mucking your hand.
They are more inportant if you expect the tournament to last a year or more.
if what I wrote above is accurate
I thought he was asking about things like bluffing for advertisement, or calling now, so as not to be run over later. Since you will be playing with different players later, the answer is obvious.
If the question is about taking pot odds, the answer is that you should in fact throw away hands that would be slightly plus EV in ring games (eg don't take 11-1 on a 10-1 shot). This is especially true if you are one of the better players in the tournament. Even if you are not, a second reason to fold is that each successive chip is worth less due to the prize structure. But this concept can only be taken so far. I'd almost never throw a 5-1 shot away getting say 9-1.
Rounder's comment about mathematical types and No Limit has some truth to it but there is an underlying implication in his words that could not be more wrong. It is true that most math experts don't read people as well on average since they have been concentrating on other things all their life. Thus they would tend to be weaker at games like NL where reading people is often paramount. However it is not their knowledge of math per se that has caused this weakness. Rounder and others need to understand this. Certain personality types gravitate toward math. But math knowledge has little effect on personality. That means that if you are doing well at poker through instinct and people skills, you would do even better if you took a few weeks to learn some probability , statistics and game theory. Just ask Chris Ferguson.
thanks for the insight and I agree wholeheartedly on your last thought instincts and people skills combined with statistical,probabilty,and theory skills are a powerful force as one.....Every serious player must strive to excel to the best of his capacity in these areas.....
jg
in the autobiography of paul hamos he says mathematitions do better on the verbal portion of the graduate record exam rather than the quantatative part.
You are jusy making an invalid assumption about me. I just happen to require a bit more in the way of odds to continue in a hand than most players.
I also never consider pot odds in a tournament. In NL heads up which is what you are almost always playing one almost mever had the odds to make a any kind of long shot play possibly implied odds are there but you are playing the man not the pot.
Let me illustrate this - in a NL tournament a few months ago about 1/2 the field of 120 was left I had 88 in the hole in bb a very good tournemant player who had the button (one most of you would recognize but he is a friend and I won't say his name) who I had a good read on as having a big A or smaller pair I called his all in bet 2 or 3 limpers folded and we were heads up.
Now I happen to win that hand and as suspected he had an under pair - 2 things went through my mind I want to double up here and get this guy out of my way. I knew I was probably a fav going in and that's all I neeeded to make the play.
Never in a million years do I make this play in a ring game as I know I am not getting the limpers out and there is no way I can put the raiser on the hand I did because of the structure of no limit. Hell in a ring game I probably don't even call the raise from a good player in the blind with 88.
See the difference.
I am a regular mid-limit player who has just happened upon a 10-20 game with a half kill. The winner of a pot above $150 must post a $15 blind and the next hand is played at 15-30. What strategy changes must be made to optimize play with this structure? Is this structure better or worse for the skilled player?
Thanks,
Darren
It is better for the skilled player who makes better decisions than an unskilled player cuz the stakes are higher better decisions are more valuable.
Far as strategy I just treat the killer like another blind and play my same game maybe a bit more aggressive on latter streets with the added leverage of bigger limits.
"What strategy changes must be made to optimize play with this structure?"
Don't make marginal value bets on the river in heads up pots that will become $150, since 15 of the 20 dollars you may win will go back into the blind.
Danny
You must play tighter in non-kill hands. If a hand is only worth 50 cents to play and wins 1 in 10 pots in a non-kill game, it falls to a dollar loser** because you now are forced to post a 15$ blind.
**Actually, its not that bad, since your blind has some value, but if we suppose it is only "worth" 10 dollars, then the marginal play becomes a 50 cent loser. This analysis also excludes the likelyhood of winning small pots and avoiding the kill, but the point is still valid.
Kills punish loose players by having the effect of making them post more often than tight players.
Nevertheless, I hate them. They really make your variance go through the roof. Also, proper blind play is very difficult and you often get into situations where you are not easily sure if you like your hand, such as top pair, trash kicker.
I play tight already, the last thing I want is a rule to force me to play tighter. After all, it is supposed to be fun too.
Isn't it lower variance when you get to play 15-30 with the natural blinds of a 10-20 structure? Are you considering the added variance of having to complete the small blind more often in a normal 15-30 game? Strategy adjustments (on non-kill hands) parallel those in games where time is collected but players prefer to have two time pots per half hour, at least with respect to playing in a manner designed to avoid much of the rake. Doesn't a rake reduction decrease your variance?
Darren,
Generally, play a little tighter than usual in big multiway pots where the pot will surely reach the kill limit. There is effectively $15 less to win.
In kill pots you may want to raise slightly more since there is more involuntary money in the pot.
This has been discussed in some detail in the past, check the archives (probably Hold'Em rather than general theory).
Kill pots are a gimmick which favors the house, by keeping more money in "action", available for the house rake or time collection. The mechanism by which it works is thew additional forced bet. Remember, the house makes it money gradually, over a period of time.
"Kill pots" are a departure, from traditional poker rules, from established rulebooks. Why would poker management allow such a departure from established rules of the game? Because, it enhances their (casino's) long-term edge on the game.
For those of you who don't believe kill pots are a gimmick, purpose A RULE CHANGE to the house, which increases "action and fun" for the players, but does not enhance the house "take".
i think their cool
Recently, David Steele explained why he was considering no longer tipping.
Jim Brier wrote, "While your [non-tipping] theory is understandable I think it is philosophically and morally repugnant."[1]
He later explained "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."[2]
I do not share Jim's opinions about the philosophical and moral repugnancy of non-tipping. If one accepts Jim's argument, however, then it seems to me that one also should view the actions of below-average tippers as wrong.
Although not to the same degree as the "freeloaders,"[3] the contributions of below-average tippers to the compensation of dealers also fall short of their "fair share."
This logical extension of Jim's argument seemed fairly obvious to me, but Jim appeared to have some difficulty understanding my point. Does anyone else not follow my above reasoning? Can anyone else explain it more clearly?
Jim claimed, "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."[4]
I find this assertion, if true, to be interesting. Most of the better players with whom I am familiar appear to be below-average tippers. And I believe my tips are below average as well. If the vast majority of these folks believe non-tipping is wrong, how do the below-average tippers among them feel about their own behavior?
I can think of several possibilities, including:
(1) Some of them (like myself) don't believe non-tipping or below-average tipping is morally wrong.
(2) Some of them believe non-tipping is wrong but don't see the logical extension of this moral standard to below-average tipping.
(3) Some of them believe both non-tipping and below-average tipping are morally wrong, so they tip at least an average amount.
(4) Some of them believe both non-tipping and below-average tipping are morally wrong, but they are willing to act immorally.
Of course, it also is possible that the vast majority of poker players at all levels of ability do not believe non-tipping is wrong.
--------------------
[1] Jim Brier, "Re: Tipping theory.", 27 August 2000 in David Steele's 26 August 2000 thread entitled "Tipping theory."
[2] Jim Brier, "Re: Tipping theory.", 28 August 2000.
[3] "Freeloader" is a misleading term, since even non-tippers help compensate dealers by paying rake (or time collection), which is partly used to pay dealer salaries.
[4] Jim Brier, "Re: Tipping theory.", 4 September 2000.
At the end of the year, those below-average tips will add up to a nice amount.All the stiffs will add up to nothing.Even at the end of just one day,the sum of the below-average tips wll at least put gas in the dealer's car.
I don't see how the two compare at all.I think that Jim is being too kind to you in this matter.
Howard
Howard,
You wrote: "At the end of the year, those below-average tips will add up to a nice amount.All the stiffs will add up to nothing."
A most excellent point. Which is why I noted that while the below-average tippers fall short of contributing their "fair share," it is "not to the same degree as the 'freeloaders.'"
One would think that you of all people Mark would not even put forth a question as this without some statistics on what defines average.
What is average at a 3-6 hold'em table whe the pot is 6 sb?
What is the average tip at a 4-8 Omaha 8 game when the pot is split 3/4-1/4 and the total pot is 14 bb?
My point is, is a buck average?
For those think under toking or not toking at all is "morally wrong" let me ask you this question.
If someone tokes the dealer $6 when they win a $200 pot ($70 of which is their own money)then are they also morally wrong because they toked too much?
I have observed that most of the the people who overtip are:
(1) Poker dealers who are either generous to their fellow workers, or realize that it pays to advertize.
(2) Just plain generous nice people who can afford it.
(3) Very loose players who play too many pots "almost every hand" and generally end up not cashing in many chips. These type of players in hi-lo split games often have nice win streaks where they build up a hugh stack of chips, but usually end up broke. It is probably best they give a lot to the dealers before they run out of chips.
Sammy,
You asked: "What is average at a 3-6 hold'em table whe the pot is 6 sb?"
Does it really matter? What if I believe the average tip is about $0.78 and I consciously decide to tip, on average, about $0.46? Whatever the true average tip is, am I not expecting the above-average tippers (or those whom I believe are above-average tippers) to make up for my failure to contribute my "fair share" toward the dealer's compensation?
To a lesser degree than the non-tipper, wouldn't I also be taking advantage of other players' generosity and thus be acting wrongly in the eyes of someone who was believed non-tippers are "philosophically and morally repugnant" because they are "freeloading" off everyone else?
Mark - What an impressive post! You even have foot notes! Very classy! I'm not being sarcastic here.
I like the tipping system in a tournament. If you win or place, you toke, or at least I do.
In a ring game the correct amount is not clear. I tend to be more generous if I'm having a winning session. If I'm down several hundred bucks on the night, although I still toke when I win a pot, it's minimal.
But I agree with Sammy (1). What's average?
Buzz
(1) Re: Non-tippers and below-average tippers SammyB -- Saturday, 9 September 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
I consider anyone that tokes poker dealers to be morally wrong and patently insane.
But if they want to toke the poker dealers that's their business.
Until they put up a sign that says "You must toke the poker dealers" there is no way I would toke.
They're charging me $18 an hour to play so they can pay their own employees.
Just curious, When a business charges for delivery do you tip the delivery guy?
What if he takes all the rubbish out, like when they deliver furniture? How about when they remove the old mattress and put the new one in place and then take the old one away?
Do you at least offer them a glass of water if it's hot outside or do you have a vending machine in your kitchen?
Sammy - I always offer them a soda, a beer, or a cup of coffee. Sometimes they take me up on it. Sometimes they take it with them for later. Sometimes they say, "No thanks".
But I always offer - just to be nice.
When we visited New Zealand, there was no tipping. It was nicer, honestly, because when someone did something for you, it was not because they wanted or expected a tip. Some of the other islands in the Pacific also have a no tipping custom.
But it's different (IMO) when you're dealing with people in jobs where tips are part of their payment and tipping is the accepted practice.
Buzz
Yes, but in my scenario you are already paying for delivery and I made that point because "toking is for someone else" said the dealers should get paid out of his $18.00 time charge. Actually, I always tip the delivery guy whether or not I'm paying for delivery, unless of course he doesn;t deserve one.
I play lower limit OM8 games and tip on an average basis. I am not a loser on balance. I am a pleasure player who meets expenses of $10 an hour and who wins an averageof $3 an hour at the end of the year. As you can see most of the money goes down the slot. I don't need the money but like most of us -- I like to win a little. In regards to tipping....
I develop repore with most dealers and once that occurs I would find it almost impossible not to tip. I have had occasions"very rare" where a dealer mistake cost me a relatively hugh pot. At that moment I felt like not tipping until I recover the amount the dealer cost me. But by the next few hands or the next day I mellow and remember"realize" that I also make lots of mistakes; and resume tipping. Life goes on....
.
Nice post. You said all there is that needs to be said. This thing was a mess on vpmail. Don't drag its ugly carcass over here too.
some jobs expect or recieve tips and some do not. some workers expect them in even jobs that should not. do you tip the person that sells you a ticket at the movie theatre-no. the cop that directs traffic--no. the person at the info booth at the airport--no. why not? its because the general population deided its right not to tip those jobs. but the general population or the casinos long ago put pressure on people to tip poker dealers. so its now a custom.
the next question is what are you tipping for? is it the service you got or are you tipping because you got lucky and won the pot. most dealers say you should tip for their good service but when you win a big pot thats when they expect the tip.
also should you tip when the service is to the whole table and not to you as an individual? just because you won the pot why are you expected to shoulder the responsibility of the tip.
some things to think about from a below average tipper.
Delivery people get tips, but not if there is a delivery charge. I kinda figure that extra fee is there to cover the expense of delivery, which includes tipping. If the fee doesn't get used that way, the employer is to blame.
PacPalBuzz,
You wrote: "But I agree with Sammy (1). What's average?"
See my reply to Sammy.[1]
You also wrote: "You even have foot notes! Very classy!"
Thanks. Your footnote also was very nice, although I personally feel footnotes are a bit more identifiable when they are marked with square brackets instead of rounded ones. But I would understand if you feel differently.
-------------
[1] Mark Glover, "Re: Non-tippers and below-average tippers," 9 September 2000, 6:53 p.m.
You're correct, it doesn't matter the average. I believe we're talking absolutes. Those who tip, those who don't tip.
I've rarely heard a dealer not say thank you for a tip even if it was a 1/2 dollar at a 5-10 table. So, if the dealer appreciates it, or at least appreciates the appreciation the repugnancy is lifted. Therefore, the correct tip from a player's perspective would be one that elicits a nod or comment of gratitude from the dealer. If the dealer is happy no one at the table can look scornfully at the tipper. I suppose S&M is going to have to come out with an addendum to their line of books to incluse a chapter on, "How to Read Your Dealer".
Correct strategy could add at least 1/4 bb per hour to your game.
Sammy,
You wrote: "I believe we're talking absolutes."
Why is that?
In any case, do you agree that Jim's argument does not lend itself to absolutes? If you adopt the moral position that non-tipping is wrong because the player is not paying their "fair share" of the dealer compensation, then shouldn't you also adopt the moral position that below-average tipping also is wrong (to a lesser degree) for the same reason?
You also wrote: "So, if the dealer appreciates it, or at least appreciates the appreciation the repugnancy is lifted."
This is a rather novel approach. Let the dealer determine whether your actions are moral or not. If you happen upon a particulary surly dealer who isn't appreciating any tip below $5, you might have a lot of immoral behavior going on at that table.
Mark -
I hate valet parking so much that if I drove alone to an event where the only parking available was valet parking, I would honestly turn around and drive home! However sometimes someone else is with me and there is no way to gracefully avoid valet parking.
The valet parking attendant, of course, expects a tip. That’s why he’s parking cars! When I accept the services of the valet parking attendant, knowing full well that he expects a tip from me as payment for his services, I owe him a tip for those services.
Therefore, I tip the valet parking attendant.
The reason I tip him is because there is a tacit agreement between us. In return for parking and protecting my car, the valet parking attendant expects, and is entitled to, compensation from me. Note that even though I didn’t want it in the first place, nonetheless I accepted the service. The recognized procedure for paying for that valet parking service is by tipping the attendant.
If I stiff the valet parking attendant, then I am keeping from him what he thinks is rightfully his. For me personally (maybe not for you), since I also think the valet parking attendant is entitled to compensation for his services, it would be morally wrong to stiff him. Taking something that belongs to someone else is stealing. Is there a word (besides stiffing) for keeping something that belongs to someone else? In my mind, that’s what I would be doing by not tipping the valet parking attendant.
The same logic can be applied to dealers in casinos.
When I accept the services of anyone who expects to be paid for services, I have a moral obligation to pay, in the customary manner, for those services.
Honestly, I don’t like tipping very much. I would much rather see a different compensation system for dealers. However, the way it is, dealers are compensated by tips, just as parking attendants are.
If you worked for someone and then were not paid as you expected to be paid, how would you feel?
I don't think the reason non-tipping is morally wrong is because a player who doesn't tip is not paying his "fair share" of the dealer compensation. Non-tipping would be morally wrong for me (not necessarily for you) because I would be keeping something that I believe belongs to someone else, (the payment of an unspecified and variable amount for services rendered).
Since the payment is of an unspecified and variable amount, there seems no way to tell what is not enough. Each winner of a pot must judge for himself/herself what is reasonably fair. That's how the system works.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Buzz,
You wrote: "The valet parking attendant, of course, expects a tip. That’s why he’s parking cars! When I accept the services of the valet parking attendant, knowing full well that he expects a tip from me as payment for his services, I owe him a tip for those services."
First, note that your statement easily could be read in a black-and-white fashion. One owes a parking attendant a tip for their service, so any tip is okay while no tip is morally wrong. But I don't agree with that view. If I leave a waiter a half dozen pennies, I'm making a statement about the atrocious service I recieved. I'm saying, "Yes, I remembered you expect a tip from me, but you botched your job terribly."
On the other hand, it's also possible to read your statement as saying one owes parking attendants the amount of tips they expect. But this runs into the same problem Sammy encountered. That is, you would seem to be arguing that people have a special moral obligation to make parking attendants (dealers, waiters/waitresses, bellhops, etc.) happy. While that might be a generous attitude, I don't understand the philosophical basis for it. What entitles workers in tipping occupations to receive what they expect while other workers must compete in a free market for their compensation?
While I don't think you really are making such a claim, my concern is increased by your comment, "In return for parking and protecting my car, the valet parking attendant expects, and is entitled to, compensation from me." And by your assertion, "If I stiff the valet parking attendant, then I am keeping from him what he thinks is rightfully his."
You wrote: "For me personally (maybe not for you), since I also think the valet parking attendant is entitled to compensation for his services, it would be morally wrong to stiff him."
I think most reasonable people agree that parking attendants are entitled to compensation for their services. But non-tippers might feel that attendants' base salaries are adequate compensation. Other non-tippers might believe that salary plus other peoples' tips provide adequate compensation.
You wrote: "Taking something that belongs to someone else is stealing."
True. But the tips do not belong to the parking attendants until you actually hand them over. No more than that new job I interviewed for and expect is mine until it is given to me. No more than that pot I expect to win with my good hand is mine until the dealer pushes it to me.
You wrote: "When I accept the services of anyone who expects to be paid for services, I have a moral obligation to pay, in the customary manner, for those services."
I can accept that you feel a moral obligation for *you* to tip in these situations. But do you feel that others also fall under this moral obligation? Do you find non-tippers to be "philosophically and morally repugnant?"
I know a former waitress who never tips. Instead, she donates time and money to (among other things) shelters and services for the homeless. I don't find her non-tipping to be immoral. There also are some poker players who seem to have very low incomes. I don't find their non-tipping to be immoral.
You wrote: "If you worked for someone and then were not paid as you expected to be paid, how would you feel?"
I feel my employers have the legal and moral right to pay me what *they* feel is appropriate, not what *I* expect to be paid. I also feel I have the legal and moral right to seek employment elsewhere if I believe my total compensation is inadequate.
Mark - I wrote: "The valet parking attendant, of course, expects a tip. That’s why he’s parking cars! When I accept the services of the valet parking attendant, knowing full well that he expects a tip from me as payment for his services, I owe him a tip for those services." [1]
Let me rephrase. When I accept the services of the valet parking attendant, knowing full well that he expects a reasonable tip from me as payment for his services, I owe him a reasonable tip for those services.
You wrote: ‘First, note that your statement easily could be read in a black-and-white fashion. One owes a parking attendant a tip for their service, so any tip is okay while no tip is morally wrong. But I don't agree with that view. If I leave a waiter a half dozen pennies, I'm making a statement about the atrocious service I recieved. I'm saying, "Yes, I remembered you expect a tip from me, but you botched your job terribly." ‘[2]
Does the inclusion of the word “reasonable” make my statement clearer? I don’t think the waiter would think six cents was a “reasonable” tip. Six cents would be insulting. Insulting is worse than leaving no tip at all.
You wrote, “On the other hand, it's also possible to read your statement as saying one owes parking attendants the amount of tips they expect. But this runs into the same problem Sammy encountered. That is, you would seem to be arguing that people have a special moral obligation to make parking attendants (dealers, waiters/waitresses, bellhops, etc.) happy. ” [2]
Never thought about it before. Off the top of my head I don’t think I have a “moral obligation” to make people happy. On the other hand I try to help people and I want to be polite and friendly to people. I don’t enjoy making people unhappy. It’s satisfying for me to make people happy, as long as I can afford to do it.
You wrote, “While that might be a generous attitude, I don't understand the philosophical basis for it. What entitles workers in tipping occupations to receive what they expect while other workers must compete in a free market for their compensation?“ [2]
You’ve got me. I don’t understand “the philosophical basis for it” either. From my viewpoint, you pay some people one way and other people another. The way you pay people in tipping occupations for their services is by tipping. That’s the way the system works. The system isn’t offensive to me, although as I already noted [1], I would prefer a system (like in New Zealand) where there is no tipping and workers were compensated in another fashion. But it’s not a big deal to me. I presume that the rake would be higher if dealers were compensated in another fashion. I don’t think the quality of dealing would improve.
I wrote: "Taking something that belongs to someone else is stealing." [1]
You wrote: True. But the tips do not belong to the parking attendants until you actually hand them over. No more than that new job I interviewed for and expect is mine until it is given to me. No more than that pot I expect to win with my good hand is mine until the dealer pushes it to me. [2]
You snipped me a bit out of context. In the same paragraph I went on to write that I wondered if there was a term for keeping something (compensation for services in this case) that belongs to someone else. In my mind, I owe the parking attendant something if I have used his services. True, whatever I owe him is not actually his until I hand it over. But I owe him. Accordingly, I have a moral obligation to pay him. That’s how I feel. Don’t you feel you have a moral obligation to pay people you owe?
You wrote: ‘....do you feel that others also fall under this moral obligation? Do you find non-tippers to be "philosophically and morally repugnant?"‘ [2]
No.
You wrote: I know a former waitress who never tips. Instead, she donates time and money to (among other things) shelters and services for the homeless. I don't find her non-tipping to be immoral. [2]
I don’t care what she does with the money. I think she’s cheating those who wait on her. She’s using what should be their money (for services rendered) for her own causes. It seems but a small step from there to stealing from others to put the money to her own use, even if it is what she thinks is a good cause. How would you feel about her taking your money and giving to someone she thinks needs it more?
You wrote: There also are some poker players who seem to have very low incomes. I don't find their non-tipping to be immoral.[2]
Me neither.
[1] Re: Non-tippers and below-average tippers PacPalBuzz -- Sunday, 10 September 2000, at 1:26 a.m.
[2] Re: Non-tippers and below-average tippers Mark Glover -- Sunday, 10 September 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Buzz,
You wrote: "When I accept the services of the valet parking attendant, knowing full well that he expects a reasonable tip from me as payment for his services, I owe him a reasonable tip for those services."
And you asked: "Does the inclusion of the word 'reasonable' make my statement clearer?"
I do find that rephrasing clearer. It didn't make much sense to me that you would feel obligated to tip parking attendants, etc., what *they* expect. Tipping what *you* feel is reasonable is more understandable (at least to me).
Note, however, that people can have widely differing views about what is "reasonable."
Note, also, that most reasonable attendants expect some car drivers will tip a lot, some will tip a little, and some will not tip at all.
Earlier, I noted: ". . . you would seem to be arguing that people have a special moral obligation to make parking attendants (dealers, waiters/waitresses, bellhops, etc.) happy."
It's my turn to rephrase. "Happy" was a poor word choice. I should have asked whether you felt people have a moral obligation to see that the compensation expectations of parking attendants, etc., are met. Your recent rephrasing seems to suggest that your obligations are not dictated by the tip receiver.
Earlier, I asked: "What entitles workers in tipping occupations to receive what they expect while other workers must compete in a free market for their compensation?"
You replied: "From my viewpoint, you pay some people one way and other people another. The way you pay people in tipping occupations for their services is by tipping."
The point I was trying to make was that I don't understand why tip-receivers should be morally entitled to whatever level of compensation they expect.
Suppose I was a McDonald's burger flipper and expected an annual salary of $75,000. If I asked my boss for a raise, I don't think she would feel a moral obligation to pay me that expected salary. Instead, it would be my responsibility to: (1) seek a higher-paying chef's job elsewhere, (2) change my occupation, or (3) lower my compensation expectations.
You wrote: "In my mind, I owe the parking attendant something if I have used his services. True, whatever I owe him is not actually his until I hand it over. But I owe him. Accordingly, I have a moral obligation to pay him. That’s how I feel. Don’t you feel you have a moral obligation to pay people you owe?"
As long as tipping is voluntary, I don't feel any car driver owes the parking attendant any tip. If people want to tip the attendant, then (of course) they are free to do so.
I'm assuming the parking attendants voluntarily accepted their jobs and are free to seek employment elsewhere. Most of them probably knew that some drivers would tip above average, some would tip below average, and some would not tip at all. If some attendants feel their total compensation (salary plus voluntarily offerred tips) is inadequate, I don't believe the car drivers are morally at fault.
Earlier, I wrote: "I know a former waitress who never tips. Instead, she donates time and money to (among other things) shelters and services for the homeless. I don't find her non-tipping to be immoral."
You replied: "I think she’s cheating those who wait on her. She’s using what should be their money (for services rendered) for her own causes."
I guess we have different opinions on whether the money she donated belongs to her or to the waiters.
Note, however, that my friend believes a tip of zero is a "reasonable" amount to pay to people who are relatively well off. The waiter might disagree, but I don't believe she is obligated to pay whatever the waiter expects.
You continued: "It seems but a small step from there to stealing from others to put the money to her own use, even if it is what she thinks is a good cause."
From a legal perspective, this certainly would be a rather large step. From your perspective, I guess it is a small step. From her perspective, it is a large step.
Earlier, I wrote: "There also are some poker players who seem to have very low incomes. I don't find their non-tipping to be immoral."
You replied: "Me neither."
I'm curious why you make a distinction between the former waitress and the low-income poker players.
Don't get me wrong. I think you've made a reasonably cogent defense for tipping. I just don't agree with your point of v