![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I was in a 6-12 game the other night at the Mirage. An extremely tight player raised under the gun(in that position he would only raise QQ,KK,AA,AKs). I was the next one in middle position and I made it 3 bets with K-K. Everyone mucked to the small blind, she is good friend of mine and knows my play very well(selective ab out starting hands), she made it 4 bets. Back to the tight player and he capped it. I called the 2 bets (reluctantly) back to me and she called the cap. In retrospect, I think I should have mucked the hand when it was capped. By the way, the tight player had K-K and my friend had A-A. Any thoughts?
If you know the players that well and consider one to have AA maybe your lay down is a good one.
Now let me ask this lets say you know both have AA and you have a pair (any pair) what do you do now.
I was in this situation not long ago with 88 and I "KNEW" both raising players had AA by the 2nd raise. I called the cap - here is why. I know I could improve and they can't and if I flop a set I have them until the river capping all the way.
Maybe my logic is screwed up but that is the way I think.
Rounder,
I know you don't care for pot odds and things like that, but in this situation, you're matching 2 players dollar for dollar with only a 2 outer (except for wild situations, like the board coming 679T or something). The odds the deck is giving you are 1:25 before the flop. The ratio of money in the pot to the profit that's yours if you win the hand is 1:2. I'd fold. Did you improve?
Shooter it is a tournament and I had a nice stack to "gamble" with. I was thinking of potential my set of 8's or the unlikely straight would mean a huge return as these 2 mopes wouldn't muck the AA under any circumstances. I know it was a gamble but I knew what I was doing and why.
Is this some kind of 1 card flop game? Where we play you get 3 cards on the flop and the odds are 7.5 to 1 against the set. I am sure rounder had odds to call.
( if a player has odds to call but doesnt believe in odds to the odds exist? oops philosophy forum )
D.
Rounder was getting somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 on his money (depending on dead money) for a 7.5 to one shot. I'm not saying his call was incorrect, given the circumstances, but he certainly did NOT have the odds to call.
Dan
If the set hit the gamble was well worth it.
I don't make this play often but it was a situation I thought was worth the try.
you know both of they're cards. they will both give good action if you hit. you would never call more than 2 cold at once preflop so your preflop odds are closer to 4-1. counting imnplied action you are getting way better than 8-1. way way way better. rounder's play was right by a large margin.
in the original case, you have to have both the capper and the reraiser on either AA or KK or AK. you know where 2 K's are. the chances you are against AA and AA are 2 out of 15. there is a KK out there another 2 out 15. so you are drawing dead about 13%. you have by far the best of is 13% and you have markedly the worst of it (against AA and AK) the remaining 74%. i agree with the fold.
but if you allowed everyone to play like this with QQ then its a call. not because you might be ahead. because it's far less likely your K's are dead. however, QQ won't give good action on K high flop, so.. it gets tricky.
i was rooting for a call. oh well, good fold. i might have made a mistake.
scott
I assume Rounder was in the middle in this case. He called 1 bet then was hit with a double raise giving him 3.5-1 to call. I also expect it is at this point he "knows" they have Aces. After the next re-raise he'll have 7.5-1 knowing the last player will call.
In a ring game Rounder could exit for 1 bet lost at his first decision point. This is a fold for myself.
In a tournament, there are added benefits for playing when you have a big lead over the players. You'll hurt them severly if you win. They'll chop up your 5 bets if you lose. If it's NL after the flop then it's for sure a must call.
no way. you can't limp with KK and then assume the raiser has AA. here's what happened. rounder raised early. very tight good player one reraised. tight good player two capped. they would have to be very tight to have them both on AA, but let's say they are.
the pot is laying 11.5-2. you will get action when you catch a K. they will never catch an A. you will never call with the K high flush. when you hit your set, you will be the only one who has any idea what is happening. you can fast play or slowplay in order to build the pot with vitual immunity. this is a great situation. i would play without hesitation even with a rake as high as 2 big bets.
scott
You're right that Rounder did not limp with KK (unless he was expecting a raise that he could re-raise.
Once he's in for 2 bets then if it's a 4 bet cap he should see the flop.
I'll agree he can call if it costs just 2 bets. I'll agree to disagree that a fold is a bad idea if he knows he's up against Aces.
I was assuming Rounder was trapped and only had to call the last 2 raises cold.
D.
If Rounder "knows" that they both have aces, then that is four more cards that are accounted for. If my math is right, the odds of flopping a set out of a 46-card deck is 6.8 to 1. That does not seem too bad, but he has to be sure that he can get some good action from the aces. My biggest concern would be if you flop a set with a board like 8-9-T, would these players still be capping it all the way? I guess it all depends on how well you know these two players.
I agree with Rounder, always fold if you're confident you know your opponents. The only exception was that if you somehow new they both had to have AA, in which case you have a mandatory call in hopes of flopping the nut set (6.8-1 against).
The interesting question is what if you knew that both had to have big pairs in this situation, and those pairs included QQ? The overwhelming majorty of the time it will be AA v. QQ. You should be able to call hoping to flop a set for the same reason as above, even though on a handful of occasions you'll be folding the best hand on the flop.
I am an experienced stud player but relatively new to Texas Hold'Em. I would appreciate an explanation of both the "Dead Button" and "Froward Moving Button" rules. Specifically, what are they, when do they apply and is there any special strategy I should be aware of when the occur.
Thanks,
Irish Mike
Mike,
i can understand your confusion here. but what you heard is of course wrong. they are talking about dead mutton. that would be when your pet sheep moves very little during playtime. a forward moving mutton would be one that is extremely hard to have fun with. in either case it would be best to eat your pet. i hope this clears things up for you and good luck playing holdem.
Irish Mike,
With a forward moving button (used in Los Angeles for example) the button always moves forward if a player moves out of the seat. If there are blinds forward of the button, sometimes a blind is added to the button so that the player taking the button always plays all blinds.
With a dead button, the button freezes at the empty seat and a player will get to act last twice in a row. This is used in Las Vegas and most tournaments
There are some twists but that is about it. A guy named Steve Fox did an analysis of which method is better about five years ago in Card Player and it was excellent. Does anybody know the issue?
Regards,
Rick
In the following examples, assume seat 2 busts out on the first deal.
D = dealer button, S = small blind, B = big blind, X = missing player
No button rule in effect:
| Seat: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Deal 1: | D | S | B | - | - | - | - |
| Deal 2: | - | X | D | S | B | - | - |
| Deal 3: | - | X | - | D | S | B | - |
| Deal 4: | - | X | - | - | D | S | B |
Note that seats 3 and 4 wind up paying one less blind than everyone else.
Forward-moving button:
| Seat: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Deal 1: | D | S | B | - | - | - | - |
| Deal 2: | - | X | DS | B | B | - | - |
| Deal 3: | - | X | - | DS | S | B | - |
| Deal 4: | - | X | - | - | D | S | B |
Dead button:
| Seat: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Deal 1: | D | S | B | - | - | - | - |
| Deal 2: | - | DX | S | B | - | - | - |
| Deal 3: | - | X | D | S | B | - | - |
| Deal 4: | - | X | - | D | S | B | - |
There are problems with both rules. With the forward-moving button, you wind up with extra chips in the pot, which makes fighting for the blinds even more profitable - in pot limit it's a REAL problem. With a dead button, on the other hand, seat 1 gets to be last to act twice in a row, which can also be an advantage to the player lucky enough to be in final position twice. So neither is a perfect solution.
Given my druthers, I prefer the dead button rule. It's just simpler all around and it doesn't juice the pot with extra bets.
For those who don't know, and you have to be pretty new to poker not to know this, Ray Zee is not only one of the most successful players of all times, but he is recognized by his peers as being one of the most knowledgeable on both strategy and other aspects of the game. His opinion should be taken very seriously by those of you who have questions and/or were concerned about this subject.
These comments of Ray's were posted on one of our other forums just under two weeks ago. However, since the subject of cheating has come up again here, I'm repeating them here.
"There is very little orchestrated collusion going on in the main public casino poker rooms. i cannot speak for little rooms but what i have seen there is none to speak of. the collusion of soft playing with friends is not really collusion and doesnt cost a player money. it happens some but it almost always is between bad players and does not involve a loss to an experienced person or probably any other. what would count anyway was whether the combined group of so called colluders won or lost money to the game. but so little goes on one can play without fear. its been said it goes on more in the big games but that is just not true. it may appear to be happenning because most big games all the players know each other and their habits and make very extraordinary plays at times to capitalize on them and an onlooker or new player may get false impressions easily. put me in a game where many players soft play and i and most any decent player will kill the game by using any play they make that is not optimum to my advantage. all the games ive played where players soft play, split pots , run out the cards without betting when just friends are left, are the best and easiest games to win at. almost no pros will be cheating or attempting to cheat as your reputation follows you all your life in poker. those that have are well known when allowed to play, and are almost always broke."
Thanks to Mason for rerunning this piece by Ray Zee. Isn't it wonderful (meant seriously) that a very successful and prominent fellow like Zee would help to ease a lot of concerns of us less experienced wanna be's. Hats off to Zee. Now, if he could only type.
Vince.
I'm sorry, but I've seen too many instances (as in hundreds) where three people are in a pot (one being the "target"); two of them bet, bet, bet, raise, reraise, etc. until at the end of the hand one of the two suddenly lays down as if shot. You wonder what cards he had to put seven bets in the pot and then fold for the last bet (of course, he doesn't want to be forced to show his 9-4 offsuit). The other "shark" has the nuts, of course. True, as a percentage of total action it's a relatively low frequency occurence. However, the higher you go in limits, the more likely it is. The "regulars" in the medium-high limit games are very territorial and resent losing even ONE hand to the "suckers". Therefore a lowering of moral standards occurs. Even where no formal collusion agreement may exist, there is a distinct "ganging up" on the perceived weak player, and AN AVOIDANCE OF CONFRONTATION between the regulars. For despite the mythology of the noble poker warrior, the fact is that many habitual players would gladly cut their grandmother's throat for one extra big bet. Or maybe a small bet. The fact is that collusion, skillfully applied, is a greater bet/hour moneymaker than any other strategem, including playing well; and done well, it is well-nigh undetectable (and unenforceable). Therefore I conclude that for every instance I've detected, I've missed three others. I therefore must respectfully disagree with Ray Zee- collusion is endemic in public poker. This is not to say that the skillful player, once detecting a collusion team, cannot employ reasonably effective countermeasures. But if he buries his head in the sand, he will be helpless.
"I'm sorry, but I've seen too many instances (as in hundreds) where three people are in a pot (one being the "target"); "
This is one of the silliest misleading and down right false statements I have ever read concerning poker collusion. It is a claim with out foundation or substance. Or maybe there is proof of this wide spread collusion you speak of. You are obviously a seasoned pro that can easily spot collusion. Since you have routinely done this hundreds of times why not offer us some proof. There must be Casinos you frequent that have this rampant collusion being perpertrated as we speak. Give us your insight.
vince..
Vince, to say it is silly is one thing, but to call it outright false is just ridiculous.
I take Ray Zee at his word and observation that the games he plays are kosher. I know for a fact that a set of twins at the Taj in AC play with an eccentric black guy to chop up the 30-60 hold'em game. How do I know?
I heard him say, as I was seated at my 10-20 game at the Trop...."You goin' to the Taj later to chop up the game?" A few minutes later, a friend of mine that plays 30-60 stud came over and kind of laughed and pointed jokingly at the two and said "raise, raise, raise, fold"
The guy said to himself, although loud enough for me to hear....we don't need to cheat at this limit.
As for asking Kevin L. for proof of cheating, while you're at it, why don't you provide some proof he didn't....Awfully hard to prove a negative isn't it...
Of course, Vince ol' buddy, I was sitting there with a camcorder on my shoulder, recording all this. You're just gonna have to take my word for it--these incidents I've observed span 25 years. While we're at it, why don't YOU provide some proof for YOUR contention---that cheating DOESN'T exist (or is so rare as to be insignificant)? I'm simply reporting my observations. If you have as much experience as I (which I doubt) and have NEVER observed collusion or cheating, then you're simply not very observant. As far as present opportunities go, why don't you sit down in a 10-20 or higher game at the Commerce, or Bellagio, and keep your ears and eyes open for an hour or so. You'll see---if you keep an open mind. P.S. Save the insulting language for your wife or girlfriend, whichever.
Considering his track record of posting inaccurate information, credibility is rather strained on this side of the monitor.
I've seen what he described, but "hundreds of times"??? Not even close to being possible...
well the gangingup on a player may seem like collusion but what is really gangingup. if they dont know what each other has it can only do them harm. if they are really playing with signals and jamming people then throwing away hands that are nothing, then its easy to catch. just do it when you are sure. reach over and grap one of those hands where he puts alot of bets in then folds and take a look at it. then say im sorry when you find he had a big draw that missed. if you find you were right punch him in the nose.
Interesting thought, finding out for sure what they held, but what could one expect to happen to them for picking up a mucked hand for a look? 86'd from the game?
In about 13 years of playing in public cardrooms I can think of only two instances where I believe true collusion definitely took place.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, the the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
"Thought on Various Subjects"
Something tells me that this is the way you perceive this forum, Kevin.
Not really--it's just that the dunces tend to scream the loudest. Besides, ninety percent of ALL humans--whether posters on this forum, grabbed at random off the streets of Peoria, Iowa, or the occupants of Section 103, Box 4 at Fenway Park--ARE dunces--or at least they misuse and abuse their brains so thoroughly that they might as well be.
This is not to say that disagreeing with me makes someone a dunce, or me a genius. I refer rather to the tone, substance, and sheer irrationality of some of the posts on this thread and others. Witness as a shining example, "StudPokerDealer"'s wonderfully helpful and insightful post on this thread.
Kev-I just read the rest of the thread and I can definitely hear ya barkin'. Just one funny observation: A thread will be completely civil and informative until you post a message. After that, the thread will cease to be about poker and will turn into childish name calling. Keep it up my man, this stuff is funnier than the Simpsons.
-James U
a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
scott
That's a very cromulent observation.
Ray and Mason,
"There is very little orchestrated collusion going on in the main public casino poker rooms."
Two friends sit beside each other at the poker table. When the betting action gets to the right-hand friend, the left-hand "partner" holds out his cards waiting to muck them. His signal is noticed by everyone at the table, but only his buddy benefits from this knowledge. The dealer says nothing. Nor do any of the other players, because so many of them do the same thing (except they don't direct this particular "tell" to any specific individual). I see this happen at many public cardrooms, including the Mirage. I guess it must not be collusion.
Two pals sit beside each other at the poker table. After one mucks his hand (As4h), the other flashes her cards to her buddy (KsJs). The flop comes Ts9s3s. The partner whispers, "Looks like the nuts to me." This type of coaching happens at many public cardrooms, including the Las Vegas Horseshoe. I guess it must not be collusion.
Two associates sit beside each other at the poker table. Again, one player "sweats" the other. In the middle of a hand, one speaks to the other in a foreign language. I don't have any idea what they are saying, but it can't be collusion because this happens at many public cardrooms, including the Commerce Casino.
"the collusion of soft playing with friends is not really collusion and doesnt cost a player money."
Of course it costs players money. Do you really not understand why?
"it happens some but it almost always is between bad players . . ."
Even if collusion occurs between bad players, it still is collusion.
"what would count anyway was whether the combined group of so called colluders won or lost money to the game."
Just because you might win money against colluders doesn't mean they are not colluding. It just means they are poor players. If you are winning less money than you otherwise would, the collusion is costing you money.
"put me in a game where many players soft play and i and most any decent player will kill the game by using any play they make that is not optimum to my advantage."
Earlier, you said soft playing "almost always is between bad players," so I'm not surprised you and most any decent player will beat them easily. Bad colluders lose money, but they are still colluders.
"almost no pros will be cheating or attempting to cheat . . ."
Even if we assume this is true, professionals make up a small portion of poker players. And plenty of non-professionals cheat.
This is from someone who has no credibility whatsoever and you have earned this status through your various posts that have basically said a whole lot of nothing. In sum this post is more of your jibberish and proves absolutely nothing. I dare say that Ray Zee's credibility is super high and when comparing his to yours there really is no comparison. You impress me as some ivory tower boob who probably breaks about even playing poker at best, gets your jollies from putting people down because of your total arrogance, has no intention of ever making your living at the poker tables, has overrated their experience at the tables, and will continue to whine and offer nothing of value. Keep up the "good" work Mark.
You are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet to say things to Mark that, if said in person, would earn you a richly-deserved punch in the snout. You fling unsubstantiated insults and value judgments at him simply because you DISAGREE. Well, does your opinion carry that much weight, that anyone who voices a contrary opinion deserves to be viciously attacked? Are you like this in real life, and if so, do you have any remaining friends?
"You are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet to say things"
This is written by Kevin L. Does anyone know who he is?
Mason,
You wrote:
>> "You are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet to say things"
This is written by Kevin L. Does anyone know who he is? <<
No, I don't know who Kevin L. is. Why do you care? Some of us are interested more in the reasonableness of a person's arguments rather than who they are.
What Kevin actually wrote was: "You are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet to say things to Mark that, if said in person, would earn you a richly-deserved punch in the snout."
Notice that Kevin wasn't criticizing the poster simply for his anonymity but rather for violating this forum's Acceptable Use Policy: "In this vein, we ask all contributors to make their posts . . . [p]ossess a minimum of courtesy."
"What has happened here is something that I have seen many times on both our forums and RGP. Someone with an ax to grind misquotes or misrepresents the way a writer played a hand and then takes him apart." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
Do you have an ax to grind with Kevin simply because he disagrees with your views on cheating?
Mark Glover wrote:
"Some of us are interested more in the reasonableness of a person's arguments rather than who they are."
I kid you not, he actually wrote that. Yes, I'll say it again, he actually wrote that. If you don't believe me, look at the post directly above this one.
By the way, I hope we never lose Mark Glover as one of our posters. He certainly helps make these forums a little more interesting.
Mason,
You wrote: "If you don't believe me, look at the post directly above this one."
Thanks for quoting me correctly. After you misrepresented Kevin's statement, however, I wouldn't be surprised if a few readers did check up on your veracity.
If you apologize to Kevin, it probably would be in your own best interest (by helping restore your credibility) and in the best interests of this forum (by setting a good example of civility).
And if you offer an instance of when I misquoted or misrepresented a writer (as you have accused me of doing), I will apologize to that writer.
If you want to discuss whether readers should be more interested in the reasonableness of a person's arguments or in the name of that person, I'll be glad to defend my position.
You wrote: "By the way, I hope we never lose Mark Glover as one of our posters."
I can remember when you were encouraging me to leave this forum.
Mason, ol' buddy ol' pal', old sock, I'm one of the few posters on this board who use even a PORTION of my actual name. My first name IS Kevin, and, as one of the ruder posters pointed out some time ago, my last name is Lewis. Kevin L as in Kevin Lewis. That's who I am. Now you know. Feel better? I'm not ashamed of what I write or say. Therefore I never felt the need, as some posters do, to hide behind a psuedonym to protect myself from retaliation. THAT was the point I was making to the rude poster above, NOT implying that anonymity was inherently dishonorable. Exactly what point, by the way, were YOU making--or implying? (Oh, and incidentally, does anyone know who Mason Malmuth is???)
>does anyone know who Mason Malmuth is???
I've seen his picture. He looks a lot like Dirty Wally. He once wrote me an e-mail telling me he deleted a post from this forum. He appears to pass the Turing test.
When people discuss the problem of "cheating" they usually mean systematic cheating because they're concerned that cheaters can take away some material portion of their winnings. The three examples you provide, on the other hand, consist of (1) sloppy play -- a player showing his hand to another yet to act, letting him know what he's mucking; (2) an unethical disclosure of information that occurs so rarely it's virtually impossible to replicate systematically; and (3) nothing at all, just a player and a kibbitzer speaking a foreign language to each other.
Inexperienced players often reveal their hands to others, including friends, that have yet to act. I've often seen dealers and other players scold them for it, although dealers tend not to care if the table doesn't. It's almost harmless for precisely the same reason you notice it: they're not trying to cheat. Perhaps hand-flashers should be reprimanded more often. Big deal.
Although the comment you describe -- letting a friend know that the ace of suit is in the muck -- is grossly unethical and amounts to "cheating," it happens so infrequently that nobody needs to be afraid of it. Although it's certainly the sort of information that skilled colluders would like to pass to one another, they wouldn't be announcing their collusion in public. The fact that you heard such a comment suggests not collusion but a player letting his ethical guard slip, or trying to help a friend but forgetting or not realizing that what he's doing is wrong. The fact that you heard it (BTW, did you hear it? I've never heard anyone say such a thing) in no way suggests that such a blatant offense occurs with any frequency.
The third example scarecely merits comment -- people speaking a foreign language. I presume you don't mean to imply that foreign birth means a propensity toward low conduct, but then I'm not sure why you included the prevalance of foreign national poker players in a discussion about cheating. Perhaps rooms should enforce the english only rule more strictly. This can be a little tricky, however, given that some English-only speaking players sometimes object to any foreign language at the table either because they're trying to rattle the speakers or because they're jerks.
Although you didn't label the examples you gave as "cheating," you implied that they were. In doing so, I think you've inadvertently shown why there's much debate on this topic. I think that there isn't much systematic collusion or other forms of cheating in casino poker. There's a fair amount of sloppy play and soft-playing. I suspect experienced players see this, and a handful are so bothered by it and inclined to believe the worst that they mount accusations and complaints about "cheating" without describing the sort of cases they're referring to as carefully as you have. In a sense, they're retalliating against the tolerance of sloppy play by making sloppy accusations. (For the record, I'm not referring to Abdul Jalib's comments on cheating, at least those that I've read, as he has apparently speaks from real, and I submit rare, personal experience).
Chris,
You wrote: "When people discuss the problem of 'cheating' they usually mean systematic cheating because they're concerned that cheaters can take away some material portion of their winnings."
When principled people discuss cheating, it often is relatively unimportant whether the cheaters relieve players of a "material portion of their winnings," take a small portion of those winnings, or are net contributors.
You wrote: "The three examples you provide, on the other hand, consist of (1) sloppy play -- a player showing his hand to another yet to act, letting him know what he's mucking . . ."
Please reread my post. The first example wasn't about a player who showed his hand. Nor was it even about a player who merely made it obvious that he was going to fold before it was his turn to act (although I don't believe this type of behavior is acceptable in public cardrooms). It was about a player who deliberately revealed information to one specific person--his accomplice. When their seating positions are reversed, this player doesn't have this careless "tell." But now his partner suddenly exhibits it.
You wrote: "Although the comment you describe -- letting a friend know that the ace of suit is in the muck -- is grossly unethical and amounts to 'cheating,' it happens so infrequently that nobody needs to be afraid of it."
Despite your assurances, I will trust my own observations as to the frequency of this kind of collusion. I imagine it depends on where you play and how attentive you are. Personally, I've seen "coaching" (in violation of the "one player per hand" rule) occur in many different cardrooms.
You wrote: "Although it's certainly the sort of information that skilled colluders would like to pass to one another, they wouldn't be announcing their collusion in public."
They weren't broadcasting their conversation over the public address system; they were whispering to each other. They knew their actions were wrong. I was sitting beside them and was able to overhear parts of their conversation, as I have been able to overhear portions of many similar coaching sessions. I didn't say they were skilled colluders. Elsewhere, in fact, I've said it would be very difficult to decipher the signals of skilled colluders.
You wrote: "The fact that you heard such a comment suggests not collusion but a player letting his ethical guard slip, or trying to help a friend but forgetting or not realizing that what he's doing is wrong."
It "is grossly unethical and amounts to 'cheating,'" but it is not collusion. Huh? The fact that he was whispering (please reread my post) suggests to me that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
You wrote: "The fact that you heard it (BTW, did you hear it? I've never heard anyone say such a thing) in no way suggests that such a blatant offense occurs with any frequency."
Now it's "a blatant offense" again? The fact that I hear this kind of coaching on a regular basis in many different cardrooms suggests to me that it occurs with some frequency. But, since I know cheating is something to worry about, perhaps I am more alert for it.
You wrote: "I presume you don't mean to imply that foreign birth means a propensity toward low conduct, but then I'm not sure why you included the prevalance of foreign national poker players in a discussion about cheating."
You presumed correctly. In fact, if you reread my post, you will discover I never said anything about people of foreign birth--only about people speaking a foreign language at a poker table during the play of a hand after cards were flashed. The vast majority of public cardrooms I've played in have an English-only rule. If you want to know one reason for this rule, please reread my second example. As for "propensity toward low conduct," it seems to cut across nationalities, genders, and ages.
You wrote: "Perhaps rooms should enforce the english only rule more strictly. This can be a little tricky, however, given that some English-only speaking players sometimes object to any foreign language at the table either because they're trying to rattle the speakers or because they're jerks."
If dealers enforced the English-only rule more strictly, then players would have less opportunity to use it to rattle opponents or to be "jerks."
Please reread my post.
Okay.
The first example wasn't about a player who showed his hand. Nor was it even about a player who merely made it obvious that he was going to fold before it was his turn to act (although I don't believe this type of behavior is acceptable in public cardrooms). It was about a player who deliberately revealed information to one specific person--his accomplice. When their seating positions are reversed, this player doesn't have this careless "tell." But now his partner suddenly exhibits it.
Hardly likely. Partners that want to cheat aren't going to limit themselves to showing each other 2 extra cards, but that's what they're doing by sitting next to each other instead of taking advantage of the opportunities for trapping players when one of them is huge. In other words, you're saything the teams like this cheat, but in an obvious way that draws the line somewhere short of collusive betting. I doubt it.
I think it's more likely that a player will sit next to a friend and show him the hand he's mucking simply for the sake of showing, but when he's not next to his friend won't show his hand, and that someone will therefore suspect and allege collusion. It's either sloppy play and not systematic collusion, or an attempt at weak collusion that's so obvious and preventable that it isn't a threat. To protect oneself, you only need to make sure that cards aren't being shown to someone yet to act.
You wrote: "Although the comment you describe -- letting a friend know that the ace of suit is in the muck -- is grossly unethical and amounts to 'cheating,' it happens so infrequently that nobody needs to be afraid of it."
Despite your assurances, I will trust my own observations as to the frequency of this kind of collusion. I imagine it depends on where you play and how attentive you are. Personally, I've seen "coaching" (in violation of the "one player per hand" rule) occur in many different cardrooms.
Now you're shifting to violating the 1PPH rule. Everyone has seen lots of violations of that, but it doens't mean there's a fair amount of "cheating" in the systematic way that you implied. Nearly every time I've seen the rule violated, about half the table and the dealer chime in.
You wrote: "Although it's certainly the sort of information that skilled colluders would like to pass to one another, they wouldn't be announcing their collusion in public."
They weren't broadcasting their conversation over the public address system; they were whispering to each other. They knew their actions were wrong. I was sitting beside them and was able to overhear parts of their conversation, as I have been able to overhear portions of many similar coaching sessions. [snip]
The painfully obvious remedy to this kind of whispering is to announce what you heard just as soon as one of the whisperers is about to profit from it, so that the floor has to decide whether to award a pot to an obvious cheater with the whole table watching. I can't believe that you think this is any kind of problem.
You wrote: "The fact that you heard such a comment suggests not collusion but a player letting his ethical guard slip, or trying to help a friend but forgetting or not realizing that what he's doing is wrong."
It "is grossly unethical and amounts to 'cheating,'" but it is not collusion. Huh? The fact that he was whispering (please reread my post) suggests to me that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Not all cheating is collusion. A misguided friend once kicked me under the table while I was in the process of raising, to let me know that I shouldn't. He was cheating, or more accurately violating the 1PPH rule (he didn't have more information or even as much information as I did, such as what I held), but that hardly means that I was colluding. (I declined the advice.)
When people speak of collusion they mean players sureptitiously trapping others for bets, not whipsering information to each other. I can't imagine players getting away with this at a 10-handed table with every one watching. Like I said, the fact that it occasionally happens doesn't mean that it's a threat to anyone, or a problem that isn't already remedied.
You wrote: "The fact that you heard it (BTW, did you hear it? I've never heard anyone say such a thing) in no way suggests that such a blatant offense occurs with any frequency."
Now it's "a blatant offense" again? The fact that I hear this kind of coaching on a regular basis in many different cardrooms suggests to me that it occurs with some frequency. But, since I know cheating is something to worry about, perhaps I am more alert for it.
Oh come on. You've heard cheaters vocally coaching each other on a "regular basis" in "many" cardrooms?" Bullshit. You've heard lovers and other friends kibbitzing during hands before the dealer tells them to cut it out and you're exaggerating.
You wrote: "I presume you don't mean to imply that foreign birth means a propensity toward low conduct, but then I'm not sure why you included the prevalance of foreign national poker players in a discussion about cheating."
You presumed correctly. In fact, if you reread my post, you will discover I never said anything about people of foreign birth--only about people speaking a foreign language at a poker table during the play of a hand after cards were flashed.
French majors practicing up, I suppose.
The vast majority of public cardrooms I've played in have an English-only rule. If you want to know one reason for this rule, please reread my second example.
I know the reason for the rule perfectly well, I just don't get how any violation of -- the example you described was perfectly generic -- should give rise to a fear of cheating.
As for "propensity toward low conduct," it seems to cut across nationalities, genders, and ages.
You wrote: "Perhaps rooms should enforce the english only rule more strictly. This can be a little tricky, however, given that some English-only speaking players sometimes object to any foreign language at the table either because they're trying to rattle the speakers or because they're jerks."
If dealers enforced the English-only rule more strictly, then players would have less opportunity to use it to rattle opponents or to be "jerks."
Okay, maybe.
Chris,
You wrote: "Partners that want to cheat aren't going to limit themselves to showing each other 2 extra cards . . . To protect oneself, you only need to make sure that cards aren't being shown to someone yet to act."
Let me repeat that in my first example, neither player showed their cards. Please reread both my posts. They are fairly easy for most people to find. But, just in case, I'll quote the relevent portions for you.
From my 2 April post: "When the betting action gets to the right-hand friend, the left-hand 'partner' holds out his cards waiting to muck them."
From my 4 April post: "The first example wasn't about a player who showed his hand."
The following description might make it easier for you to understand (but it isn't precisely how it happened in any of the instances I witnessed). The betting action comes to Partner A in Seat #5. Partner A delays. In Seat #6, Partner B leaves his cards face down on the felt and pushes them towards the center of the table but keeps a finger on them (so as to not be criticized for folding out of turn). Technically, Partner B hasn't folded. He could pick up his cards again. But everyone at the table knows he intends to fold. Who benefits from this information? Not the players who acted before Player A, because Player B didn't do anything until it was Player A's turn to act. Not the players who are waiting to act after Player B, because they would know his betting action anyway by the time it was their turns to act. The only player who benefited from Player B's obvious signal that he is going to fold is Player A (who just happens to be a friend of Player B). Maybe Player B just has this bad "tell." Strangely enough, however, when it is Player B who is in Seat #5 and Player A who is in Seat #6, I notice that Player B no longer exhibits this tell. Instead, it is Player A who now behaves in this fashion (to the sole benefit of his partner--Player B).
You (twice) failed to understand that no cards were shown. Fine. But given this misunderstanding, why do you think these various partnerships "limit themselves to showing each other 2 extra cards"? I certainly didn't suggest any such thing. In fact, I know that some of these teams engaged in additional types of cheating and collusion. In other cases, I had reasonable grounds to strongly suspect them of additional types of cheating and collusion.
By the way, this type of collusion is very difficult to stop by complaining to the dealer without many players at the table thinking you are a "jerk." This is because many players are careless about indicating they are about to fold before it is their turn to act.
You wrote: "In other words, you're saything the teams like this cheat, but in an obvious way that draws the line somewhere short of collusive betting. I doubt it."
I doubt it, too. And I never said any such thing. See above.
You wrote: ". . . that's what they're doing by sitting next to each other instead of taking advantage of the opportunities for trapping players when one of them is huge."
First, colluders don't always have a choice as to which seats they fill, so they sometimes end up seated next to each other even if this is not what they wish.
Second, the type of behavior I described in the first example can happen even when the partners are sitting across the table from one another. Suppose that, on the river, the players remaining in the hand are the victim (in Seat #1), Partner A (in Seat #3), and Partner B (in Seat #8). The victim bets out, and Partner B signals his intention to fold. See how that works, too?
Third, there are many advantages to sitting next to one another, including huge opportunities to trap opponents. I'm not going to go into details on a public forum, but think about it.
You wrote: "Now you're shifting to violating the 1PPH rule."
I shifted to the "one player per hand" rule because the second example was an instance when two colluders violated the 1PPH rule. Understand now?
You continued: "Everyone has seen lots of violations of that, but it doens't mean there's a fair amount of 'cheating' in the systematic way that you implied."
No, that is not what I implied. That is what you inferred. Colluders who violate the 1PPH rule and know what they are doing certainly are capable of relieving you of most or all of your winnings. But that doesn't happen all that frequently. What a reasonable reader should infer from my statements is that coaching is a serious and frequent enough problem that poker players should be alert for it.
You wrote: "The painfully obvious remedy to this kind of whispering is to announce what you heard just as soon as one of the whisperers is about to profit from it, so that the floor has to decide whether to award a pot to an obvious cheater with the whole table watching."
Naive me. I initially thought the obvious remedy was to quietly tell the cardroom manager about the colluders. The manager then could let the dealers know they should pay particular attention to these players. When a dealer catches them, they could tell the manager, and the manager could take appropriate action (possibly barring the cheaters).
Some managers act in this way. Others are more concerned about the short-term number of customers who fill their tables and essentially will ignore these kinds of complaints.
If you loudly inform the dealer and have the floorperson called over, you are unlikely to find the colluder denied the pot unless someone else overheard them and is willing to speak up (perhaps at the risk of looking like a "jerk"). More likely, the floorperson will explain the 1PPH rule to the entire table, and the colluders will be more careful about their coaching in the future (perhaps even developing a system of signalling).
But use whatever remedy you feel will best stop this kind of cheating.
The fact that there are ways to punish colluders doesn't mean collusion doesn't happen. But you already knew this, since you noted that everyone has seen lots of violations of the 1PPH rule.
You wrote: "Not all cheating is collusion."
That's sort of like saying, "Not all mammals are dogs."
You wrote: "When people speak of collusion they mean players sureptitiously trapping others for bets, not whipsering information to each other."
That might be what you mean by collusion. Other people have broader definitions than yours. My AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY defines it as, "A secret agreement between two or more persons for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose." I agree that trapping others for bets is collusion. I also feel collusion occurs when one person signals (or whispers) to another what his cards are (or what another player's cards are). And when one player indicates to a partner what his betting action is going to be. And when teammates exchange cards. And when partners pass chips, especially in a tournament.
You wrote: "Like I said, the fact that it occasionally happens doesn't mean that it's a threat to anyone, or a problem that isn't already remedied."
It depends on what you mean by "occasionally." You haven't detected very much collusion. I appear to have noticed more than you. Perhaps in your cardroom, it isn't a threat to anyone. In my regular cardrooms and in many cardrooms I have visited, it is a threat.
You wrote: "Oh come on. You've heard cheaters vocally coaching each other on a 'regular basis' in 'many' cardrooms?' Bullshit."
I know what I hear, how often I hear it, and where I hear it. You don't know what I hear, how often I hear it, or where I hear it.
You wrote: "French majors practicing up, I suppose."
Being wrong doesn't seem to bother you.
You wrote: "I know the reason for the [English-only] rule perfectly well, I just don't get how any violation of -- the example you described was perfectly generic -- should give rise to a fear of cheating."
Somehow I'm not surprised that you just don't get it.
Ok, ok. I misread your first post because when you wrote about players holding out cards and giving their partners information, I presumed you meant showing cards. You meant an out of turn indication of folding. You suspect that this is collusion because the only person that can benefit is the partner contemplating how to act.
What information? Signalling an intention to fold is hardly going to cut into anyone's profits. Since it doesn't amount to a means for colluders to make money, it can't be much of a threat. I know you think that it's the tip of the iceberg, but it's so apparent that I suspect that what you're really describing is just a variant of soft-playing. It's not right, but it doesn't amount to cheating. You readiness to describe this behavior as collusive cheating stikes me as eccentric, just like you apparently think that every violation of the 1PPH rule is "cheating."
As for players whispering their hands to confederates, we're just going to have to disagree on how often this occurs and how hard it is to stop. I note that your dictionary definition of cheating, however, refers to "secret" conduct. Whispering in front of 8 opponents isn't much of a secret.
Enforcement difficulties: if you complain to the floorman about friends whispering or folding out of turn (or signalling an intention of doing so), and use terms such as "cheat," "collude," and "partner" as freely as you have here, I can appreciate why you've been ignored.
I don't mean to be snide. I think there should be a generally tightening of the conventions of play, and that players should be encouraged to play in less sloppy fashion, particularly in the middle limits. But this is a more delicate affair than I think you can imagine. While sticklers for the rules can help the games, they should develop some appreciation for the grey areas of poker ethics and eschew the kind of blanket allegations, the kind that you seem to favor, about opponents tending toward thievery.
Foreign-language speaking: You contend that I don't "get it," but you're the one that doesn't grasp that speaking a foreign language is not evidence of cheating. Suggesting otherwise, as you unmistakably have, is offensive and beneath you.
Chris,
You wrote: "I misread your first post because when you wrote about players holding out cards and giving their partners information, I presumed you meant showing cards."
In my 4 April post, I specifically wrote, "The first example wasn't about a player who showed his hand."
How did you manage to misread that second post? You aren't the brightest light in town, are you?
You wrote: "You suspect that this is collusion because the only person that can benefit is the partner contemplating how to act."
I'd ask you to reread my previous posts, but your reading comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking this week. More reasonable readers might remember there were other strong indications of collusion. Such as what happened when the relative positions of the partners were switched.
You wrote: "What information? Signalling an intention to fold is hardly going to cut into anyone's profits."
Do you play very much poker?
You wrote: "Since it doesn't amount to a means for colluders to make money, it can't be much of a threat."
Earlier it was "hardly" any money, but now it is no money. If you are going to underestimate the effects of collusion, at least try to be consistent.
You wrote: "It's not right, but it doesn't amount to cheating."
At one cardroom where I saw this type of collusion, I quietly informed the manager. He confirmed my observations and warned the partnership to knock it off. A couple weeks later, they were back at it (but with more subtle signalling). Pretty stupid move on their part for what you claim is little or no money. This time, they were barred from the cardroom. Pretty drastic punishment for something that "doesn't amount to cheating."
You wrote: "You readiness to describe this behavior as collusive cheating stikes me as eccentric, just like you apparently think that every violation of the 1PPH rule is "cheating."
There you go making incorrect inferences again. I don't believe every violation of the "one player per hand" rule is cheating.
You wrote: "Whispering in front of 8 opponents isn't much of a secret."
There you go showing your reading comprehension problem again. They didn't whisper loudly enough for eight opponents to hear them. Perhaps two of their opponents could overhear their whispering.
You wrote: "While sticklers for the rules can help the games, they should develop some appreciation for the grey areas of poker ethics and eschew the kind of blanket allegations, the kind that you seem to favor, about opponents tending toward thievery."
Can you give an example of a "blanket allegation" that you think I seem to favor? . . . I didn't think so.
You wrote: "You contend that I don't 'get it,' but you're the one that doesn't grasp that speaking a foreign language is not evidence of cheating. Suggesting otherwise, as you unmistakably have, is offensive and beneath you."
Despite your claim to the contrary, I never suggested that speaking a foreign language is "evidence" of cheating. I did suggest it violates most cardrooms' "English-only" rules when it is done at the poker table, especially when it occurs during the play of a hand in which one of them is involved. And I do believe it *could* be collusion in some instances.
April Fools!
-Abdul
Regular occurance at Hollywood Park in the 40-80 game: Button raises,small blind folds, big blind takes two chips back. Is there anything wrong with this? The button colludes with the big blind against the small blind,and very often cheats his own partner as well.He raises with J3 since he has a tacit agreement with the big blind about chopping,the small blind considers making a stand with J7,then beeing in inferior position decides against it, the big blind happily takes his two chips back even with J10. After collecting, the button shows his occasional A or K to his partner and to the whole world to prove his unquestionable honesty. It seems like a nice family game. To the floormen at least: I complained 4-5 times to no avail.
well.
since they are doing that in the open, you know that they are not partners and splitting anything up. its the same as if they are chopping blinds. it still is not right to do this but in many places these things are customary. since the button is going to raise on most any hand anyway against the blinds, his raise doesnt mean much and the small blind can play aggressively if he wants and profit from this. once he is out it doesnt matter if the button gives back 2 chips to the bb to get out. the real bad part of these deals is that new players and people from other areas find the agreements uncomfortable at best.
Ray Zee writes:
since they are doing that in the open, you know that they are not partners and splitting anything up.
This statement defies all logic.
- Andrew
"its the same as if they are chopping blinds."- Ray Zee That makes about the same sense as saying that there is no difference between two players in a tournament making a deal when there is an additional player left and when it is only themself.
The games that I hear the most complaints about are the $40-$80 (and higher) hold 'ems in the LA area. I know that John Feeney plays in these games and doesn't see any problems. Does anyone else play in them and what are your opinions?
I suspect that one of the problems is that many of you just don't realize that a good player is capable of saving a bet on the end in the right spot against the right player. Here's a hand I watched the other night in a $20-$40 hold 'em game. I don't know what any of the players had.
A close friend of mine, who is also an incredibly good player (and who does most of his play at a higher limit) raised one off the button. The player on the button called and both blinds called. The flop came 9h 7h 3c. The small blind bet, the big blid called, my friend raised, the button called (two bets cold), the small bind called, the big blind -- a regular who doesn't play that well but who I have played a lot with -- reraised, my friend made it four bets, the button folded, and the small blind folded, and the player in the big blind just called. (The cap in Las Vegas is one more bet.)
A blank hit on the turn and the player in the big blind bet and my friend called. An offsuit king hit on the river and the player in the big blind bet and my friend folded. No hands were shown and a fairly large pot was taken down.
I suspect that my friend either had something like an ace high four flush or had made top pair and based on the action just decided to save his money onthe river.
almost no pros will be cheating or attempting to cheat as your reputation follows you all your life in poker.
What about Pat Flemming? He cheated (with almost 100% certainty) and is still playing. Or maybe he isn't "pro".
While I agree that "cheating" isn't all that common and usually shouldn't affect your game much, I would maintain that "cheats" are common. My estimate of the percentage of players that have tried to cheat in some way or another at one time while playing poker is 20%. Maybe higher if we include all of the obtuse angles people try to pull.
Here's an example. When I was new to poker I had a much different concept of how the game should be played. As a dealer dealt the cards out I caught a glimpse of my neighbors card. When I mentioned it to him he threw a card back to get a new one. Of course he didn't throw away the Qc that I saw, rather he threw away a 3. I called the floorman and the hand was declared dead, much to the chagrin of the cheater/angle-shooter, whichever you prefer to call him.
- Andrew
A couple of comments.
First, one of the reasons for the lack of cheating in ring games is that there are several mechanisms that stop potential abusers. I won't discuss them here but they have been talked about at length in other places. However, many of these mechanisms break down in tournaments.
I and others have stated this on numerous occasions. In addition, at tournaments, there are other variables that players have to contend with that can encourage cheating. (An example is percentage paybacks wraping the value of chips, especially late in the tournament.) So even though I agree that your cheating/tournament statement may have validity, it doesn't necessarily carry over to the regular games.
Second, your comment about the switched card is what I consider an angle. Now I agree with you that in this case it is a form of cheating. But the comments that I have been addressing, and which I believe that Ray is addressing is what you might refer to as premediated organized cheating. This is where most of the claims have been made, and based on my experience, I don't believe they have much merit in today's modern cardroom environment. (I do agree that they probably had a lot of merit 25 years ago.)
Furthermore, getting back to those moves which I would classify under the heading of angle shooting, I do agree, and I agree strongly that they
1. Are a problem and need to be better addressed by cardroom management.
2. Have gotten worse and are more common than they were five years ago.
Ironically, I believe the reason for this is simply that more players have a better understanding of the game. For instance, more people better understand the value of position and are willing to do more stalling in an effort to get players to act out of turn behind them. It also has something to do with the poor quality of poker dealers nationwide, partly due to the tremendous growth of poker, who don't control their games as well as they should.
I love agreeing with Mason. Since, I haven't been playing for 25 years though, I'll just have to take his word on some of what he wrote. But in general, I have to say that this post makes quite a bit of sense, and really underscores some of the things which we should be aware of (and on guard for) as poker players.
- Andrew
I beleive this to be a significant part of the decision to close the Hilton and MGM poker rooms in LV, as they have a vested interest in protecting their "high End" customers. The Mirage and Horsehoe have no such interest. In Cali the forein languge should be curtailed BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the hand !
I recently lost a bit of money on playing hold'em on the internet and I can't figure out why.
I thought the internet would be a good place to test out if it was possible to make any money out of poker seeing as I don't live near a casino. I played at the practice tables for a few weeks and seemed to go pretty well my results were a steady uptrend. So I decided to play for real. I cashed in for $500 and played in various $2-$4 hold'em games. The standard of the other players didn't seem that much higher that on the practice game except that they played a little bit tighter. My results over the few hundred odd hands which I played were a steady downtrend. I seem to spend most of my time discarding hands or folding after the flop. I'd drift down say $100 they finally get a good had get some action on it and win a big pot mabey worth $60.
The thing which bugs me is that I can't think where I went wrong. There wasn't that many times that I wasted money betting into someones pat hand. Most of the times I folded I would watch the other players go on to turn over better hands than mine and I felt glad that I folded. When I went chasing flush and straight draws it seemed to be a decent odds.
The game was raked at $1 if the pot is over $20 $2 over $40 $3 over $60
Mabey the rake beat me ?
Has anybody got any ideas ?
You are underestimating the difference between the play money tables and the low limit real money tables. The 2/4 players are Paradise are hardly geniuses but you'll never see 6 people put in 4 bets pre-flop like you do at the play money tables. It's also not uncommon for 4 or 5 people to go to showdown at the play money tables. Check out the Internet Poker forum. You'll be more likely to find answers there.
Here is my 2 cents. First of all, if this is your first venture into playing cards for real money, and the only preparation you have had for it was playing for a couple of weeks for play money, there is no way you are good enough to make money when you play for real. Before I first started playing for real money about a year ago, I had put in many, many hours of reading books others recommended. In spite of all the studying, I did not start out being a winning player. Hell, I still don't really know if I am a winning player, but I am making my way back to even. Anyway the point I am trying to make is that you really need to study, not just read, books on poker. And you are going to take your lumps, but learn from the experience.
Also, and I am sure others are going to write this also, but I guarantee that you play too loose. This is the number one mistake of most players.
Post deleted at author's request.
If 2/4 players are tighter than you, you're playing way, way too loose.
Everyone talks about AA, KK, QQ and so on as great hands, and I read all the time people folding before the flop with AKos or similar. But what about holding 9-4os, seeing the flop, and catching 9-4-Q rainbow, then getting another 4 on the turn, and a dead card on the river.
I mean...I know this probably isn't the best example, but how can one fold before the flop, a guy with AA wouldn't have improved at all on that hand. Just curious of your thoughts.
I play in a home game where basically everyone sees the flop. After reading this forum for a few weeks I began folding the 9-4os, and watching somone take a pot with less then I would have had. I know I have to adapt to my game.
I'm just wondering where people fold before the flop. I live in MN where poker is illegal, so I have never been to a public cardroom.
Phil Read "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" by Lee Jones. He explains what are good hands to see the flop with in which positions and why. Good luck, Kate
I think that book is awful. I would suggest buying a 2+2 book, probably Fundamentals of Poker, to start (esp. since it's only $4 and not at all overwhelming).
Phil:
I back Kate on this one.
Jones' "Winning Low Limit Holdem" should be considered your bible until you have the experiences to consider the excellent works of 2+2 like "Holdem for Advanced Players".
Packerfan
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
2+2 books are probobly the best out there, and I do believe Lee Jones's book was good, but if you're only playing in home games, there's a book called Thursday Night Poker (can't remember the author's name... Peter something, I think) that will improve your game more than any of the books geared towards casino play.
The Thursday night poker book is reccommended mostly for its comedy value. It's useless for casino poker.
I think Lee's book is an excellent starter for the low limit player 2/4 -4/8 or even 5/10. After you have digested it you will then want to move into the more advanced 2 + 2 pubs in order to round your game. Applying HFAP to very low limit games can get you crucified with certain lineups. If you move to 10/20 you will definitly make a wise investment with HFAP, but builing a good foundation with Lee and others won't hurt. Good luck !
PS: The point when you think your are begining to understand is where your'e most vunerable. This game takes years to be consistantly proficient !
Thanks for everything guys, I'm about half way through Lee's book in just a day of reading. =) I plan to re-read a few times, to really take it all in. I appreciate the reccomendation and the advice...
p.s. I'm only 16, so hopefully in 2 years with some reading and home game practice I can hit the casinos without letting them hit my wallet. =)
Phil,
if you are going to continue to play poker and want to win you need to learn the basics. read some of the books you can find around. if you refuse to study at all, try and only play pairs and hands that add up to 20 points or better before the flop. you will still play badly but your win rate will go up dramatically.
AA doesn't improve that often, no. But AA doesn't NEED to improve. Every other starting hand, every single one, must hit the flop in some way or it will lose. And that's not going to happen every time. So if you play better cards than your friends, you're the one that gets to sit there betting your good hands while they all play catch-up.
I agree with you Dan, thank you for that bit of advice, I've never looked at it like that. As you can probably all tell I am new to all of this, but thanks for the advice, I'll go pick up a few books. =)
Home poker in MN is legal AFAIK. Anyhow, a cardroom is opening at Canteburry Downs on April 19th. See you there!
Joel
Where in Mn are you located? maybe we could get a game going. email me privately.
Recently I was at the Mirage with 5 friends playing hold'em at 3 different tables. We noticed a player who was winning a lot who switched tables to follow two certain dealers around. He would only play at a table when one of his two dealer buddies were dealing. When they went on break he would never play a hand. He either folded or got up and walked around. All of my friends thought he was acting very suspicously. Also we saw him catch a number of miracle cards in big pots. Once I flopped an Ace high straight and he caught Aces on the turn and the river to win. He also always sat just to the right of the dealer. We all compared notes and wondered if he could have been helped by his dealer friends in anyway. Are we just being paranoid? Or is it possible for dealers to be giving certain players help?
i find it unlikely that someone cheating would be so afraid of playing straight that he would risk being so conspicuous by following his friendly dealers and even taking breaks while they were on break. more likley they are just his lucky dealers and his lucky seat and he got lucky a couple of times. nonetheless, his behavior is suspicious enough that i suggest you alert managment. check the tapes. etc.
also, was the 10 seat open at every table? how did the guy keep moving there? was he changing limits?
scott
I have no doubt that it is possible for dealers to cheat. Dealing seconds is far from difficult. I think it is more likely that this guy was just superstitious. It would be no more idotic than this theory that was told to me be a 10/20 Mirage regular: "I won't play if there's an asian dealer. Haven't you ever noticed that asian dealers put up boards with four straights and four flushes all the time." How the hell can you argue with that logic?!?
I'd take him outside and ask hima a few questions
there is nothing wrong with keeping your eyes open. sometimes a bad apple gets in there for awhile but it is the exception not the rule. i doubt that this is one of those times. anyone working with a dealer wouldnt follow him around so obviously. i bet the dealer is incompetent and maybe flashes some cards that can be seen from certain seats. the smart guy takes advantage of it, although that is of course unethical to look. i find more players that wont play against certain dealers that are unlucky for them.
Funny you should mention that. I will not play when a dealer named Mike is the dealer. The reason is that he flashes cards and makes mistakes.
Funny you should mention that! I won't play if the dealer is a woman unless she has big eyes that are wide open and looking straight ahead. She must also be able to say "Nice hand sir" and shuffle at the same time. I also won't play against a male dealer that stinks like cigarettes unless they are Marlboro's. a real man's ciggy. Then again if there is a male dealer named "Shoot da Wad" anywhere in the casino I won't play. Now if a guy named Dracula starts dealing it's o.k beacause I carry my rosary beads all the time although sometimes I lose the cross part than I won't play when the count is dealing. When I am in a game with Mason if the dealer doesn't say Penis three time after each deal I stop until another dealer comes or I go to Abdul's table. Of course if Skalnsky is at the table it nulifies the penis and I will only play if there are three beautiful women standing behing sklansky laughing. now if Gary Carson is at the table I won't play if Jim Geary knows the dealer. But I will reconsider if SKP tells John Feeney just how much he really hates him. Cause he's so smart.
Now when I play at Bellagios I won't sit at the same table with any other Italians if they are dealing cards anywhere in the room. I usually just smile when the dealer asks if I will play and say Fagettaboutit! I get a lot of dirty looks but nobody ever shoots so I think it's o.k. Oh yeah I also won't play when the dealer is of Oriental Ancestry or European for that matter or if they are Black, Yellow, Red or white. Now I don't mind waiting for the perfect dealer because life is long and I have nothing but time. Besides why tempt the Poker Gods by playing with all those unlucky (for me) dealers.
Vince.
Good Thread!
BAY 101 last week. I'm in the 3 seat when an Asian sits in the 2 seat. His mate just behind and to his left. I've been through this routine before so I insure that my cards are protected from her. After about 4 rounds of this and a change of dealers he moves to the 10 or 11 seat just to the dealers right. A few hands later he calls down my bluff of A6 high (play not important) with A8 high to take a nice pot. A couple of hands later. I notice my cards are always dealt a little higher than the rest of the table. My loss limit in Cali will be a lot lower from now on ! B.S. walks, there's cheats everywhere you turn at lower limits as well, this was 6/12.
6/12 in San Jose, Garden City Club (or whatever the name is). 3 on the button charge. 7-8 people are regulars and very friendly, woman dealer, very friendly with everyone but me and the other 'tourists'. A bunch of terrible players...
I am on the BB with T3o. Checked to me. Flop comes T3x, I bet, two callers. Turn comes T or 3 (I forget which, and not important) -- I check, wiseguy in the middle bets, next guy calls, I raise, AND DEALER SAYS TO WISEGUY "You bet out of turn, he [pointing at me] didn't get a chance to bet." I said "I checked, you heard me" She said she didn't and I didn't check. Everyone else went mute, what a surprise. I asked for the floorman. He agreed with the dealer. Naturally. The wiseguy saved his $$ on this hand. (I bet, he folded, moron who acted last called me twice!).
I stayed calm and stayed. I beat the hell out of them, about $350 in 4 hours. The wiseguy who liked to bluff, I called him down every time, I think he had a tell, something I didn't conciously notice but did 'feel'. Last hand of the night, I had pocket 4's, wiseguy bet the KKK flop. I called him to the end. He mucked very angrily...commented on how I never bluffed. I laughed while stacking into racks. Other guy said to me "better luck next time" very sarcastically. I said "Luck had nothing to do with it" and left; what fun.
Mark
Mark the K wrote: >>I am on the BB with T3o. Checked to me. Flop comes T3x, I bet, two callers. Turn comes T or 3 (I forget which, and not important) -- I check, wiseguy in the middle bets, next guy calls, I raise, AND DEALER SAYS TO WISEGUY "You bet out of turn, he [pointing at me] didn't get a chance to bet." I said "I checked, you heard me" She said she didn't and I didn't check. Everyone else went mute, what a surprise. I asked for the floorman. He agreed with the dealer. Naturally. The wiseguy saved his $$ on this hand. (I bet, he folded, moron who acted last called me twice!).<<
Even if the dealer were correct, the action should have stood (in most card rooms). Even if you missed your chance to bet, once 2 players have acted behind you, this is usually considered substantial action, and your check would be forced to stand. In this case, the floorman was right to believe the dealer's rendition of the facts (in the absence of anyone else speaking up for your side of the facts), but wrong in that he didn't apply the substantial action rule. Unless, of course, that rule isn't in force at this room, or if it requires 3 people for substantial action to occur.
I mention this just so you will be aware of it, and bring it to the floorman's attention next time a situation like this occurs.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If he knew what you had, he should have raised on the end.
I agree, then I might not have picked up on it. Although they think every strange face is a sucker anyway. He had no draw, I did. By the way the 1 seat was empty so he got no positional advantage from the 10.
I'm in a $3-$6 game in middle position with KJs. 2 limpers, me, and the BB see the unraised flop.
Flop comes A T Q rainbow. Nut straight! So I check-raise which leaves me and the bettor in late position. My initial impression is that he is a half-decent player.
Turn card is A. I'm a little worried he may hold AT or AQ, but I bet out and he just calls.
River is Q! for a board of A T Q A Q. Really bothers me but I bet and he mucks!
Did I play this right or was I just asking for a bad beat betting into him with multiple full boats possible? Thanks for any comments/flames/whatever.
CB
Why did you bet on the end?
Honestly, I bet because I had the gut feeling that he wasn't holding a boat. Plus, I believe he would have raised my post-flop bet with top two pair of AQ. If he had AQ (board was A T Q - A Q) he had to have thought he had the best hand at that point because the only hands that could beat him was an AA, QQ, or TT, which I didn't have because I didn't raise pre-flop. (Maybe he thought I held TT, which is not usually raised in middle position).
Anyway, if he held an Ax, AQ, or AT, I think he would have raised after the turn, which he did not. I don't think he had much. Maybe he had a K and was looking for a gutshot J to fall for his straight.
I just didn't think he had the boat.
CB
you wrote: Honestly, I bet because I had the gut feeling that he wasn't holding a boat.
so you didn't think he had the boat. still ask yourself, why bet?
is he going to call with a K so that he plays aces up, king kicker. maybe, but only if he's very bad and he really knows you have crap. is he dumb enough to call with a pair of nines in his hand?
as mentioned below, he *only* calls with a hand that beats you. He might have had Qx and been afraid of the Ax. If he called, you just lost another bet.
another example, basically from "theory of poker". you can bet a board of 4 aces on 7th street in 7-stud, but you're not getting called unless he has a straight flush, and in that case you're getting raised, and paying him off.
look at the hand again. there is nothing to be gained by betting on the end.
mth
Whether you thought you had your opponent beat isn't the point. It's whether your last bet had any expected value, and for this you must ask what the chances are of winning when you are called. If think there's an 95% chance that your hand is best but he'll fold every hand that doesn't beat you, your bet loses money in the long run.
In this specific case, you can put your opponent on KQ, KT, QJ or JT going into the last card. When the queen falls, he wins if he has one of the 12 combinations of KQ or QJ, but you win if he has one of the 18 combinations of KT or JT. so the odds of you being ahead are 3-2 in your favor. But note that he'll often if not always fold with JT or KT. Even if you assume that he'll always call your bet holding KT, he'll only call you with a hand you can beat 9 times but will call (and sometimes raise) with a hand that beats you 12 times, which means that, over the long run, your bet on the end is a solid money loser.
On the other hand, as Rick points out, when you check your opponent might sometimes try to bluff and you'll win an extra bet when you call. Althgough this situation arose in the context of a weird board, this is an elementary principle that you must constantly apply.
close enough chris, but the real question isn't whether a bet will make money but whether a bet will make money relative to a check.
in this case a check will tell him you don't have the full house and he will be likely to bluff. so check call is the right play.
but sometimes, even though you are an underdog when called, you should bet. because if he bet you'd have to call, but he'd bet more hands than he'd call with. and won't raise with many. in this case, both betting and checking lose you money, but checking loses you more.
scott
If his opponent was a tough one a bet may have been appropriate if he thought he could make the guy fold a queen. If he got raised he would fold, and if the guy had no full house he doesnt lose any more. So he stands to lose only one bet, whereas he may make however many bets are in the pot if the guy had a queen and folded it (which most good players would have to do at that point). Not necessarily correct to bet but it may be.
CB,
I'll elaborate further. A bet on the river against a single opponent has two purposes. You either want to make a better hand fold (e.g., a bluff with a busted draw) or a worse hand call (as in a value bet). Neither of these is reasonable with this board, your hand, and the opponents likely holdings. Any better hand will either raise (an ace) or at least call (a queen). And what worse hand can call? Maybe a king high but that is a long shot.
On the other hand, a check may induce a bluff or at least save a bet when you are beat by the ace or queen (whether you call or not would be based on your read of the player).
Regards,
Rick
David asks, "why did you bet on the end?" Ask yourself these questions.
Did you bet to gain one extra bet from a worse hand? What worse hand could he call you with?
Did you bet to make a better hand fold? What better hand could he fold with?
Your bet has no possitive expectation and a very possible negative expectation.
Why the check-raise on the flop? This is a small pot, you run the risk of giving a gutshot or two a free card to tie you, and you're not that interested in freezing out the action anyway. This is a rainbow flop, you have the nuts. If the gutshots call for even one bet they are making an error. Any other hand is drawing close to dead to yours, so you want them calling too.
I would bet this flop, and hope that the late position player raises, in which case I get to make it 3 bets. Perhaps I can center a gutshot or two, and really make them pay through the nose for their mistake.
The bet on the river was almost certainly incorrect. If you check, your opponent may bluff and you win an extra bet. If you bet, there is no hand he can call you with that doesn't beat yours, since you described him as a half-decent player. (I'd question his skill level, though, since I can't imagine what hand he could have held to play it like he did).
If you three bet the flop, do you go for a check raise on the turn?
What would that gain? If I check, I run a strong risk of giving a free card after I showed that much strength on the flop, unless my opponent filled up. If I were to check the turn after the Ace paired, it would be because I thought there was a chance my opponent filled up, in which case I'd check and call. Anyway, 3-betting the flop and then checking the turn against a single opponent when the top card pairs strikes me as being a little too suspicious.
What hands can my opponent have at this point? My guess would be something like QT, AT, maybe something like KQ. If he has AT I'm beat, and if he has the other two he's going to take a free card if I offer it to him. The only hand he might conceivably bet that I would like to raise would be something like AJ.
I rarely 3-bet the flop and then check on the turn. The only time I might consider it is if a card came that should scare me but doesn't. For example, if I have an Ace-high flush, and the fourth of that suit comes out, I might go for a check-raise because an opponent might think I was raising with two pair or a smaller flush and will release the hand if he bets. But even then I'd have to feel that he wouldn't have called a bet from me, and that a free card doesn't run much of a risk of killing my hand.
I guess i was thinking of a situation where the A, or no other pair card, comes on the turn.
Greetings,
Here are some hands I recently played in which I thougth I stood in a much better than I actually did. Any comments are appreciated!
With one limper I call in the small blind w/ 76s. 3 see a rainbow flop of 7 5 4. I chekc BB bets limper folds I raise BB reraises (this player had been stealing alot of pots which it seemed he thougth other people had nothing and I thought he might have thought I was riasing to move him off, and so was reraising to move me off but I wasn't sure he could have an over pair, a 6, two pair or a set.
The turn was an offsuit 4. I checked, he checked, at this point I was sure he was just openended and I had the best hand.
The river was 3, I bet he raises and I just call certain we are splitting the pot. HE turns over 7 4 for a full house.
Here's another:
In BB w/ two late posters (forced bets,) I jsut call w/ J T o. (I thought about raising since I m in essense playing against two random hands) (the SB folded).
The flop comes Q J 3 rainbow.
I bet and get riased another player cold calls, I call.
(the raiser tries to play well, the cold caller was seeing too many hands).
The turn is a small blank.
It gets checked around!
The river is K the last player bets, I fold as either a draw got there or the overcards got there or I was beat the whole way. The 2nd player also folds and tells me he had a weak Q. ( I suppose he thought I was trying to buy the pot w/ nothing and then said when I called he tought I had a better Q.) I suspect I played this hand very badly .
SHould I reraise on the flop? Bet the turn? I don't think folding on the flop can be correct even if he has a Q.
FInally.
Two limpers in later positon, SB raises I call w/ 99 as do the others.
Flop comes 88 6. Sb bets I raise SB just calls all other fold.
TUrn is a small blank. HE chekcs I bet he calls. (Now Im fiarly certain he has two over cards.
RIver is a A. He chekcs I check. HE turns over QQ.
Am I playing overagressively? or just being too optimistic?
Thanks In advance!
suspicious,
First hand:
I would tend to bet out on the flop with a small pair/draw out of the blinds and only two opponents. You don't know you will get it bet for you and you don't want to give free cards.
On the turn and river your opponent played badly. Why check the turn with a full when it should have appeared to him that you were already tied into the pot? Your river play and thinking made sense given the check on the turn. Note that if he bet the turn, you would have called and probably still lost two bets on the river.
In this hand you were up against a lousy player who doesn't think so don't waste too much time trying to get inside his head. There isn't much there ;).
Second Hand:
Even against two late position posts I would not raise with this weak a hand before the flop. I like your flop bet with second pair but once raised and overcalled I would give it up right there. The pot is small and you can't like hitting your "outs" that much.
Final Hand:
You played it well and lost the minimum in a bad spot. He got minimum value out of his hand and you should be happy.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for the notes. In retrospect in the first hand the player fooled me but he could have easily collected as many bets (if not more) if he bet the turn, i could have easily thought he had an over pair and bet into him on the river...
I thougth in the second hand I was getting about 8-1 on my call and although hitting may seem dangerous had these players voluntarily entered the pot them being forced bets (and the 3rd player some almost every flop) i didn't think if i hit the T or J and not be good. Should I really fold after getting raised on the flop??
suspicious,
First hand:
I would tend to bet out on the flop with a small pair/draw out of the blinds and only two opponents. You don't know you will get it bet for you and you don't want to give free cards.
On the turn and river your opponent played badly. Why check the turn with a full when it should have appeared to him that you were already tied into the pot? Your river play and thinking made sense given the check on the turn. Note that if he bet the turn, you would have called and probably still lost two bets on the river.
In this hand you were up against a lousy player who doesn't think so don't waste too much time trying to get inside his head. There isn't much there ;).
Second Hand:
Even against two late position posts I would not raise with this weak a hand before the flop. I like your flop bet with second pair but once raised and overcalled I would give it up right there. The pot is small and you can't like hitting your "outs" that much.
Final Hand:
You played it well and lost the minimum in a bad spot. He got minimum value out of his hand and you should be very happy.
Regards,
Rick
I double posted by accident.
I'm in the BB with KJ off. Everyone folds to a guy who I haven't played with before but seems solid 2 off the button who raises. All fold to me, I call. Flop comes A K 8 rainbow. I bet, guy calls. Turn comes a 10. I bet, guy raises, I call. River comes a rag. I check/fold. What do you think?
Puggy,
I like the fold on the river. I may have ckeck-called or check-raised the flop against one opponent but I don't feel strongly about it. Heads up you mix it up and little details that are hard to write down make a difference.
If I bet the flop and was called, I may have gone into a check and call mode if I thought the opponent was aggressive and tricky since I have a fair hand, I have outs against a much better hand, and I may get my opponent to bluff off a worse hand. But other than that your play seems about right.
Regards,
Rick
I agree that to check the turn might well be the better play than continuing to bet, but I also think you've gotto consider folding either when he bets the turn or when he raises if you bet the turn. I know you can't be folding every time somebody shows strength on the turn, but A) you called the raise pre-flop one-on-one, B) you be into the flop which contained and Ace and a King; and C) the opponent still showed strength on the turn.
He could have A-A, A-K, A-T, A-8, A-xs, K-K, K-Q, K-T, T-T (unlikely)
Rick and Andy,
Thanks for the responses. Before I posted this, I decided that the better play would have been to check/call the turn, and check/probably fold the river if I didn't improve (since I picked up the gutshot draw on the turn). If I had not picked up the gotshot draw on the turn, I think betting/folding the turn is the better option.
Notice Andy, that on the turn I still have 6 outs to the majority of hands which you mention.
Puggy
Opponent may have also had QJs. He bet preflop to get you to fold, called with a one end straight, and bet when he made his hand on the river.
If so, you did well to bet into him while he was still trying to make the hand, and let it go after he showed additional strength.
What did you think he had, and, more importantly, what did you want him to think you had? Were you trying to represent a drawing hand or a made hand? These are important things to consider.
I was playing 3-6 HE Friday night and two separate conversation situations occurred.
1) I am sitting in #2 seat, and have to look directly over the #1 seat to see the dealer. I am out of the hand and am half-watching a board, that in order, is 3C, QH, xH, xH, 3H. The gentleman in seat #1 was elderly, though a perfectly competent player. When the 3H hit on the river, he flashed his cards (although not specifically to me in paticular) and said "that's too bad" and started to fold. As he did, I noticed he had pocket queens. As a complete reflex and totally involuntarily I said "wait," just loud enough that he stopped. I don't think he even heard what I said, and I'm pretty sure nobody else did. I think me saying anything, though, caused him to reconsider and realize that he had a full house, regardless of the 4-flush.
How big a gaffe was this and does it influence your opinion that he probably had a little harder time seeing the cards than the average player?
I didn't do it intentionally and was glad nobody noticed, but I didn't feel too guilty about it. He won a really nice pot.
2) The completed board in a hand is Q Q Q Q A. There were four players remaining (don't ask me why three people called a bet with a board of Q Q Q A). The dealer was calling for bets, and a couple people said "It's a split pot." Technically, somebody could have folded for a bet or raise, although nobody seemed that brain dead in this game. Is it proper to point this out to the dealer, or should we just shut up?
Any thoughts?
Micky,
In the first case unless the hand is placed on the table it is best and proper to keep quite. Next time someone may hear you and this almost always leads to a dispute. By the way, if I made this mistake I would feel better if the player was incompetent rather than competent. Then you have a better shot at getting the money in your stack.
In the second case just keep quite and make sure you call all bets and raises if you are in the hand. It doesn't happen often enough to worry about a better way to save time and some players are careless and forfeit their share of the pot. Let them.
Regards,
Rick
I make a policy for myself of not interfering when something like that happens. the player always has the option of calling and turning his cards up for the dealer to read since in AC, cards read irrespective of what a player says.
I have seen similar things happen, and once I told the player (A) that he had a flush as he was about to throw his cards in the muck. He had called the river and was entitled to see the hand, but when the other player (B) showed trips, player (A) having 2 pair and looking for a ful house thought he had a busted full boat and missed the flush. Player (A) won the pot from the other player (B) who had trips. It was very awkard for me, but it was a little different from telling a player before he calls what his hand is.
Playing at mirage 20-40 I was sitting next to a man who was an obvious beginner.Board was A,K and a pair.Good player bets,beginner calls,good player shows AQ I can see beginners hand A 6,he was ready to muck his hand and I told him loud enough for everyone to hear show your hand its a chop pot.Good player tells me keep my mouth shut,my response was if you want to rob the man use a gun so go to hell.You did the right thing.Ionce was involved in a similar hand and the man said after he mucked his hand,oh no I had a chop your kicker didnt play,i know him and he would not lie about that so i gave him half the pot. I thought it was the right thing to do.
I agree in the case of beginners. There are players however that hold up the game by looking at their cards "forever" and then mucking once they have convinced themselves they have lost. IMO any non-beginner should not be awarded half the pot unless they show. This does not include angling such as when a player, intentionally or not, miscalls their hand. I believe this is the only time when cards should be retrieved from the muck if possible. Players states what he had ... dealer retrieves cards or cards near where the hand was mucked. If the stated cards are there then the "cards play".
I also half given back money after another player had mucked. Her neighbour mentioned that she had a chop and she then realized it was true. She didn't demand her money back nor was I compelled by the house.
I would be mad, too. If this guy wants to start learning HE at the 20-40 level, that's his problem. IMO, you have no business telling the guy to turn his hand over. If you wanted to explain to him after the pot was awarded, that's another thing, but I feel you were out of line in this case.
Mickey:
While considering my opinion, keep in mind that I like to maintian a friendly image to keep the LL games I play in friendly and loose. So on to your questions...
#1: Shut up.
One player to a hand. I don't care if it is YOUR grandpa flashing you the cards. If a player with an Ah heard this you'd never hear the end of it, even from a "nice guy" like me. I'd call the floor. This isn't an opinion, it's a rule.
#2: They should shut up.
Though this is common at LL - let the dealer do his job, which he was doing correctly BTW. Just because the board shows the nuts, doesn't prevent people from betting.
My 2cents.
Packerfan
Be the flop... See the flop.. You're not being the flop, Danny.
In the army games the line was "shut up and deal". In casinos,it should be "shut up and play"
In most situations, the less said about the hand or board cards the better. Let the players play their hands and the dealer run the game. I even think any comments about the board cards, like the obvious "UHT OH!" when the third of a suit or a pair comes out, is off base.
Mickey-In the first case you described I would have done the same thing, especially if the opponent seemed like a good guy. You did the nice thing but not the right thing. If I was holding the ace of hearts I probably would have been livid. Put yourself in his postition. It's probably best to bite your tongue.
-James U
People who constantly ask for deck changes bug the hell outta me! People can't stop asking for deck changes. It slows the game down and really seems irrational. They always ask for a change as if it is the dealer's fault as well... Any advice for getting people to stop doing this?
Maybe this is just my pet peave...
Marc
I can't think of a way to get them to stop. If you ask them to, they will just do it more. The cardroom, however, really should not allow anyone to request a deck change unless they have a specific reason. If someone can say "I think one of my cards was creased" or something, then change the deck. But noone should insist on a new deck because the current one is unlucky for them, which is why most deck changes are requested. If I made the rules, the deck would change once every half hour with the dealer and that's it unless a valid reason is given.
I've never asked for a deck change in my life. However, I do like the idea that someone can ask for a change at any given time (within reason), rather than having the deck automatically change at a pre-determined time. This at least makes me feel like I have some protection against a "hold-out artist". If the cheater knows in advance when the deck changes, he can be sure to return all of his cards to the muck before the next change. But if the deck changes without notice after a hand has been completed, then a "hold-out artist" may be stuck without returning the missing card(s). Question for Rick N or other card room insider- How often, if ever, have you seen a deck returned with a card missing?
all cardrooms should allow their dealers to count down the deck stub after the hand during a lull in the action. if you find a dealer that doesnt do it regularly you have found a dealer that cant count or doesnt care a darn for your protection, or doesnt know better. no excuse for any of the three cases as far as im concerned. ill tolerate it but certainly wont add to his or hers net worth.
A good dealer will be able to count down the deck in play and still be able to keep the running smoothly. A few dealers I know in CT will do this routinely. In my three years I have never seen a card go missing.
-James U
I pay careful attention to those who want a deck change. If they are not too sophisticated, it means that they believe that something is inherently wrong with the cards and that's why they're losing. That gives you information about the player (i.e. they don't attribute losses to external events rather than their play.) We all get bad beats. But psychologically, it's what you attribute the win or loss to. On a rare occasion, a very good player will ask for a deck change to throw you off (i.e. make you think he believes that poker is "just the luck of the draw"), when in fact, he's a real student of the game. Take it as information as I do and watch other characteristics that might tip you off as to what type of player they are. If YOU let it get to you, then they have information about you!! Be careful when that happens.
This is from a psychologist whose profession it is to read people's verbal and non-verbal behavior and the formulate quick judgments.
Good luck on your play
People who ask for deck changes are usually not the brightest people in the world. I have noticed that the kind of player that asks for a deck change is usually the kind of player that is always chasing long shot cards. Needless to say that is the kind of player that you want at your table.
That is true, but I still don't want them to ask for and receive a deck change every other hand. I don't think they would quit just for being denied a deck change.
I find that punching them in the nose helps.
While they're up finding a tissue to stop the blood flow, ask the dealer for a seat change.
I mean, talk about rubbing salt in the wound.
Actually, our casino has a policy of switching between two decks, one every half an hour when they replace dealers. When someone asks for a deck change, the dealer politely refuses and says the deck will change in X number of minutes when the new dealer comes in. I kinda like this.
Dan
Actually, our casino has a policy of switching between two decks, one every half an hour when they replace dealers. When someone asks for a deck change, the dealer politely refuses and says the deck will change in X number of minutes when the new dealer comes in. I kinda like this.
I kinda like it too. When I play at your casino, I'll know exactly when I have to return the cards I've been holding out to the deck.
-Sean
We have a few regulars who have a very low tolerance: if they don't win a hand in the first three or four after taking a seat, they request a deck change. Although I've never done it, some players will yell, "Deck change" as soon as the intolerant one drags in a pot. You might also add, "I don't want to see her win another hand with that lucky deck she just got."
Regards,
John
I'm glad to see there are others out there who cannot stand this practice. Usually, it's someone who has just misplayed a hand into the ground who is asking for the change. If it was MY casino, the rule would be that anyone asking for a deck change would have to post a BB, and you couldn't ask for a deck change when it actually was your BB. That might slow 'em down a bit. I have never ever asked for a change and won't until someone shows be the evidence that I will immediately become a better player with the green deck rather than the black one. Thank you for allowing me to vent.
Actually, I don't find that deck changes take much longer than not changing the deck. I'd estimate 5 seconds longer, for the dealer to pull out the new deck and put back the old one. It's a new setup that takes time. Besides, I'd rather keep the live ones (who usually make the requests) happy than not for a few seconds delay in the game.
I've asked for one deckchange in my life.About 3 years ago at Mirage 40-80.Some rock gets Q's beat by 6,2 huge pot grumbles at the dealer get a setup,dealer calls for setup and is ready to deal next hand,rock says deal me out until new setup comes,dealer forgets and deals him in anyway.Rock picks up AQ and I beat him with 9,7 off.He bet and raised the whole way like he had something when all he had was no pair,no draw.Well,I guess he did have a pair draw.Anyhow he blamed his atrocious play on the dealer and sat there belittling him.About 2 hands after the new deck rock flops a full house wins nice pot.I said new deck please.
As annoying as deck changes are, you have to remember that they are one way in which a losing player thinks he has some control over the game. Asking for a deck change will reinforce his belief that 'luck' controls the game - if he gets better results after the deck change, it'll reinforce his belief. If he doesn't, he'll forget he even asked.
As winning players, you should be encouraging the use of lucky rabbit's feet, tarot cards, palm reading, and anything else that keeps the losing players happy and in the game.
That said, it can get out of control sometimes. The cardrooms here have a rule that you have to wait at least 10 hands between deck changes, and some nights that's about all you get. This really slows the game down.
I