My first $80-160 game at bay 101
andr...@my-dejanews.com
some hands two nights before at 15-30 and made a $2000 profit. This player at
the $15-30 asked me why I don't just go over the 80-160 (seems to be playing
around the clock even during the week) and play 'come come'??? I was tired
and victorious hence declined, but the idea was just in my head. Yesterday I
went back and played some 15-30 until I kept running into this new payer and
he was beating be silly. (I made a straight - he flopped aces full) a very
solid player unlike the rest of the bunch. So I get up and there is one seat
in the 'big' game. I sit down buy in for a rack and lose my first hand -
raised pot (down $160 - two bets) I don't care because it is 'only chips and
I have a rack in front of me.. but deep down I am scared because it is a
shitload of money and the game is 5 times bigger than my now confortable
15-30, plus the players are not quite 15-30 caliber either. I try to keep
calm and keep out of trouble..- until I have 8-9 spades on the button. noone
raises I limp in. The flop is 9h - 7s - 4s. Someone bets one players raises
(4 players remain). I call - top pair with a so-so flush-draw. (I did not put
anyone on spades). Turn is an 8h. Now I have 2 pair. I think I am in ok
shape. 3 players are in. someone bets - a call - I raise. One player calls
one folds. river is 6 (no spade) - I worry about a straight. SO just call a
bet. Players shows me pocket 6's - he rivered me. He kept his lousy pair all
the way !!! What is this guy a phsycic ??? Anyway - I am hurting and of
course during the whole play my heart is in my stomack. I am checking my
hands if they are shaking... I don't think I would have stayed all the way
without the flushdraw. I was putting one guy on a straigh draw, the other on
pocket pair - JJ, 10's. God damn 6's ??? Well the despite the emotional wear
and tear I played come-come in a wrong time !!!! One more costly showdown; Q
high flush against K high - me on the losing end. Shit, $2000 went fast in
this game. Better read up on big bet holdem and stop playing Q high flush !
The word around the table is that there is this new kid. Arrived from China
to get a job in Silicon Valley - ends up playing 80-160 and beats the shit out
of all the locals. He was there I was watching him play. He is a good player.
Bluffs a lot at the right time, show his bluff - all the textbook angles.
The chineese players are gamblers but they know discipline !!! (at least some
of them.) Just wondering how the hell is this guy playing this big game ??
Part of the reason I sat down. If he is 'of the boat' and plays 'high society'
So can I, damn it !! As I was walking out I was thinking of the 'rouders'
scene after Matt lost 30k. (to put this in perspective I mostly lost money
I just won) - HOWEVER considering my finances I had no business playing there.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tom Weideman
> The word around the table is that there is this new kid. Arrived from China
> to get a job in Silicon Valley - ends up playing 80-160 and beats the shit out
> of all the locals. He was there I was watching him play. He is a good player.
> Bluffs a lot at the right time, show his bluff - all the textbook angles.
> The chineese players are gamblers but they know discipline !!! (at least some
> of them.) Just wondering how the hell is this guy playing this big game ??
Welcome to our nightmare. The gentleman you speak of is known as "YZ"
there, and for those of you who used to be on irc, his nick was
"Po147". He's actually not "fresh off the boat" - he was living in
Wisconsin getting his Ph.D. in electrical engineering for the past
several years. He learned how to play poker and blackjack while there,
and moved from there after graduation to San Jose looking for a job.
He's been slicing up the game so much, that right now I'd guess he just
considers a job as nothing more than a way of staying in the country.
You're right, he plays pretty well, but he has some leaks as well. He
is certainly in for a surprise when his rush comes to an end. One of
his greatest strengths is that he doesn't get tilted and spew chips when
things go badly (unlike many of the other decent players there).
Sorry I wasn't there (this was the first Thursday I've missed in
months), or I would have posted some stuff about your opponents in your
ill-fated hands.
Tom Weideman
Kevin L. Prigge
Tom Weideman <zugz...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Welcome to our nightmare. The gentleman you speak of is known as "YZ"
>there, and for those of you who used to be on irc, his nick was
>"Po147". He's actually not "fresh off the boat" - he was living in
>Wisconsin getting his Ph.D. in electrical engineering for the past
>several years. He learned how to play poker and blackjack while there,
>and moved from there after graduation to San Jose looking for a job.
I met YZ at the President in Davenport, IA about 18 months ago.
He was playing regularly in the 20-40 there at the time. I'm glad to
hear that he doesn't tilt alot anymore.
--
Kevin L. Prigge | "There is nothing more frightful
Internet Services | than ignorance in action."
University of Minnesota | - Goethe
Tom Weideman
>
> In article <36152A...@dcn.davis.ca.us>,
> Tom Weideman <zugz...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >Welcome to our nightmare. The gentleman you speak of is known as "YZ"
> I met YZ at the President in Davenport, IA about 18 months ago.
>
> He was playing regularly in the 20-40 there at the time. I'm glad to
> hear that he doesn't tilt alot anymore.
Ummm, perhaps I should revise what I said. His behavior is deplorable.
What I meant to emphasize was that he doesn't blow off chips when he
gets upset, but he DOES get upset. Everyone's used to losers getting
upset, but he flies off the handle when he takes one small beat when
he's already up about 5 racks, and that bothers people alot. As
animated as he is, it doesn't seem to affect his game greatly, though I
think it pisses off the other players so much that they throw money at
him. Their blind hatred has (IMO) been a major stumbling block many of
the players have had in "solving" him. Of course, the fact that he's
been holding more than his share of winning cards hasn't hurt none,
either.
Tom Weideman
Kevin L. Prigge
When most of your opponents are playing AT you rather than WITH you,
you're in the right place.
Actually, he's a very nice guy away from the table. I don't know
if his behavior at the table is just a ploy, or for real. I'd
imagine that there is some +EV to putting your opponents on tilt.
Grant Denn
>
> andr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > The word around the table is that there is this new kid. Arrived from China
> > to get a job in Silicon Valley - ends up playing 80-160 and beats the shit out
> > of all the locals. He was there I was watching him play. He is a good player.
> Welcome to our nightmare. The gentleman you speak of is known as "YZ"
> there, and for those of you who used to be on irc, his nick was
> "Po147".
Oh My God.
TripSixes
-------------
Grant 'R' Denn Dept. Physics/Astronomy University of Iowa
http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~grd/
!!! Buy the "Aquarius" card game at !!!
http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Aquarius/Aquarius.html
BobA928674
>From: andrasnm@my-d
>I sit down buy in for a rack and lose my first hand -
>raised pot (down $160 - two bets) I don't care because it is 'only chips and
>I have a rack in front of me.. but deep down I am scared because it is a
>shitload of money and the game is 5 times bigger than my now confortable
>15-30, plus the players are not quite 15-30 caliber either.
if you keep this up you will quickly go broke. it doesn't take long at this
limit
BobA928674 The most beloved member of R.G.P.
Po147
Thanks, Kevin, for still remembering me:)
Admittedly, I still have a lot to learn in the card room. But one thing I want
to make clear is that I have never tried to gain edge by irritating people. I
have my own understanding about poker. It is a competition of intellegence,
knowledge, character as well as fanancial situiation, mental and physical
conditions. Whether I take it a way of making money or enjoying life, I do not
try those unethic moves.
I did overracted in some situiations in the past a few months playing at
Bay101. One of the reasons (I am not trying to give excuses) was that I had a
very hard time the first month I played there. For example, the first day I
played at the 80/160 game, I asked every player who sit next to me if they want
to chop the blinds. To my supurise, in about a dozen of tries, I did not get a
single "yes". Even worse, some players' replies were quite irritating and
insulting. Tired of hearing all these words, I finally said: well, maybe it is
easier for me just never chop. I had chopped blinds every oppotunity I was
given before. And I have not chopped blinds ever since I started to play at
Bay101.
The 80/160 game at Bay101 is quite different from the games I had played
before. I am not talking about the technical part. I am talking about the
playing enviroment. I had never expected to run into a game that I can heard
irritating and malicious words so often. That is one of the reasons I do not
want to be a pro though I can beat most of the pros.
Glad to hear from you, hope to see you in the cardrooms soon.
Yueqi Zhu
P.S. This reply runs a bit late. I had not read or post to this group since
that smoking thread untile someone referred this thread to me days ago.
Tom Weideman
> Admittedly, I still have a lot to learn in the card room. But one thing I want
> to make clear is that I have never tried to gain edge by irritating people. I
> have my own understanding about poker. It is a competition of intellegence,
> knowledge, character as well as fanancial situiation, mental and physical
> conditions. Whether I take it a way of making money or enjoying life, I do not
> try those unethic moves.
This I can absolutely confirm. YZ (aka "Po147", "Rich", etc.) strikes
me as being nothing but a straight-shooter. Any benefit he has gained
by (unintentionally) tilting others has been purely coincidental.
> I did overracted in some situiations in the past a few months playing at
> Bay101. One of the reasons (I am not trying to give excuses) was that I had a
> very hard time the first month I played there. For example, the first day I
> played at the 80/160 game, I asked every player who sit next to me if they want
> to chop the blinds. To my supurise, in about a dozen of tries, I did not get a
> single "yes". Even worse, some players' replies were quite irritating and
> insulting. Tired of hearing all these words, I finally said: well, maybe it is
> easier for me just never chop. I had chopped blinds every oppotunity I was
> given before. And I have not chopped blinds ever since I started to play at
> Bay101.
True, most of us never chop the blinds. That's because we are a pretty
competitive bunch. But I don't think it's anything personal - it's
possible you misunderstood a joke. I dare say you hold an edge against
a great many of the players who insist upon playing head up with you in
the blinds. BTW, it's okay to fold some of those big blinds when I
raise in the small blind and we're head-up... I don't try to steal as
often as you think I do. ;-)
> The 80/160 game at Bay101 is quite different from the games I had played
> before. I am not talking about the technical part. I am talking about the
> playing enviroment. I had never expected to run into a game that I can heard
> irritating and malicious words so often. That is one of the reasons I do not
> want to be a pro though I can beat most of the pros.
Try playing in Los Angeles. San Jose is downright friendly in
comparison. Also, you have to be careful to filter out those things
that are spoken in frustration of losing a pot while stuck, subtle jokes
that weren't intended to be mean, and words spoken by someone
complaining about their misfortune, not your play (you have a tendency
to defend yourself when someone shows frustration at an unlucky turn of
the cards). Basically, I think a great deal of the problems during play
arise from miscommunication - I frankly don't know of anyone there who
has anything against you personally if they have had even the most
casual interaction with you away from the table.
See you soon.
Tom W.
JBK
Po147 wrote in message <19981012010142...@ng30.aol.com>...
Largely Snipped......
>The 80/160 game at Bay101 is quite different from the games I had
played
>before. I am not talking about the technical part. I am talking about
the
>playing enviroment. I had never expected to run into a game that I can
heard
>irritating and malicious words so often. That is one of the reasons I
do not
>want to be a pro though I can beat most of the pros.
>Yueqi Zhu
You are an experienced and very good player. You probably understated
the behavior of the rude players. The joint is in a catch-22 situation,
it cannot enforce a zero-tolerance (abusive language) policy, because
many of the abusers are "regulars". The abusers are hurting poker,
generally and "across the board". I have noticed that players are
complaining of seeing the "same faces" in the Taj. The abusers are
hurting their own potential action, when players do not return.
Maverick
> Admittedly, I still have a lot to learn in the card room. But one thing I want
> to make clear is that I have never tried to gain edge by irritating people. I
> have my own understanding about poker. It is a competition of intellegence,
> knowledge, character as well as fanancial situiation, mental and physical
> conditions. Whether I take it a way of making money or enjoying life, I do not
> try those unethic moves.
Sounds like you don't have a complete game.
> I did overracted in some situiations in the past a few months playing at
> Bay101. One of the reasons (I am not trying to give excuses) was that I had a
> very hard time the first month I played there. For example, the first day I
> played at the 80/160 game, I asked every player who sit next to me if they want
> to chop the blinds. To my supurise, in about a dozen of tries, I did not get a
You think irritating players is unethical yet colluding with adjacent
players to chop the blinds isn't?
These people are there to making money...not get anted off at $3/round
while you are sitting around chopping blinds.
Po147
> You think irritating players is unethical yet colluding with adjacent
>players to chop the blinds isn't?
>
Excuse me? Are you new to poker? (I know you are not new to this group) I do
not know why you consider chopping blind as "colluding". I am very interested
in knowing how it works.
>These people are there to making money...not get anted off at $3/round
>while you are sitting around chopping blinds.
>
In "bottom drop" game, the $3 is gone before you see your cards. In time rake
game, you pay the time as long as you take a seat. I dot not know how you save
money by not chopping blinds. As for pot rake, you are more likely to lose
money by not chopping blinds because not many players can out play their
oppenent that much to make up the drop. This is espcially true in low limit and
high drop game.
Most players do chop in most situiations from what I have seen. In general,
players are happy to get their own blinds back (though not necessary a good
thinking). And many players feel uncomfortable when players next to them refuse
to chop. Some reasons that I can think not to chop blinds are: they think they
are a much better player than the guy sit next to them and want to make money
out of him; they do not like the guy and want to challege him; they like
heads-up play; or they just like the action.
I was trying to explain my own feeling by giving the chopping-blinds example.
Either I put it poorly or you did not read it carefully, or maybe both.
sorry,
YZ
rec.gambling.poker
Lee Jones
Po147 <po...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You think irritating players is unethical yet colluding with adjacent
>>players to chop the blinds isn't?
>>
>
>Excuse me? Are you new to poker? (I know you are not new to this group) I do
>not know why you consider chopping blind as "colluding". I am very interested
>in knowing how it works.
Excuse me? Are you new to r.g.p.? Maverick is our resident troll. Ignore
his flame-bait and you'll find r.g.p. (modulo our new {friend} at hotmail)
to be virtually flame free.
Regards, Lee
"Nothing to see here folks; move along."
--
Lee Jones | "Thank you, falletinme be mice elf, Agin"
le...@sgi.com | (Thank you, for letting me be myself, again.)
650-933-3356 | -Sly Stone
http://reality.sgi.com/leej_engr
Grndadi
>want
>to make clear is that I have never tried to gain edge by irritating people. I
>have my own understanding about poker. It is a competition of intellegence,
>knowledge, character as well as fanancial situiation, mental and physical
>conditions. Whether I take it a way of making money or enjoying life, I do
>not
>try those unethic moves.
I have played with "Richie" on many occasions in the past in the cardrooms in
the midwest and have never known him to do anything unethical at or away from
the table.
I've never seen him deliberately try to irritate anyone.
>Actually, he's a very nice guy away from the table.<
Yes he is.
>I'd
>>imagine that there is some +EV to putting your opponents on tilt.
>>
Yes your probably right, but if your opponents choose to tilt because your
winning and running good it's their own fault.
Craig
Maverick
> Excuse me? Are you new to poker? (I know you are not new to this group) I do
> not know why you consider chopping blind as "colluding". I am very interested
> in knowing how it works.
Well, it probably doesn't fit a generally accepted definition of
colluding, but in my opinion, any time players agree before the river to
stop playing a hand against each other is colluding. For example, the oft
seen two players raising non-stop till the whole table folds and then
suddenly each turns over their cards and plays sugar the rest of the way.
Chopping the blinds I think is similar...although I can see why people
want to do that on high limit games.
Maverick
> Excuse me? Are you new to r.g.p.? Maverick is our resident troll. Ignore
> his flame-bait and you'll find r.g.p. (modulo our new {friend} at hotmail)
> to be virtually flame free.
Lee...you might need some anger management training so you can forget
about the quip I made regarding you refunding a player the price of your
book.
Larry Stone
<Pine.HPP.3.95.98101...@measles.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
Big difference, Maverick. When players chop the blinds, they are doing so
before having made any action on their hand. So there's no collusion
against other players since they never had the opportunity.
It's sort of like when everyone folds pre-flop to the BB. Are you then
going to congratulate the BB on his excellent poker playing skills even
though he never did a thing?
--
-- Larry Stone --- lst...@wwa.com
http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/
Roselle, IL, USA
I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them
William Chen
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>On 13 Oct 1998, Po147 wrote:
>> Excuse me? Are you new to poker? (I know you are not new to this group) I do
>> not know why you consider chopping blind as "colluding". I am very interested
>> in knowing how it works.
>
>Well, it probably doesn't fit a generally accepted definition of
>colluding, but in my opinion, any time players agree before the river to
>stop playing a hand against each other is colluding. For example, the oft
>seen two players raising non-stop till the whole table folds and then
>suddenly each turns over their cards and plays sugar the rest of the way.
>Chopping the blinds I think is similar...although I can see why people
>want to do that on high limit games.
>
Without getting into personal attacks, I'm going to argue that the idea of chopping
blinds as collusion is ridiculous. If two players have a "check-down" agreement, it's
possible for them to change their play knowing they have the agreement to the detriment of
the other players, for example the second player putting in a raise to eliminate the other
players knowing he will get a free showdown. How does chopping the blinds fit into this
category? It's an agreement that takes effect *before* either of the two players take any
action. There's no way that having a blind chopping agreement can help the two players nor
hurt any other player. In fact I *want* other players to chop the blinds--this way less
time is spent on hands I'm not involved in.
Bill
Maverick
> Without getting into personal attacks, I'm going to argue that the idea of chopping
> blinds as collusion is ridiculous. If two players have a "check-down" agreement, it's
> possible for them to change their play knowing they have the agreement to the detriment of
> the other players, for example the second player putting in a raise to eliminate the other
> players knowing he will get a free showdown. How does chopping the blinds fit into this
> category? It's an agreement that takes effect *before* either of the two players take any
Having such an agreement they could begin to sandwich raise people who
dare come into the pot on their blinds in hopes of discouraging others
from calling so they could always keep chopping the blinds. I've see it
happen before...just like that. Of course that doesn't mean it's an
effective strategy, and getting cute like that could cost them some big
money if another person actually had a real hand. But it's still collusion
if you raise like this so you can chop the pot with your buddy more often.
William Chen
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
I still don't see what chopping the blinds has to do with this.
Even if they played the blinds out they could sandwich people who dare
come in to their pot in the blinds exactly the same way. In fact the
decision to collude against people who come into the pot is logically
and absolutely independent of whether they chop when nobody is in the pot.
Your logic seems to be this (forgive me for simplifying): (1) Collusion
is wrong. (2) If two people who are next to each other chop blinds then
they are more likely to be colluders. (3) Hence chopping blinds is a
form of collusion and is also wrong.
I'm sure you see the fallacy of this.
Bill
Jan-Maarten Cobben
>It's sort of like when everyone folds pre-flop to the BB. Are you then
>going to congratulate the BB on his excellent poker playing skills even
>though he never did a thing?
I think your irony is misguided here. There are certain skills
involved in letting the table fold to your big blind. Now if you're
the nervous trembling guy staring at your 1 small bet lying in that
disgusting BB in front of you, with a Bambi-look in your eyes that
screams "Please, please, do not raise me" you might want to improve
those skills:
1. Do not look at your hole cards before the action gets to you to
avoid subconscious tells when confronted with that 82o.
2. Your general composure at the table might be of any type, but
certainly not of someone being afraid or timid.
3. Make sure to have a general image of a guy/gal not being pushed
around to easily. You could for instance call once a while in a raised
multiway pot with some random trash (which is actually not a bad call
anyway), and if you win by showdown you will notice the healthy
side-effects of people raising your BB much, much less often.
4. When possible make a play in the BB, like someone raises on the
button, SB folds and you now reraise heads-up with a hand like 87s.
Then, for instance, if no Ace flops you bet the flop and see what
happens. Plays like this also greatly enlarge the longevity of your
BB-bet in future rounds.
5. When you do fold your BB when heads-up with a raiser, do not fold
immediately even when you have complete trash and want to fold anyway.
Look at him, look at your cards again, let him sweat a little, then
with some generous remark gently throw your cards in the muck. The
idea to get in their heads is that if you fold in your BB it is your
generosity, and not their agressive play, that made you do so.
Maybe you can think of some more skills.
NewJane1
>idea to get in their heads is that if you fold in your BB it is your
>generosity, and not their agressive play, that made you do so.
Good post!!! Wow..I really learned something this morning.
I love those rare instances when, for reasons known only in the recesses of my
evil heart, I stay in a multi-way pot. I call a couple of raises from those big
bullies in late position. Here comes the flop: It's ugly. I fire out the first
chips...and watch the raisers hem and haw and scratch and spit and FOLD...
God, I love it when that happens.
Mind you, I don't do it often, but sometimes I am guilty of seeing a flop from
the big blind with cards I would normally fold in a heartbeat.
Your post brought to mind many a wonderful hours spent on the BB.
Thanks.
Janie
HitTheFlop
J.M.C...@med.rug.nl (Jan-Maarten Cobben) writes:
>3. Make sure to have a general image of a guy/gal not being pushed
>around to easily.
I work the work 'stubborn' into the conversation in reference
to myself as often as possible. 'I can't fold there, I'm a stubborn
cuss'. Worth something, I'm sure.
Best Luck,
Ed (no, not that Ed!)
I eat guys like you for breakfast! Jeffery Dahmer
Rsfee
play. :)
Regards,
Richard Fee
Maverick
> I still don't see what chopping the blinds has to do with this.
> Even if they played the blinds out they could sandwich people who dare
> come in to their pot in the blinds exactly the same way. In fact the
> decision to collude against people who come into the pot is logically
> and absolutely independent of whether they chop when nobody is in the pot.
It's not logically independent of whether or not they chop because
chopping is part of the condition. Modus somethingorotherpollens.
Whatever it's called.
Maybe it's not explicit collusion, but making any deal that didn't include
the full table's support seems wrong to me. I'm suspicious these little
treaties between players is -EV in the long run to their opponents. I
don't want to see commraderie on the table which could possibly be the
forerunner to more shady behavior. I want people to draw each
other's blood when it comes to dragging a pot.
Maverick
> I love those rare instances when, for reasons known only in the recesses of my
> evil heart, I stay in a multi-way pot. I call a couple of raises from those big
> bullies in late position. Here comes the flop: It's ugly. I fire out the first
> chips...and watch the raisers hem and haw and scratch and spit and FOLD...
I find it incredulous that a multi-way pot raised twice preflop flops ugly
and you can't get a single caller. If I was a late position raiser, I'd
at least call one SB on the flop with those pot odds...and you might
get raised by me and let you stew in your own juice for a bit and let you
wonder if I have the AA or flopped a set.
Maverick
> Maverick, Maverick,
> By the time I decided to perform the BB trick mentioned in my post, I have no
> doubt that you would already be in a stew of your own. I figure the sexual
> tension you would be under would cloud your judgement to the extent you
> wouldn't know shit from shinola...
My sexual tension is always eased after I put a
woman on a bluff, tell her the ERA doesn't apply when it comes to poker
ability, drag a rather large pot, and watch her try to get condolence from
the dealer. It's like a big giant release of testosterone.
Maverick, Poker Caveman Cum Laude
> That is, of course, assuming you know shit from shinola in the first place...
Well, I do know that your Fancy Play isn't going to get the whole table to
fold after an ugly flop when it was already 3 bets to see a flop...at
least not in a CA game. More likely, the hold'em players here will 4 bet
you on the hopes that one of their overcards will hit.
> I don't have ulcers, I am a carrier..
I'll leave this one alone.
NewJane1
>and you can't get a single caller. If I was a late position raiser, I'd
>at least call one SB on the flop with those pot odds...and you might
>get raised by me and let you stew in your own juice for a bit and let you
Maverick, Maverick,
By the time I decided to perform the BB trick mentioned in my post, I have no
doubt that you would already be in a stew of your own. I figure the sexual
tension you would be under would cloud your judgement to the extent you
wouldn't know shit from shinola...
That is, of course, assuming you know shit from shinola in the first place...
I don't have ulcers, I am a carrier..
Janie
I
NewJane1
>woman on a bluff, tell her the ERA doesn't apply when it comes to poker
>ability, drag a rather large pot, and watch her try to get condolence from
>the dealer. It's like a big giant release of testosterone.
ATTENTION
SEE PREVIOUS POST where Mav mentions his 25cent condoms...
I'm a lover, not a fighter..
Janie
Robert Copps
(William Chen) writes:
>
>
> Without getting into personal attacks, I'm going to argue that the idea
> of chopping blinds as collusion is ridiculous.
>
It is collusion against the house.
--Bob
Po147
>Lee...you might need some anger management training so you can forget
>about the quip I made regarding you refunding a player the price of your
>book.
>
>
Ooooops, I read this one a bit too late. I have just put an order through
ConJelCo to buy Lee's "Winning Low-limit holdem". I am going to give it to one
of my friends who had asked me for a good poker book. Maybe you can change my
mind by giving some reasonable thought. Or.....never mind.
YZ
William Chen
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, William Chen wrote:
>> I still don't see what chopping the blinds has to do with this.
>> Even if they played the blinds out they could sandwich people who dare
>> come in to their pot in the blinds exactly the same way. In fact the
>> decision to collude against people who come into the pot is logically
>> and absolutely independent of whether they chop when nobody is in the pot.
>
>It's not logically independent of whether or not they chop because
>chopping is part of the condition. Modus somethingorotherpollens.
>Whatever it's called.
See you keep saying this but I don't agree or even see how it *can* be true.
Can't I make an agreement (implicit or otherwise) with the person next to me
that we'll play out the blinds but if anyone else comes in on our blinds we'll
collude against him? By logically independent I mean that
>
>Maybe it's not explicit collusion, but making any deal that didn't include
>the full table's support seems wrong to me. I'm suspicious these little
>treaties between players is -EV in the long run to their opponents. I
>don't want to see commraderie on the table which could possibly be the
>forerunner to more shady behavior. I want people to draw each
>other's blood when it comes to dragging a pot.
>
By the same logic then buying a drink for another player is a little shady and
shouldn't be done without the full table's support. Also if we loosely define
collusion as "working together" then there's some form of collusion in every
multiway pot--the draws collude against the made hand or maybe the two nut
straights sandwich the flush draws and sets in the middle. Also all the
pros can be said to collude against the fist or the locals against the tourists.
Also I might have mentioned the case where the regulars in one of my games could
have been accused of colluding against one particularly abusive player. I admit
if I had a choice of plays that wasn't clear or didn't seem to afffect my EV very
much, I would choose the play that would cost him the most money like putting in a
double bet when it was clear he was on a draw. I didn't feel bad at all when he
busted out because he was a total asshole who deserved everything he got especially
because some of his advantage was gained by riling up the fish and tilting them.
This is all part of life, sometimes you're on the other side--people gang up against
you for no reason other than you are different (or have been winning all of their money
recently). As the only Asian in most of my elementary school classes I might know
something about this. You then have a few choices.
1) Leave the game or situation. (Fold)
2) Take on all comers. (Raise)
3) Try to diplomatically defuse the situation. (Call)
4) Appeal to a higher authority (Floorman!)
Any of the above responses may be an appropriate thing to do. If you think you still have
way the best of it, then 2) may be right (this is the Bruce Lee solution). Otherwise try
3) and buy them a drink and ease up on that attitude. If you think the situation is
grossly unfair or that what's going is outright cheating this then tell the teacher, call
the Flooman, or appeal to the Supreme Court or UN. Otherwise cut your losees and move on.
How we decide to handle these tough situations really goes to the core of who we are. If
poker is really a game of people then the true expert players should be best suited to
handle these situations.
Bill
Maverick
> See you keep saying this but I don't agree or even see how it *can* be true.
That's becuase you are inept. If as part of the premise I make it a
requirement that they are raising because of the chop, then they can't be
mutually exclusive.
Tad Perry
I have to agree with Maverick. There are players that will make an
agreement to chop the blinds and as soon as they do, it's as if they
are connected. (Have you ever heard "If you call, I call"?). Well,
it's only one more step from that type of cooperation to: "Hey, he
raised us; let's both get him so he doesn't do it again." Hey, I've
even *heard* such statements. So how can Maverick be totally wrong,
given I've *heard* that?
The thing is that most blind choppers don't take it that far. It's
fairly rare that agreeing to chop will result in anything more than
chopping. But it's definitely not unheard of.
Chopping blinds doesn't "lead to" other collusive agreements
necessarily. Chopping blinds is "one of these type agreements" and
merely indicates a willingness to collude (up to what point you don't
know). Fortunately, blind chopping is the full extent of most
player's willingness to collude. And in those cases, let them chop
as it affects no one else.
But if a pair of blind chopper's tries talking me out of a raise on
the button, there's nothing I love more than finding a raising hand
and raising them. Those people usually couldn't play their way out of
a paper bag anyway so let them have at it.
Tad Perry
Jeffrey B. Siegal
With a per-hand button charge (most clubs in California take the button
charge even if the blinds are chopped though a few have a "no flop; no drop"
rule), it is collusion *for* the house.
"Let's hurry up and end this hand before it starts so we can pay the house
another $3 or $4."
I generally don't chop blinds in a button-charge game.
Po147
>agreement to chop the blinds and as soon as they do, it's as if they
>are connected. (Have you ever heard "If you call, I call"?). Well,
>it's only one more step from that type of cooperation to: "Hey, he
>raised us; let's both get him so he doesn't do it again." Hey, I've
>even *heard* such statements. So how can Maverick be totally wrong,
>given I've *heard* that?
>
>The thing is that most blind choppers don't take it that far. It's
>fairly rare that agreeing to chop will result in anything more than
>chopping. But it's definitely not unheard of.
>
>Chopping blinds doesn't "lead to" other collusive agreements
>necessarily. Chopping blinds is "one of these type agreements" and
>merely indicates a willingness to collude (up to what point you don't
>know). Fortunately, blind chopping is the full extent of most
>player's willingness to collude. And in those cases, let them chop
>as it affects no one else.
>
>
We were arguing about whether chopping blinds is collusion, not whether
chopping blinds may lead to collusion. There are A LOT OF things at poker table
MAY lead to collusion yet they do not fall in the category of collusion. Sex
may cause heart attack and kill people. Yet you can not call it a killer. It
may be good or bad to your health, depending on your own condition.
YZ
Tad Perry
I don't think that analogy matches this case though. My statements
were intended this way: blind chopping *is* collusion of a sort. It's
basically an extension of *implicit collusion* where the fishy sorts
want their money in a big pot that supports their fishy styles. They
agree not to put their money at risk in a heads up situation where
skill is dominant to save their ammo for a multi-way pot.
However, the act of blind chopping itself does not obviously hurt
anyone else at the table because the possible hidden adverse effect on
other players of that extra ammo showing up in *another* pot is so
negligable that I don't care.
Tad Perry
Po147
>were intended this way: blind chopping *is* collusion of a sort. It's
>basically an extension of *implicit collusion* where the fishy sorts
>want their money in a big pot that supports their fishy styles. They
>agree not to put their money at risk in a heads up situation where
>skill is dominant to save their ammo for a multi-way pot.
>
reasons for chopping blinds. The reason you mentioned above is just one of
them. Atfer all, in blind-chopping situiation, only two players are involved.
If they play out, normally one has +EV, the other one has -EV. And in some
situiation both have -EV (it is not possible for both have +EV though). Money
flows between the two players, and a possible drain. Do not forget in poker
game, it is not how well you play matters. What matters is by how much you can
out play your opponents. So in heads-up situiation, you probably can not call
both "fishy sorts" if they decide to chop. Sometimes, it is smart to chop blind
even though you can out play your oppenent (and hence probably have +EV)
because you can spend your time and energy better in other situiations. I dot
not think most players think that far when they chose to chop blinds. Even some
do, it more fits to the category of strategy than collusion.
YZ
ETIHWJP
Recent experience at Mirage, 40/80 game.
Big blind offers to chop and SB raises. BB calls and is told by another player
he should either fold or reraise. BB catches 2 pair and wins.
1/2 hour later same deal. SB raises but this time BB reraises.. They raise and
reraise all the way as the board is rags.
BB has aces, SB has Jacks.
BB pulls a $1000 pot!
Oops!
Regards,
ET
wc...@my-dejanews.com
<Pine.HPP.3.95.98101...@measles.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, William Chen wrote:
> > See you keep saying this but I don't agree or even see how it *can* be true.
>
> That's becuase you are inept.
This sounds like a good way to start a rebuttal.
> If as part of the premise I make it a
> requirement that they are raising because of the chop, then they can't be
> mutually exclusive.
>
There's no more incentive for the players to sandwich other players because
of their agreement to chop than there is for example if the two player
establish a friendly rapport or buy drinks for each other. Are you implying
that friendly conversation or buying drinks is also a form of collusion?
My point of view is that chopping blinds itself is not collusion because that
agreement doesn't hurt the EV of any other players adversely.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Maverick
> There's no more incentive for the players to sandwich other players because
> of their agreement to chop than there is for example if the two player
> establish a friendly rapport or buy drinks for each other. Are you implying
> that friendly conversation or buying drinks is also a form of collusion?
I'm not discussing incentive...nor am I implying anything about drinks.
It sounds like you are trying to get off the mutually exclusive topic
regarding chopping the blinds now that I made my point.
However, if you'd like my comment about the drinking comparison, I'll give
a shot(pun). Actually, there's a big difference between pre-meditated
chopping/raising and a friendly drink rappport. The drinking doesn't
explicitly involve other players...so it's unrelated. However, you could
possibly relate drinking if the players were drink-potting it...but that
wouldn't necessarily have the same effects as chop/raising.
> My point of view is that chopping blinds itself is not collusion because that
> agreement doesn't hurt the EV of any other players adversely.
It can easily hurt the EV of other players by chasing them out of pots
they'd have normally won with the threat of the sandwich raise. There are
plenty of hands people would normally call with who'd now fold if it was
made overtly evident to them that they'd be the victims of a sandwich
raise throughout the river.
Maverick
> My point of view is that chopping blinds itself is not collusion because that
> agreement doesn't hurt the EV of any other players adversely.
The fact that it does hurt other player's EV if the blinds threaten a
sandwich raise is also evident by the fact that blind positions are
generally -EV positions...which are now allowed to be even EV because of
the sandwich raise threat...this increase in EV because of the sandwich
raise threat can only mean a loss in EV to other opponents...otherwise the
law of conservation of EV wouldn't be satisfied.
wc...@my-dejanews.com
<Pine.HPP.3.95.981021...@cutlass.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
Fine. Agreeing to collude if another player enters the pot is collusion.
Chopping the blinds without this agreement is not collusion since it doesn't
affect the EV of other players (the big blind may be giving up EV in a
3-chip game but that's another story). However chopping the blinds does not
lead to the collusive agreement--in fact as I already pointed out the players
can agree to collude against people who enter the pot even if they don't chop.
Ramsey
>Fine. Agreeing to collude if another player enters the pot is collusion.
>Chopping the blinds without this agreement is not collusion since it doesn't
>affect the EV of other players
If there is a player in the game without enough chips to call all my
bets (and raises) to the river then my ev suffers as there is an
artificial cap on what I can win from that player.
If that player is offered a chop when in the blinds then that agreement
also *directly* affects my ev.
As an extreme example consider the player who is all-in posting his
small blind. If it is folded round to the blinds and they have to play
then there is a 50-50 chance that the sb will have to rebuy (or make way
for fresh money). If they chop then he can sit for at least another 8
hands locking up a seat and costing me money.
--
'Dragon' Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
wc...@my-dejanews.com
Oh good point. Fine, if neither player is in danger of going all-in then it
isn't collusion. It might actually be anti-collusion since if they did play
heads up one player might lose enough chips to become short stacked and then
have the so-called short-stack advantage against you.
I didn't considered that--BTW the person losing most of the EV is the BB since
he won't be able to use his position effectively against the short stack.
Maybe I should agree to chop unless the person is short stacked.
[Ok, but the all-in edge is really a small effect and it really can't be said
that the players are colluding against you when one of them is short stacked.]
Calks
In article <6vt1ol$5...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "JBK"
<sunset...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>You are an experienced and very good player. You probably understated
>the behavior of the rude players. The joint is in a catch-22 situation,
>it cannot enforce a zero-tolerance (abusive language) policy, because
>many of the abusers are "regulars". The abusers are hurting poker,
>generally and "across the board". I have noticed that players are
>complaining of seeing the "same faces" in the Taj. The abusers are
>hurting their own potential action, when players do not return.
>
I disagree that rooms cannot enforce zero-tolerance against players who use
abusive language, even if they are not regulars. I normally play at a private
club
in NYC and a California visitor commented about what a pleasant atmosphere
it was to play in because we basically have a zero tolerance policy. Even
regular players are tossed out for a couple of weeks for bad behavior and
permanently if their behavior continues to be unacceptable. Granted, this is
the
only place in the city to play $15-30 and higher and both Foxwoods and AC
are two hours away so the room has a little more leverage, but if all the major
rooms in California adopted a tougher attitude towards abusive players the
problem would soon dry up. Rude players would have to change their attitude
or stop playing, and most regular players I know would rather give up breathing
than playing. The clubs might face a short-term drop off during the adjustment
period, but after that attendance will probably rise as people who were turned
off by the bad behavior returned.
Jeff Calkins
Maverick
> I disagree that rooms cannot enforce zero-tolerance against players who use
> abusive language, even if they are not regulars. I normally play at a private
If a casino had a zero tolerance policay against abusive players, they
wouldn't have any players or dealers left.