Gary Carson started me thinking about this and this is what I came up with. Blame him, credit me.
First I will state the paradox and then I will give examples and explain.
If two games are available the game with the better conditions will attract the thinking players, making the game with inferior conditions the better game.
If you are a regular at (fictional) Casino Downtown, where there is a one-dollar jackpot drop and you hear that there is no drop at (fictional) Casino Westside, your first reaction will be to change games. If you do, you will probably see almost every thinking player from Casino Downtown show up to play there over the next few sessions. On the other hand, the dufoi who are the source of your profits, continue to distribute themselves somewhat randomly. So seats at Westside are taken up by whoneedsthems and games at Downtown are better.
The 1/2 NL games at Foxwoods are on a time charge. The same games at the Mohegan Sun are raked. Many of the self-consciously tight players, some of them actually competent, are attracted to the raked games; the bozos go to both on a random basis. Which games are going to be better?
If there is a minor difference in conditions between two games, and not non-poker conditions like hot waitresses or lighting, the better players will go to the better conditions. You should go where the better players are not going.
> Gary Carson started me thinking about this and this is what I came up > with. Blame him, credit me.
> First I will state the paradox and then I will give examples and > explain.
> If two games are available the game with the better conditions will > attract the thinking players, making the game with inferior conditions > the better game.
> If you are a regular at (fictional) Casino Downtown, where there is a > one-dollar jackpot drop and you hear that there is no drop at > (fictional) Casino Westside, your first reaction will be to change > games. If you do, you will probably see almost every thinking player > from Casino Downtown show up to play there over the next few sessions. > On the other hand, the dufoi who are the source of your profits, > continue to distribute themselves somewhat randomly. So seats at > Westside are taken up by whoneedsthems and games at Downtown are > better.
> The 1/2 NL games at Foxwoods are on a time charge. The same games at > the Mohegan Sun are raked. Many of the self-consciously tight players, > some of them actually competent, are attracted to the raked games; the > bozos go to both on a random basis. Which games are going to be > better?
> If there is a minor difference in conditions between two games, and > not non-poker conditions like hot waitresses or lighting, the better > players will go to the better conditions. You should go where the > better players are not going.
How many levels of thinking are we talking about here? The better of the better thinkers will go to where the better thnkers are not, the best will go to where the better of the better are not. Russ would apply at least 7 levels here and end up staying home.
> How many levels of thinking are we talking about here? > The better of the better thinkers will go to where the better thnkers are > not, the best will go to where the better of the better are not. > Russ would apply at least 7 levels here and end up staying home.
Time matters.
If the two games are in place for long enough, they will reach equilibrium, and it won't matter which game you go to.
Flip a coin.
-- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSl...@gmail.com Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
There's a similar effect online at lower limits at sites that have a bazillion players.
An action player will show up in a game and the average pot size will sky-rocket. Everyone and their cousin will get on the wait list. By the time you're in, the guy that was making the game is usually gone. Now some other game is the best game. Get in line. Repeat forever. You're forever chasing, and never part of, the best game going.
~5 years ago I traveled to LA every couple of weeks to play 20-40 Stud/8. Initially I played at the Bike. They had the lowest rake for that game in LA and had a 'reward' program on their player's card that allowed some players to earn $1,000+/mo extra. The game was so-so. Then one day I decided to try the game at Hollywood Park which had a higher rake and no reward program. I never went back to play that game at the Bike again.
I haven't been there in years........thinking it's time to go check it out again.
Howard Beale
_____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 28 2008 8:14 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > Gary Carson started me thinking about this and this is what I came up > > with. Blame him, credit me.
> > First I will state the paradox and then I will give examples and > > explain.
> > If two games are available the game with the better conditions will > > attract the thinking players, making the game with inferior conditions > > the better game.
> > If you are a regular at (fictional) Casino Downtown, where there is a > > one-dollar jackpot drop and you hear that there is no drop at > > (fictional) Casino Westside, your first reaction will be to change > > games. If you do, you will probably see almost every thinking player > > from Casino Downtown show up to play there over the next few sessions. > > On the other hand, the dufoi who are the source of your profits, > > continue to distribute themselves somewhat randomly. So seats at > > Westside are taken up by whoneedsthems and games at Downtown are > > better.
> > The 1/2 NL games at Foxwoods are on a time charge. The same games at > > the Mohegan Sun are raked. Many of the self-consciously tight players, > > some of them actually competent, are attracted to the raked games; the > > bozos go to both on a random basis. Which games are going to be > > better?
> > If there is a minor difference in conditions between two games, and > > not non-poker conditions like hot waitresses or lighting, the better > > players will go to the better conditions. You should go where the > > better players are not going.
> How many levels of thinking are we talking about here?
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > Gary Carson started me thinking about this and this is what I came up > with. Blame him, credit me.
> First I will state the paradox and then I will give examples and > explain.
> If two games are available the game with the better conditions will > attract the thinking players, making the game with inferior conditions > the better game.
> If you are a regular at (fictional) Casino Downtown, where there is a > one-dollar jackpot drop and you hear that there is no drop at > (fictional) Casino Westside, your first reaction will be to change > games. If you do, you will probably see almost every thinking player > from Casino Downtown show up to play there over the next few sessions. > On the other hand, the dufoi who are the source of your profits, > continue to distribute themselves somewhat randomly. So seats at > Westside are taken up by whoneedsthems and games at Downtown are > better.
> The 1/2 NL games at Foxwoods are on a time charge. The same games at > the Mohegan Sun are raked. Many of the self-consciously tight players, > some of them actually competent, are attracted to the raked games; the > bozos go to both on a random basis. Which games are going to be > better?
> If there is a minor difference in conditions between two games, and > not non-poker conditions like hot waitresses or lighting, the better > players will go to the better conditions. You should go where the > better players are not going.
Glad to have you back Will. Have you not been playing much poker lately.
1. Foxwoods went to a pot rake about 2 weeks ago. The 1/2 game is now nittier but an utter Wampum-cow since they are still giving you 1.5 per hour.
2. You are assuming that the tight players a. know which the better game is and b. don't consider the amount of rocks vs tourists in the game.
3. There is still merit in what you say. For example in my 3 Vegas trips I have noticed that there is an inverse relation to a room's reputation on 4 and the quality of the game. Specifically Mongoloid Bay and Bally's are despised on that forum (for good reasons) but had very loose games when I went there.
The exception was the Bellagio which I thought the games were okay, since being #1 it's a magnet for just about all players.
> ~5 years ago I traveled to LA every couple of weeks to play 20-40 Stud/8. > Initially I played at the Bike. They had the lowest rake for that game in > LA and had a 'reward' program on their player's card that allowed some > players to earn $1,000+/mo extra. The game was so-so. Then one day I > decided to try the game at Hollywood Park which had a higher rake and no > reward program. I never went back to play that game at the Bike again.
How many black players were in the games at each place? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I used to play at Hollypark specifically because there were more blacks, even in the 20-40 games, and they can't play worth a lick.
Tad Perry wrote: > There's a similar effect online at lower limits at sites that have a > bazillion players.
> An action player will show up in a game and the average pot size will > sky-rocket. Everyone and their cousin will get on the wait list. By the time > you're in, the guy that was making the game is usually gone. Now some other > game is the best game. Get in line. Repeat forever. You're forever chasing, > and never part of, the best game going.
> tvp
There are some players who are *always* part of the best game going.
-- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSl...@gmail.com Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:fb6406x546.ln2@recgroups.com... > > ~5 years ago I traveled to LA every couple of weeks to play 20-40 Stud/8. > > Initially I played at the Bike. They had the lowest rake for that game in > > LA and had a 'reward' program on their player's card that allowed some > > players to earn $1,000+/mo extra. The game was so-so. Then one day I > > decided to try the game at Hollywood Park which had a higher rake and no > > reward program. I never went back to play that game at the Bike again.
> How many black players were in the games at each place? I'm not trying to > be a smart ass, but I used to play at Hollypark specifically because there > were more blacks, even in the 20-40 games, and they can't play worth a lick.
Not many. It's an easy stereotype, just as easy as the ones for Asians or for old people. I learned long ago not to judge until I see the play. I remember a line from Roy West (long booted from his Card Player Column) that while most players treated unknowns as bad players he treated them as the best players in the world until they proved him wrong and that is what I do.
I think the Black population in Metro-Phoenix is lower than the national average. There are a fair number of them playing at CAZ. I'd say that they are about as average as anybody else and far less action than the 'Crazians.'
I DO remember that there was 1 Black woman regular at the Bike's game. The first time I visited she was on my right. I spent the first couple of hours not playing many hands, fumbling w/ my chips and cards and trying to look like a noob. Finally I caught good and played the hand strong. When I was raking in the chips she said something like: 'If I ever play somewhere else I'm going to try all that fake idiocy that you just used so well.' It didn't fool her, so there is that.
> How many black players were in the games at each place? I'm not trying to > be a smart ass, but I used to play at Hollypark specifically because there > were more blacks, even in the 20-40 games, and they can't play worth a lick.
I ought to know better, but I am dead serious and I am dead right. Have you ever played in Gardena or Hollywood Park? Because if you haven't, maybe you ought to just stay out of this because you don't know what you're talking about. And I don't mean to imply that they play anything at all like the "Crazians" to use a term that Howard Beale just used. I don't mean they play crazy at all. I mean they just play poorly, that's all. And I am right. I've played for years and years in Los Angeles. There are many more black players at Hollywood Park and in Gardena than over at Commerce or the Bike. Let me tell you something, DeleteThis, if there is a seat open at two tables of the limit you want to play at and one is a table of white guys and the other table has a few black guys or girls playing, if you are smart you will choose the table with blacks. I am not trolling as Raiderfan just surmised elsewhere in this thread. That's because Raiderfan is not a professional or serious enough poker player. Yet I am, and I know what I'm talking about. And I'm not saying this to be insulting or to put down black people. But I sense that that is exactly where you are going with this, DeleteThis. How dare you! You don't know nothing about me. I am not some kind of white bigot if that is what you are implying. I also don't fully understand why blacks as a group play so poorly. Maybe they don't. Maybe just the ones in Los Angeles do. But I am correct on this. I am absolutrely correct. And I don't like the tone of your reply. Not at all.
> Come on. Paul's entitled to a few trolls every now and then.
There's no troll about it. But I am quite sure you are not a serious or professional poker player. Yet I am, and I know exactly what I am talking about. Obviously DeleteThis is hung up with some kind of guilt trip and cannot see the reality of the situation. I did not mean to be demeaning in any way and I resent his obvious tone. DeleteThis is way out of line. I haven't had very good success at communicating with him in the past. I don't want to insult his intelligence so I will just dismiss this as a failure to communicate. But still I'd just as soon he killfile me or avoided replying to my posts in the future. He's got me just a little bit agitated at the moment and I don't need this shit.
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:df9506xvk9.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > On Nov 28 2008 6:44 AM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>> >> That is such a crock of crap -
>> > Come on. Paul's entitled to a few trolls every now and then.
>> There's no troll about it. But I am quite sure you are not a serious or >> professional poker player.
> You're right. I'm not a serious or professional poker player. Even so, I > know better than to assume an opponent is bad based on their ethnicity.
Then you just don't know. That's all. You DON'T "know better". Obviously you have never played in Los Angeles. Like the example I gave elsewhere in this thread, if there are two seats open, one at a table full of old white guys and one at a table with a few of the local blacks, you would be smart to sit at the table with the blacks. But that's only if you are serious about poker and want to make money. As you've admitted, you're just a "recreational" player. In other words, you're most likely one of the donators. You and DeleteThis are obviously hung up with some kind of guilt trip where you are afraid of "unfairly" characterizing someone based on ethnicity. But THAT'S the crock of crap. Not what I say is a crock of crap, rather it is what you and DeleteThis are saying that is the crock of crap. I've played for years and years in Los Angeles, and neither of you have any business challenging me on this. You're both really out of line. How dare you challenge me. I'm not stupid.
I am an old man the grew up in the south and heard crap like that in my youth and much of my life as a young adult about all blacks. Blacks are no more likely to play good or bad than any other group. If it was a 28 year old white guy making the dumb or bad plays you would not remember his playing - you would just refer to him as a tourist and move on. It appears you recall some bad plays because they were black players and perhaps you associate the play as a result of skin color where as if it was just another tourist they would fall in a big group of players with no reference to skin color. I have played in most of the LA area card rooms at levels from 1-2 limit(see another post) to 20-40 but mostly at 6-12 and 15-30 with some 1-2NL mixed in. I have never played in Gardena but the others more than 10 or 12 times each. I was at the grand opening of the Hustler and have never seen a more impressive room but they just were not ready and a second visit did not improve my opinion of the place and I have never returned. I play mostly at HG when I go to visit now and find the players a slight upscale from the Bike or Commerence and it is the closest room to Orange county. I do not play poker for a living and as my name implies - my average result is -$200 but if my play declines any more, I will need a need handle -- -$300
If you are trying to impress me with the idea that you are some kind of professional poker play - please dont waste your time - many are not worth the effort to drop a twenty in their tin cup as you leave the casino. A few are the models for a small one man business and I respect them but that respect is earned - they must "walk the walk". They handle the ups and downs of poker like any good businessman and move on. They dont stoop to angle shooting and cheating to earn a good living. They dont berate players and brag about some crap they pulled. There is one thing all these players have in common. THEY ALL LOSE AT POKER!!. If you listen to them they lose every session and wonder how they are going to make ends meet. Tournament poker has changed that a little but the old salts and the young guns are still "crying" about how much they lost today. They keep telling everyone that will listen that they were backed and the investor got all the money. Be very skeptical of these players - they are often better than you think.
> I ought to know better, but I am dead serious and I am dead right. Have you > ever played in Gardena or Hollywood Park? Because if you haven't, maybe you > ought to just stay out of this because you don't know what you're talking > about. And I don't mean to imply that they play anything at all like the > "Crazians" to use a term that Howard Beale just used. I don't mean they > play crazy at all. I mean they just play poorly, that's all. And I am > right. I've played for years and years in Los Angeles. There are many more > black players at Hollywood Park and in Gardena than over at Commerce or the > Bike. Let me tell you something, DeleteThis, if there is a seat open at two > tables of the limit you want to play at and one is a table of white guys and > the other table has a few black guys or girls playing, if you are smart you > will choose the table with blacks. I am not trolling as Raiderfan just > surmised elsewhere in this thread. That's because Raiderfan is not a > professional or serious enough poker player. Yet I am, and I know what I'm > talking about. And I'm not saying this to be insulting or to put down black > people. But I sense that that is exactly where you are going with this, > DeleteThis. How dare you! You don't know nothing about me. I am not some > kind of white bigot if that is what you are implying. I also don't fully > understand why blacks as a group play so poorly. Maybe they don't. Maybe > just the ones in Los Angeles do. But I am correct on this. I am > absolutrely correct. And I don't like the tone of your reply. Not at all.
>I am an old man the grew up in the south and heard crap like that in my >youth and much of my life as a young adult about all blacks. Blacks are no >more likely to play good or bad than any other group. If it was a 28 year >old white guy making the dumb or bad plays you would not remember his >playing - you would just refer to him as a tourist and move on. It appears >you recall some bad plays because they were black players and perhaps you >associate the play as a result of skin color where as if it was just >another tourist they would fall in a big group of players with no reference >to skin color. I have played in most of the LA area card rooms at levels >from 1-2 limit(see another post) to 20-40 but mostly at 6-12 and 15-30 with >some 1-2NL mixed in. I have never played in Gardena but the others more >than 10 or 12 times each. I was at the grand opening of the Hustler and >have never seen a more impressive room but they just were not ready and a >second visit did not improve my opinion of the place and I have never >returned. I play mostly at HG when I go to visit now and find the players >a slight upscale from the Bike or Commerence and it is the closest room to >Orange county. I do not play poker for a living and as my name implies - >my average result is -$200 but if my play declines any more, I will need a >need handle -- -$300
> If you are trying to impress me with the idea that you are some kind of > professional poker play - please dont waste your time - many are not worth > the effort to drop a twenty in their tin cup as you leave the casino. A > few are the models for a small one man business and I respect them but > that respect is earned - they must "walk the walk". They handle the ups > and downs of poker like any good businessman and move on. They dont stoop > to angle shooting and cheating to earn a good living. They dont berate > players and brag about some crap they pulled. There is one thing all > these players have in common. THEY ALL LOSE AT POKER!!. If you listen to > them they lose every session and wonder how they are going to make ends > meet. Tournament poker has changed that a little but the old salts and > the young guns are still "crying" about how much they lost today. They > keep telling everyone that will listen that they were backed and the > investor got all the money. Be very skeptical of these players - they are > often better than you think.
> to which group do you belong?
I don't belong to any group. All I'm saying is that I have been quite serious about poker since the 70s and have played extensively in the Los Angeles area. I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Period. You admit that you are an average loser, so why are you debating me about something you know nothing about? Keep your ignorance to yourself. You have no business disagreeing with me on my statements of fact. I am not one who casually throws out statements of facts. When I do, they're spot on. Please don't reply to me any more in this thread. I'm frankly a little bit agitated by you. I have little patience for people who have reached your age in life and still have your type of attitude. You've got a lot of nerve disagreeing with me on a subject that I know a great deal about.
> > "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > > news:fb6406x546.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > ~5 years ago I traveled to LA every couple of weeks to play 20-40 Stud/8. > > > Initially I played at the Bike. They had the lowest rake for that game in > > > LA and had a 'reward' program on their player's card that allowed some > > > players to earn $1,000+/mo extra. The game was so-so. Then one day I > > > decided to try the game at Hollywood Park which had a higher rake and no > > > reward program. I never went back to play that game at the Bike again.
> > How many black players were in the games at each place? I'm not trying to > > be a smart ass, but I used to play at Hollypark specifically because there > > were more blacks, even in the 20-40 games, and they can't play worth a lick.
> Not many. It's an easy stereotype, just as easy as the ones for Asians or > for old people. I learned long ago not to judge until I see the play. I > remember a line from Roy West (long booted from his Card Player Column) > that while most players treated unknowns as bad players he treated them as > the best players in the world until they proved him wrong and that is what > I do.
> I think the Black population in Metro-Phoenix is lower than the national > average. There are a fair number of them playing at CAZ. I'd say that > they are about as average as anybody else and far less action than the > 'Crazians.'
> I DO remember that there was 1 Black woman regular at the Bike's game. > The first time I visited she was on my right. I spent the first couple of > hours not playing many hands, fumbling w/ my chips and cards and trying to > look like a noob. Finally I caught good and played the hand strong. When > I was raking in the chips she said something like: 'If I ever play > somewhere else I'm going to try all that fake idiocy that you just used so > well.' It didn't fool her, so there is that.
> HB
you have any idea what Roy Greene went for before he gave up on the 75-150 game at Cas AZ ? 03-04-05 ?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire
> you have any idea what Roy Greene went for before he gave up on the 75-150 > game at Cas AZ ? 03-04-05 ?
A rich retired athlete that wanted to gamble. Old story that has nothing to do w/ 'black'. How much did Bill Bennet go for at video poker before they 'made' him give it up? Roy's problem was more that lower limits were no thrill than that he sucked as much as any other inexperienced player surrounded by many of the tougher regulars.
|
