Sgt Rock's Poker Philosophy Part 2
Sgt Rock
---
Sex Sells
Whoever said that "men are pigs" was probably mostly right. Whoever
said that a typical man thinks about sex once every 45 seconds was
probably just charitably underestimating the frequency. If I thought I
could get away with it, or could possibly fool anyone, I would
unhesitatingly shave my legs and put on a makeup, nylons, a wig and a
skirt to go play poker.
Here's my last variation on the equation for Poker:
Result = Performance ą Luck [+ Gender]
Yes, I AM saying that just "being female" can be an advantage in a poker
game against typical men. And all the better if she is attractive and
appealing, dresses provocatively, maybe even flirts a little. This is
not to say that the flirtatious centerfold who plays for shit will still
win; she probably won't. But a woman who knows how to play and also
knows how to exploit a man's sexist biases? Are you kidding me? I'd
give my left nut to sit behind that stack.
Unfortunately, it turns out you have to give both nuts, and then some,
to make that transition and *really* assume a female persona. Plus, I'd
still be ugly. OK, never mind. Put that scalpel away, will ya? I
won't be fading THAT bet anytime soon. :-)
But I will be thinking about, and trying hard to better understand, and
to quantify, just what it is about the dynamic between men and women
that creates this potential advantage. Could it be that the average man
playing against a woman might tend to--
* Pay her off more than he would a male opponent?
* "Take it easy on her" ?
* Bluff too much? Not bluff enough?
* Checkraise less?
* Refuse to believe or accept that she can play, and underestimate
the threat she poses?
* Try to run over her more than is prudent?
* Just plain *want* to give her chips?
Some of those bullets seem to contradict one another, don't they? Well,
ya know what? I think that it happens in various ways at different
times, and that sometimes it's chivalry, sometimes it's misogyny, and
sometimes it's somewhere in between. It may at times also be
paternalistic, filial, sororal, predatory, or an attempt to dominate, or
to surrender, to impress, to seduce, or just plain get lucky in a
completely non-gaming sense. Whatever it is, I just wish I could bottle
and sell it.
The female player may have other advantages, besides that potential
opportunity to exploit men's biases. I don't know much about that
left-brain/right-brain stuff, nor do I know what science may know about
psychological, intellectual, or other non-physical differences between
genders.
After 33 consecutive years of marriage, all to an actual woman, you
might reasonably expect that I would have some small clue about women,
and could explain all those mysteries to you. Well think again, because
I don't, and I can't. All I know for sure is this: In addition to the
obvious and delightful physical differences, women also differ from men
in their analytical, subjective reasoning, intuitive, deceptive, and
creative abilities. In some situations those differences might put a
lady at a disadvantage, but my inferior male intuition tells me that, in
a poker game, her gender-based abilities have tremendous potential for
doing a jujitsu number on a man's ego.
My only remaining non-surgical out seems to be cyberspace, where one CAN
*become* whomever or whatever they like. And you can bet your ass that
my ONLINE poker persona is very much of the distaff persuasion.
Hey, remember the guy who had the surgery and wore breast implants for a
year+ to win a $100K bet? How much would you have to jack up those
stakes, and what kind of genuine wacko would you have to find, to get a
guy to undergo a sex-change operation and otherwise "become a woman,"
just to boost his (her) poker win rate? I wonder about things like
that, don't you?
No, you probably just wonder how a nice lady like Mrs. Rock could ever
have hooked up with a sicko pervert like me. Well get in line, because
so do I, so does she, and so does everyone else who knows us wonder the
same thing.
---
You Go, Howard
I mentioned Roy Cooke earlier, and as long as I'm name-dropping and
sucking up to celebrities, I want to complement Howard Lederer. In the
category I'm thinking about, here's a guy who seems unique among his
peers.
Over the years, a large number of poker celebrities have posted on RGP,
but pretty much every one of them had only a brief tenure here. Most
bailed on us rather quickly, discouraged by that Two Percent Club of
lowlife respondents who attack them with moronic, obscene, or otherwise
infantile taunts. Roy Cooke simply said he was "...tired of being a
human dartboard." It's probably not surprising that guys like Roy,
Doyle and Caro gave up on RGP. It's certainly not surprising that this
wide-open frontier of a free speech forum includes that Two Percent Club
of pathetic flamers. Sad, maybe, but not surprising.
What is surprising, or perhaps just encouraging, is how Howard seems
impervious to the retards, is smart enough to simply not acknowledge
their existence, and continues to make valuable contributions now and
then. A real mensch. I'd bet he's Performance-oriented, too. Doh. :-)
---
The Muckleshoots' Dayshift Flasher
Most dealers hold the deck low and horizontal, or sometimes tilt the
front edge down just a bit. This guy holds the deck higher than most,
and tilts the front edge UP just a little. Result: As cards come off
the deck to be pitched, an observant player, especially in the
neighborhood of seat 3, can sometimes catch an oblique glimpse of a
card's face. Over the last year I've told three shift bosses all about
this dealer's weakness, hoping they might offer him some remedial
instruction. Well, he might be holding the deck a tiny bit lower now,
but the upward tilt persists, so I don't *think* they bothered to talk
to him about it. Now, when this guy deals I watch the other players to
make sure they're not watching closely enough to see the cards dealt to
me! So far I've never seen anyone else paying much attention.
---
I Can't Afford to Play Low Limit
I have a friend who is a Hold 'Em player with just over one year of
experience in live games, after learning with computer simulations. He
came to me recently asking for help, after playing $4/$8 throughout
2003, keeping copious records, performing well- he felt- and booking a
$7,400 loss for the year.
"What kind of hours do you play?" I asked him.
"I'm *really* into the game now," he replied, "and over the year I
averaged 25 hours a week." This guy is single, and has a flexible job.
:-)
"OK," I told him, "Let's say 50 weeks at 25 hours per, or 1250 hours for
the year. Now let's estimate how much, on average, you spend on rake
and tokes per hour." So we did. Then we multiplied that by 1250.
Since that day he went away and recorded these things (drop and tokes)
in his game for a solid week, and we used those counts to revise the
estimate (upwards...) and do the math again. Based this data, which he
says is quite representative, he wins, on average, 3.1 raked pots per
hour, where the pot is raked (including jackpot drop) $2.90, and he
tokes $0.85. So:
2.90 rake + .85 toke = 3.75 "cost per pot." Then,
3.75 cost/pot x 3.1 pots/hr x 1250 hrs/yr = $14,531 total "cost."
"So," I told him, "You didn't lose, you won. You beat the guys you
played against out of some $7,100 last year. But then the COST OF
PLAYING, drop and tokes, turned your gross win into a net loss. Had you
played all those same hands and same pots against those same guys in a
player-dealt home game, with no drop, you could have that win in your
pocket. Feel better now?"
He didn't seem to. No, he just same there dumbfounded for a couple
minutes, wearing a pained expression. "How do you overcome this?" he
finally asked.
"Me?"
"Well, yeah, you have the same costs, don't you?"
"Maybe more," I told him, "because in the $20/40 game we reach the $3
max rake with a $60 pot size more often, like pretty much whenever
there's a flop. But you have to think about the rake in proportion to
the bet size.
"We're playing identical bet structures, you and I: 4 chips small bet, 8
chips big bet. It's just that you're playing with $1 white chips and
I'm playing with $5 red chips. In your game they rake up to three white
chips, and another white for the jackpot. That's one small bet.
Imagine if they raked three redbirds in the $20/40 game and another for
the bad beat. Do you think I would play in a $20/40 game that dropped
$20 every hand? No freakin' way! But proportionally, that's what you
and every other $4/8 player is doing.
"Since we measure expectation as bets per hour, we should also measure
drop in terms of bets, not dollars. If the typical drop is $3+1, then
in the $4/8 game that's one small bet; in the $10/20 game it's 0.4 small
bets, and in the $20/40 game it's 0.2 small bets. In other words, the
$4/8 game is FIVE TIMES more "expensive to play" than the $20/40 game!
"If you thought the exercise to estimate your cost of playing $4/8 was
interesting, try this one: Look at your $4/8 data for 2003, then
estimate where you'd be if everything were the same, except that you and
all those same guys had been playing $20/40, where the pot would be
raked 0.2 rather than 1.0 small bets. How's your year now?"
Turned out he couldn't do the math, so I helped him again. This is
kinda funny, because I'm barely a high school graduate, and he's an MBA,
but says he "never was very good at word problems." Go figure. Anyway:
1. "Give back" all the drop to his $4/8 results:
14,531 - 7,400 = 7,131 actual $4/8 gross win
2. Jack it up from $4/8 to $20/40:
7,131 x 5 = 35,655 theoretical $20/40 gross win
3. Rake that 20/40 gross win (now at full $3 rake + $1 jackpot + $1
toke per raked pot):
35,655 - ( $5 cost/pot x 3.1 pots/hr x 1250 hrs/yr ) = $16,280
theoretical $20/40 net win
Of course the theoretical win assumes that he'd fare the same at $20/40
as he did at $4/8, and I repeatedly told him in the strongest terms that
this is a VERY dangerous assumption.
The upside to this whole story is that after weighing Sarge's counsel
and advice, my friend decided to step-up to the $20/40 game anyway,
where Mrs. Rock has been kicking his ass unmercifully. No problem; he
can afford it. You wouldn't believe how many semi-retired Microsoft
millionaire stock-option kiddies there are here in Seattle. :-)
Meanwhile, I can't afford to play low limits. Can you?
---
Horseshoe Memories
We never set foot in Las Vegas until 1991, so I don't have any *really
old* Shoe tales to tell. Our pal Fich dragged me in there around '92 to
feast at the wonderful sportsbook deli, and Mrs. Rock and I played
single deck BJ there now and then. Of course we all got our pictures
taken with the million bucks every chance we got.
One time Fich and I briefly played 21 perhaps too aggressively there,
like splitting tens in a sky-high count, and when we walked out two pit
bosses followed us down the street!
I posted before about how my first-ever $20/40 Hold 'Em was at the Shoe,
and after that we played and stayed there a few times. Once we stayed a
week over on the old Shoe side, in a dumpy tiny second floor room above
the gift shop, and Fich carefully explained how the room had originally
been larger, but that countless coats of paint over the years had
brought all the walls closer together.
One unique thing about the Shoe in those days was their machines. Every
other casino you see has the slots set to loudly go DING, DING, DING.
Not the Shoe. Their machines just politely and quietly went click,
click, click, and I really appreciated the reduced noise pollution.
Their gift shop was also unique; it was the only one in town that didn't
price gouge you on every damn thing, and I really appreciated that too.
Couple times after a weekend just playing $20/40 Hold Em, we asked for a
limo to take us to the airport. No problem. We wound up toking $20 for
what could have been a $15 cab ride, but it was worth it.
And of course the Shoe is where I got (stole) most of the dozen wood
racks in my collection.
---
Peppermill Lake
This is kind of off topic- blackjack rather than poker- and goes back
ten years, but it's a funny story, and I want to share it with you. In
1993, Mrs. Rock and I flew to the Stardust to play $3/6 Hold 'Em nearly
every weekend. Guess I hadn't yet read that article about the high cost
of low limit. :-)
That Summer we had a nice angle going with America West Airline.
Whenever possible, we flew home Sundays on their 7:30pm flight, Vegas to
Seattle, but with a 30 minute stop in Reno. First time we rode it, I
sought out and introduced myself to the America West Reno station
chief. Just told him what we were about, no bullshit, and made my
pitch. We were elite-level frequent fliers back then, and showing him
our America West "Chairman's Club" cards didn't hurt. He laughed, said
sure, why not, and gave me his phone number in the "back office."
Then, whenever we rode that flight, I would phone him before it even
left Vegas, let him know we're coming through, and, hey, please put us
#1 and #2 on the Denied Boarding List. In other words, if you're
overbooked with Sunday night Reno boarders (doh) then we volunteer to be
bumped. This worked as often as not, and so half a dozen times or more
we and our carry-ons "unexpectedly" deplaned in Reno, and made a
blackjack side-trip to the Peppermill. Then we went on home the next
day, or maybe a couple days later.
This was a good deal for him too, because anyone else he bumped usually
needed hotel and meal vouchers in addition to the Silver Liner (free
flight next time) passes. We had comped room and meals, and he knew we
only wanted the Silver Liners.
Peppermill was just awesome in those days. All single deck with Vegas
strip rules, all foxy and friendly female dealers, best damn coffeeshop
this side of anyplace, Tommy Bell and his great funky blues band live in
the main room. It was hog heaven, and we just loved it. I played the
"high roller" BJ table at the corner of the pit. It was $25 minimum,
fine by me, and I just spread green 1:3, flirted with the dealers,
grooved to the great band, joked around with the bosses, and had way
more fun than I am usually permitted to have.
Then one time we showed up and it was some kind of big weekend, so my
favorite table was $100 minimum. Gulp. OK, I had the BR, and played it
anyway. All day and night, actually, and with, as I recall, vaguely
neutral results.
Throughout that day there was a 50-something guy named Gary D. over at
first base. Real quiet guy, average player, nicely dressed, but with a
rough and weathered look, and calloused hands. I don't recall seeing
him drink any alcohol.
After dinner Gary moves over to third base, and around 11:00pm I'm
sitting right next to him in seat 5, pushed back from the table some,
kinda spread out, stretching and relaxing. Long day.
I glance down at the floor beneath the table, and near the back corner I
notice some beer spilling onto the carpet. I'm thinking there must be a
bottle overturned on the tabletop near the discard tray, and so I look
up, intending to reach out and set it upright.
But there is no beer bottle on the tabletop. Then I look back down, and
Oh My God. Gary has $300 in the betting circle, and is holding two
cards with his right hand, but has his left hand under the table. He
has dared to Free Willy, and is calmly urinating onto the floor, just
beside the dealer's right foot. I mean, on the lookback I inadvertently
and accidentally (tragically!) got such a good view that I can tell you
with reasonable certainty that Gary is not Jewish.
Never before or since have I ever been rendered so completely
speechless. Nearly paralyzed, I lost the count, and could barely manage
to act on my hand. I had to remind myself to breathe, and when I did, I
began to notice a foul odor. Then a couple others at the table began to
wrinkle their noses and mumble about "What's that smell?" Around this
time Gary stands up, adjusts his trousers, picks up his few remaining
chips, politely says "Goodnight," and walks away!
As soon as he's out of earshot, the dealer, with a stricken look on her
face, quietly asks "Did what I think just happened really just happen?"
"Uh, yes," I tell her. She looks down at the carpet, groans, grimaces
with disbelief, sidesteps away from the small lake, calls the floorman,
and whispers in his ear. Housekeeping is summoned, and they repeatedly
put down, then vacuum back up, some absorbent powder stuff.
Soon we're all laughing about it, and the jokes went on for some time.
Next day I'm back at the same table when Gary returns and buys back in!
Nobody says a word, but the boss, dealer and I exchange knowing looks.
I felt particularly vulnerable in my Birkenstock sandals, but he kept it
in his pants this time. I kept my feet off of the floor and up on my
stool anyway, just in case.
That weekend and for a long time afterwards, I always figured that Gary
just *really* had to go, but was too caught up in the game to leave his
seat for even a moment, and so he had- probably reluctantly- just cut
loose right there. How naive can I be? Now I understand that Gary was
making a statement, no reluctance. He got beat up in that game all day
long, and before leaving he just wanted to say "piss on you."
And that's pretty much what Peppermill told ME a couple months later.
In spite of heroic efforts to kiss-up to the bosses as best I could, I
didn't cover my counting well enough, and they gave me the permanent
back-off. More naivete. Now I understand that advantage play in a game
like that needs to, among many other things, go south with about two
times hourly expectation just to survive scrutiny from the spreadsheets.
---
Next Up (Coming attractions - available soon at newsreaders
everywhere.)
I've started work on the next report, which *tries* to be a serious
Mini-FAQ kind of a response to this "Generic Composite RGP Post" :
Dear RGP- I've been playing [$0.50/$1.00][$3/6][$10/20] for something
like [a year][six weeks][twenty minutes] now.
At first I did extremely well, and so naturally I was planning to [quit
my job][drop out of school][leave my wife and kids][be granted parole],
move to Vegas, and turn Pro.
Now I'm not so sure. I've been on a losing streak for the past [six
months][two weeks][twenty minutes] and have lost [eight
dollars][thousands][my entire net worth, plus everything I could borrow
or steal from neighbors, friends, and family]. <gratuitous snip of bad
beat stories.>
What I need to know is this:
1. How long can a losing streak last?
2. How long will my losing streak last?
3. When will I reach "the long run?"
4. How much bankroll do I need to be a Vegas poker Pro?
5. When will I start to win 2 big bets per hour?
Please Help.
(signed) Waldo Q. Wannabe - dead_...@chapter11.com - Poker Pro
In-Training (on the rail)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This should be fun.
---
To close, I want to restate the disclaimer I made a couple years ago
about how there is little original thought in my posts. Apart from
those "philosophical equations," most of the concepts I offer originated
before my time, and are already described in various books and
articles. Sometimes they were hidden in incomprehensible syntax and
sometimes they were painfully presented with bad grammar, but other
writers were there first, no doubt. All I do is observe, research,
reflect, and report. No charge.
I would however, very much like to hear from those who stayed with it
and got this far. I'd *really* like to know how many are out there
reading. If that's you, could you please be kind enough to do one of
these things?
- Post a response here on RGP.
- Ship me an email (address below.)
- Visit my web page (below) and "sign" the guestbook. Use any fake
name/address you like.
Thanks!
Sergeant First Class Rock
US Army Signal Corps, Retired
mail to - sgt DOT rock AT comcast DOT net
The new comcast addresses above replace my old sarge.virtualave.net web
and email addresses. After 5 glorious years, virtualave discontinued
free hosting in Jan 2004. Thanks for the ride!
---
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Writer, FrameMaker expert, Webmaster (UNIX/Linux-Apache), Perl-CGI
Programmer for hire, virtual, part-time. Writing portfolio at URL
above. Publishers of print or electronic media or other interested
parties please contact sgt DOT rock AT comcast DOT net
Linda K Sherman
> Whoever said that "men are pigs" was probably mostly right. Whoever
> said that a typical man thinks about sex once every 45 seconds was
> probably just charitably underestimating the frequency.
I think that was "every four to five seconds", not "every forty-five
seconds."
--
Linda Sherman
-
Anyone but Bush in 2004
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Sgt Rock wrote:
>
>> Whoever said that "men are pigs" was probably mostly right. Whoever
>> said that a typical man thinks about sex once every 45 seconds was
>> probably just charitably underestimating the frequency.
>
>I think that was "every four to five seconds", not "every forty-five
>seconds."
I looked it up. I've got the book here.
The exact quote is:
"...every 4-5 seconds..." *
__________________________________________________________
*Pimplemon, Maurice. "Men Are Pigs", New York: Random House, 1997,
2nd edition.
C06777
>From: Larr...@charter.net (Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips)
>Date: 2/15/04 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <402ff809...@news.cis.dfn.de>
Darn it, I just KNEW I was getting cheated. My significant other only thinks
about it every SIX seconds. Maybe I can spike his viagra with some viagra so
he can catch up to the average.
NewGCA
> and got this far. I'd *really* like to know how many are out there
> reading. If that's you, could you please be kind enough to do one of
> these things?
> - Post a response here on RGP.
> - Ship me an email (address below.)
> - Visit my web page (below) and "sign" the guestbook. Use any fake
> name/address you like.
Sgt. Rock,
I am a WORLD CLASS CHEAT and a WORLD CLASS SCAMMER. I'm also a
licensed Feng Shui consultant, call me for a free quote. Anyhoo, I
recognize an OTBS when I see one coming, so I'll just say "Excellent post,
please post more" and shut my cakehole.
Respectfully,
Gen. Russ LeMay
Hanoi
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Shawn Behrens
enjoyed your piece. I'd actually have thought the third component to
play would have been "reason" or "math", but "performance" is much nicer
and includes all the "soft skills" such as putting people on tilt, not
going on tilt, and "looking right into yer soul" as well as the nerdy
math stuff.
I think I'm results-oriented. I don't know nearly enough to be able to
judge performance. But I can see results, they're right there in front
of me.
But then, what do you expect from someone who has been playing poker for
20 minutes and still doesn't even dare the 0.01/0.02 tables at UB and
rather stays with the funny money games.
Your comment about female vs. male play made me think. Maybe I'll
genderswitch for online play. Once I actually start playing for real
money, which will be Any Year Now.
If females get an edge, how about drag queens, though? Would
outrageously campy behavior coupled with large earrings and a
monstrosity of a hat skew expections, put the odd player at the table on
tilt, and generally distract from the actual _play_ of the player? Maybe
your idea of shaving legs, putting on makeup, a wig and a dress isn't
such a bad one. You don't have to fool anyone. All you have to do is be
a queen with style, and enjoy the gay-bashers trying to run you over/out.
Along the same vein, how about a pimp outfit (www.pimphats.com) with
plenty bling? Would that scream "wannabe rich dude"? There's even pimp
boots with little fish in the soles; now _that's_ making a statement.
The house shouldn't care. They get the rake. If one of the players
insists on putting half the table on tilt, so be it. As long as they
come back, that is. Hmm. Maybe the house would care. Worth a try, eh.
If you do decide to experiment with queen or pimp outfits, please let
RGP know of results. And be sure to take pictures :o).
Cordially yours
Shawn
Sgt Rock
> ...If females get an edge, how about drag queens...?
> ...outrageously campy behavior...
> ...put the odd player at the table on tilt, and generally distract...
> ...[or] ... how about a pimp outfit...?
Shawn, I LIKE the way you think. :-)
--
Sgt. Rock
http://home.comcast.net/~sgt.rock
mailto- sgt DOT rock AT comcast DOT net
Shawn Behrens
> Shawn Behrens wrote:
>>...If females get an edge, how about drag queens...?
>>...outrageously campy behavior...
>>...put the odd player at the table on tilt, and generally distract...
>>...[or] ... how about a pimp outfit...?
>
> Shawn, I LIKE the way you think. :-)
Thanks for the kudos :o). Alright, look out for Barbra Bosom, world!
That's my Inner Drag Queen name according to
http://www.femininechaos.co.uk/drag/name.html ;).
Shawn, who is 6'5". Muhaha. How high are high heels? Will I reach 7'?
Peg Smith
>I would however, very much like to hear from those who stayed with it
>and got this far. I'd *really* like to know how many are out there
>reading.
I enjoy everything you write, Sgt. I'd read your grocery list if you posted it.
Peg
C06777
~~ Dianne
Bad Bob
wrote:
Yeah but we all know how "easy" you are...
Bad Bob
[Smother him in Onions and
cook him till he is blue.]
Vince lepore
> (Conntinued from Part 1)
> ---
>
> Sex Sells
> Result = Performance ą Luck [+ Gender]
>
> Yes, I AM saying that just "being female" can be an advantage in a poker
> game against typical men. And all the better if she is attractive and
> appealing, dresses provocatively, maybe even flirts a little. This is
> not to say that the flirtatious centerfold who plays for shit will still
> win; she probably won't. But a woman who knows how to play and also
> knows how to exploit a man's sexist biases? Are you kidding me? I'd
> give my left nut to sit behind that stack.
A woman that thinks logically and plays with her head and not her
emotions does gain from the bias some men seem to apply to women.
That is that they don't know what they are doing. However, the same
can be said of young men when playing aginst older men. The same can
also be said of Asian or Black men when playing against some
caucasions. Or black men vs Asians. The list goes on. It is not a
gender thing it is an ego thing on the part of some people. By the way
some women also benefit from the attitude other women have towards
them because some women believe other women don't know what they are
doing.
Vince
Vince's Mother's Spirit
Be careful what you say, Vinny. Mason doesn't agree with you. He doesn't
think women have any advantage from being women. Be prepared for a real
scolding when Mason sees you again. I guess that's why Mason ordered
Skalansky to post only on two plus two and ordered you to post only on
rgp. I love you, Vinny. I'm your mother. If I don't, who will?
--
the spirit of vinny's ma
_________________________________________________________________