Executive game
T. Ardito
Junior was running the game previously and this was Tony's first time - how
did he know all of the players? How did Christopher (when he was in the fish
store) know how Silvio had gone off the wall last year - for that matter,
why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie -why was he
playing? Seems the executive game was just 3 players and the sporting goods
guy. Not a real big time game in my impression. I would have thought Junior
would have had a higher number of players in the game.
Also - they said they made 80 boxes of Ziti on the game - and Mr. Sporting
goods owes 45 of those - seems that a great deal of money would have had to
change hands for their cut to be $80,000 - I don't see it with only 4
non-Tony's gang players.
Oh well, Cheese Fuck - get me some food. Great line.
CountV
all the world to see, the following:
> Anyone wonder how everyone at the executive game seemed buddy buddy - if
> Junior was running the game previously and this was Tony's first time - how
> did he know all of the players? How did Christopher (when he was in the fish
> store) know how Silvio had gone off the wall last year - for that matter,
> why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie -why was he
> playing?
Both Sil and Paulie (and Tony, for that matter) were high-ranking men even
under Junior, and Christopher could have filled a position similar to Matt
Cheese-fuck and his pal.
> Seems the executive game was just 3 players and the sporting goods
> guy. Not a real big time game in my impression.
I'll agree on that.
> Also - they said they made 80 boxes of Ziti on the game - and Mr. Sporting
> goods owes 45 of those - seems that a great deal of money would have had to
> change hands for their cut to be $80,000 - I don't see it with only 4
> non-Tony's gang players.
I don't think that Dave's 45.000 is considered part of the winnings, since
they were a loan not yet covered. The 80 is the skim, and if there was big
money floating around, that would also explain why you wouldn't need more
than 4 outside players. However, it would probably require more than 5 grand
just to sit in, I would think, unless you're expecting to quit within 15
minutes.
--
John T/CountV
"Usenet is like Tetris for those who still remember how to read." - Josh
Heller
Design by Coercion - New Years update, with image manipulation section;
http://www.m-ideas.com/coercion/index.htm
Mark
> How did Christopher (when he was in the fish
> store) know how Silvio had gone off the wall last year
executive game... probably during one of Tony's
games, which Christopher very well may have been
a part of... (sweeping up cheese or something!)
> why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie
> -why was he playing?
Poker is no fun to play by yourself... those guys were just
filling seats... had someone else (executive caliber) came
along, Silvio would have been the next to get up!
> Seems the executive game was just 3 players and the sporting goods
> guy. Not a real big time game in my impression. I would have thought
> Junior would have had a higher number of players in the game.
I'm suprised they didn't... should have been 3 or 4 tables w/ 7
players and a dealer!
> Also - they said they made 80 boxes of Ziti on the game - and Mr. Sporting
> goods owes 45 of those - seems that a great deal of money would have had to
> change hands for their cut to be $80,000 - I don't see it with only 4
> non-Tony's gang players.
If the terminator ended up down 45G's, and we know at some point that
he was up... we can take for granted his "action" was upwards of
$100,000. The other guys had been sitting longer, so theirs would
have been higher. Tony taking 10% of the pot means that total action
was somewhere around the $800,000 range... plausible when you're
playing for high stakes...
Bennet K. Langlotz
>> why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie
>> -why was he playing?
>Poker is no fun to play by yourself... those guys were just
>filling seats... had someone else (executive caliber) came
>along, Silvio would have been the next to get up!
And look at another thread where it was explained how two "house"
players acting in concert (even without actual "cheating") can affect
the betting in a way that helps the house, but hurts the guest
players. They make sure that the bet keeps getting raised when one of
the house guys has a good hand, and don't compete against each other
to a guest sitting in the catbird seat.
--
Bennet K. Langlotz
ne...@langlotz.com
Stu Gotz
> players. They make sure that the bet keeps getting raised when one of
> the house guys has a good hand, and don't compete against each other
> to a guest sitting in the catbird seat.
Sacrimone was also playing. 3 connected guys with 2 "executives". That
episode still looks contrived in my book.
Dave D.
--
Dimmi con chi vai, ed io ti diro' chi sei!
Mark
> Mark <eng...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >> why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie
> >> -why was he playing?
> >Poker is no fun to play by yourself... those guys were just
> >filling seats... had someone else (executive caliber) came
> >along, Silvio would have been the next to get up!
> And look at another thread where it was explained how two "house"
> players acting in concert (even without actual "cheating") can affect
> the betting in a way that helps the house, but hurts the guest
> the house guys has a good hand, and don't compete against each other
> to a guest sitting in the catbird seat.
I saw the thread... but does that make it fact?
I thought it was b/s because:
a) If that was the case, they'd be bumping every hand.
The house gets 10% of the rake, right?
b) If they did that, Tony would look like an asshole, be
labeled a cheat, and no-one would play in his games
anymore.
House is going to make money regardless of whether the
players win or lose. As a former "weekly card player"
(albeit I only needed $100.00 to sit down, and we never
had to pay the house) I still believe my assumptions are
more plausable... poker is no fun with less than 4 people.
7 players and 1 dealer make for the perfect evening.
Regards,
Mark
Bennet K. Langlotz
>I saw the thread... but does that make it fact?
>I thought it was b/s because:
>a) If that was the case, they'd be bumping every hand.
> The house gets 10% of the rake, right?
No. The bumping is not done to simply increase all pots, but only to
keep the pot high when one of the house players has a winning hand.
Instead of the doc simply calling Silvio's first bet on a string hand,
Paulie raises it a bit, the doc stays in, more raises, met by the doc,
etc., and the doc ends up losing thousands on a hand that would have
cost him hundreds without the concerted playing by the house players.
Then, when the Doc has great cards, all but one of the house players
will drop out, so that the doc at best only doubles his money, and
only at a small pot level due to the lack of competitive bidding.
>b) If they did that, Tony would look like an asshole, be
> labeled a cheat, and no-one would play in his games
> anymore.
It would not be detectable, except by the subtle pattern of betting.
Remember, the insiders don't need to win every hand, they just need to
shift the odds slightly (which will catch up with the guests in a
prolonged game.) Thus, Davy was up at one time, but inevitably
started losing.
The key isn't that the guests get worse cards, or lose more often, but
just that they tend to win small pots and lose big ones.
Bill Lynch
>
(snip)
>
> The key isn't that the guests get worse cards, or lose more often, but
> just that they tend to win small pots and lose big ones.
So this is the extra edge, in addition to the normal house odds?
Bill L
Mark
>
> Mark <eng...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >I saw the thread... but does that make it fact?
> >I thought it was b/s because:
> >a) If that was the case, they'd be bumping every hand.
> > The house gets 10% of the rake, right?
>
> No. The bumping is not done to simply increase all pots, but only to
> keep the pot high when one of the house players has a winning hand.
> Instead of the doc simply calling Silvio's first bet on a string hand,
> Paulie raises it a bit, the doc stays in, more raises, met by the doc,
> etc., and the doc ends up losing thousands on a hand that would have
> cost him hundreds without the concerted playing by the house players.
>
> Then, when the Doc has great cards, all but one of the house players
> will drop out, so that the doc at best only doubles his money, and
> only at a small pot level due to the lack of competitive bidding.
>
> >b) If they did that, Tony would look like an asshole, be
> > labeled a cheat, and no-one would play in his games
> > anymore.
>
> It would not be detectable, except by the subtle pattern of betting.
> Remember, the insiders don't need to win every hand, they just need to
> shift the odds slightly (which will catch up with the guests in a
> prolonged game.) Thus, Davy was up at one time, but inevitably
> started losing.
Ok, then who (besides the house) won?
Silvio is down 2K.
Paulie didn't play most of the night.
T2 guy is down 45K.
Sinatra is down, how much we don't know,
but he said he'd settle up next game.
The dick doctor must have won... no?
And your theory just flew out the window... again.
Regards,
Mark
Bennet K. Langlotz
>And your theory just flew out the window... again.
And The boys were drinking champagne after the game just to fool me,
and make me think they had really won, when they hadn't?
Be polite.
dale
wrote:
All of the players play against a house dealer. The 80 grand they
talked about at the end was - minus expenses's; house dealer, food,
booze, cheese boys, Uncle June's cut etc., etc., what they made. The
shy or loaned out money wasn't counted - IMHO.
>Anyone wonder how everyone at the executive game seemed buddy buddy - if
>Junior was running the game previously and this was Tony's first time - how
>did he know all of the players? How did Christopher (when he was in the fish
>store) know how Silvio had gone off the wall last year - for that matter,
>why would Silvio even be allowed to play and also Paulie -why was he
>playing? Seems the executive game was just 3 players and the sporting goods
>guy. Not a real big time game in my impression. I would have thought Junior
>would have had a higher number of players in the game.
>
>Also - they said they made 80 boxes of Ziti on the game - and Mr. Sporting
>goods owes 45 of those - seems that a great deal of money would have had to
>change hands for their cut to be $80,000 - I don't see it with only 4
>non-Tony's gang players.
>
>Oh well, Cheese Fuck - get me some food. Great line.
>
>
To reply please remove the ANTI-SPAM
Mark
> Mark <eng...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >And your theory just flew out the window... again.
> And The boys were drinking champagne after the game just to fool me,
> and make me think they had really won, when they hadn't?
> Be polite.
Silvio LOST. For all intents and purposes,
Paulie didn't play. The house will always
win whether the players win or lose, that
was my point. The longer the game lasts,
the more money the house makes. The bigger
the pots, regardless of who takes them, the
more money the house makes! Silvio was
sitting in to take up space, not to cheat
the other players, but to make it a game.
I'll say it again, poker is no fun with
less than 4 people!
Mark
Bennet K. Langlotz
>I'll say it again, poker is no fun with
>less than 4 people!
At least I agree with this.
Feel free to explain how one can earn $80,000 in less than 24 or 48
hours by taking a dealer cut from each pot. You will need to persuade
me by number of minutes per hand, number of dollars per pot, time
played, etc.
NYMan143
and put it ina metal tin- and he puts his tips in his pocket. we used to play
a game like that(not such high stakes though) where the house would take a
certain percent of the pot- i dont remember how much though
Bennet K. Langlotz
Yes, but this would be unlikely to generate $80,000 profit from 3
players in one night. Who would pay over $1000 per hour for the
chance to gamble?
No, much of the winnings must come from the take of the house players
who are betting in a way that increases the take.
Unknown
game, I have participated in many games in which we played as a team
against other players. See my post further down. This is a rigged
game from the git go. There were 3 fat cats ready to be taken.
Winning is secondary to degenerate gamblers. They probably weren't
even good card players. If winning was a prerequisite for gamblers,
how did all those casinos get built in Vegas? Action is what they
crave. All you have to do is let them win occasionaly to kee[p them
in. Silvio's act was largely a put on to make the others think he
really wasn't in control. Tony bankrolled him and Paulie. Am I the
only one who has been in a crooked game (and known it?)
Unknown
Langlotz) wrote:
Bennet, You are correct. Although none of us can say for sure in this
game, I have participated in many games in which we played as a team
against other players. See my post further down. This is a rigged
game from the git go. There were 3 fat cats ready to be taken.
Winning is secondary to degenerate gamblers. They probably weren't
even good card players. If winning was a prerequisite for gamblers,
how did all those casinos get built in Vegas? Action is what they
crave. All you have to do is let them win occasionally to kee[p them
Unknown
Unknown
game, I have participated in many games in which we played as a team
against other players. See my post further down. This is a rigged
game from the git go. There were 3 fat cats ready to be taken.
Winning is secondary to degenerate gamblers. They probably weren't
even good card players. If winning was a prerequisite for gamblers,
how did all those casinos get built in Vegas? Action is what they
MarkC
just to play. Was that to buy into the game, or did he need to have that much 'on
hand' to be able to bet with the big boys? Not to mention, he had LOST 45k over
the 24 hour period, and that wasn't even his money. How much money did Sinatra
Jr., and all the other richie rich's lose since they obviously had the money to
blow?
Just pondering.....
Mark C.
"Bennet K. Langlotz" wrote:
> nyma...@aol.com (NYMan143) wrote:
>
> >The house gets a cut of every pot- you can see the dealer take some chips out
> >and put it ina metal tin- and he puts his tips in his pocket. we used to play
> >a game like that(not such high stakes though) where the house would take a
> >certain percent of the pot- i dont remember how much though
>
> Yes, but this would be unlikely to generate $80,000 profit from 3
> players in one night. Who would pay over $1000 per hour for the
> chance to gamble?
>
> No, much of the winnings must come from the take of the house players
> who are betting in a way that increases the take.
Mark
>
> Mark <eng...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll say it again, poker is no fun with
> >less than 4 people!
>
> At least I agree with this.
>
> Feel free to explain how one can earn $80,000 in less than 24 or 48
> hours by taking a dealer cut from each pot. You will need to persuade
> me by number of minutes per hand, number of dollars per pot, time
> played, etc.
You asked for it... :)
Let's say house took 10% of each hand... that means $800,000.00 was
on the table throughout the course of the night. If the average
pot was $2000.00 that would make for 400 hands. If the average
round took 5 minutes to play (and I'm being generous... the games
I've played in were MUCH faster than that, 7card with 7people)
then they would have played for aproximately 33 hours.
Which is between the 24 and 48 hours you've allotted me...
Also, keep in mind that many of those pots would have been higher
than the $2000.00 I decided to use as an average. (Didn't we
witness at least one round in which someone bet 1200 and everyone
stayed in?)
Regards,
Mark
Mark
> Bennet, You are correct. Although none of us can say for sure in this
> game, I have participated in many games in which we played as a team
> against other players.
every pot... I have the feeling you'd make sure that it was on the
level. 2 players trying to team up on someone is not the same as
> See my post further down.
All I see is the same shit posted 3 times!
> This is a rigged
> game from the git go. There were 3 fat cats ready to be taken.
> Winning is secondary to degenerate gamblers. They probably weren't
> even good card players. If winning was a prerequisite for gamblers,
> how did all those casinos get built in Vegas? Action is what they
> crave. All you have to do is let them win occasionaly to kee[p them
> in.
All you have to do is run a straight game, and not only will you always
finish ahead... people will always come back to play because they'll
know you're not a cheat.
> Silvio's act was largely a put on to make the others think he
> really wasn't in control. Tony bankrolled him and Paulie.
And like I said previously, had someone else (executive caliber)
came in, Silvio would have been next to get out of the game...
he wasn't a shill, he was just taking up space.
> Am I the
> only one who has been in a crooked game (and known it?)
If you've played in a crooked game and known it, then
you're an asshole! A crooked game is one in which the
person running the game has set up (through the use of
shills / underhanded dealing / ...) a situation in which
NO player can win. You and a friend teaming up on other
players does not make a game crooked... it just makes you
a cheat.
Regards,
Mark
Bennet K. Langlotz
>i've come to the conclusion that the numbers don't add up. no way did
>that game take in $80,000.
Unless you count the net winnings of the boys drinking champagne after
the game ended.
Unknown
>
>
>
>> See my post further down.
>All I see is the same shit posted 3 times!
>
>>
>First of all I apologize for the repeated posts. I was getting an error message that said My posts weren't going out.
What is it about this discussion that makes you call people names? I
happen to have my own opinion. Calling someone an ass hole for having
their own opinion just shows your ass to everyone reading your post.
Call it what you will but cheating by playing as a team and being bank
rolled by the person running a game certainly makes the game crooked
in my book.
Think about this a minute. Even if all other arguments fail, you are
talking about Tony and his crew. If you have watched this series
faithfully you should know by now that this group is simply not
capable of running a straight game. When the hijacking of the truck
resulted in a murder and Tony told Chris to return everything, they
still took what they wanted off the rack before returning it. This
behaviors permeates every waking moment of these people's lives. It
would never occur to them to play it straight. Frank Jr. and the Doc
know they're playing with the mob. They know on some level that the
probability of everything being on the up and up is low.
Have you actually ever played this kind of poker? Most participants
know they are going to lose but feel that as long as they only lose
what they can afford it's just the cost of entertainment. As long as
they win once in a while they're ok.
Loosen up. I'm not going to convince you but I won't call you names.
Unknown
settings in my news reader and it may take me some time to sort them
all out. Sorry
Mark
> What is it about this discussion that makes you call people names? I
> happen to have my own opinion. Calling someone an ass hole for having
> their own opinion just shows your ass to everyone reading your post.
I believe what I said was: "If you've played in a
crooked game and known it, then you're an asshole".
I then explained what a crooked game was.
If you were to play under those conditions,
knowing that it would not be possible to win...
then I stand by my statement. It had nothing
to do with the fact that you did not agree with me.
> Call it what you will but cheating by playing as a team and being bank
> rolled by the person running a game certainly makes the game crooked
> in my book.
Right, but:
Silvio didn't have a team... Paulie didn't play much at all!
Silvio lost 2 large. You never saw Tony give that back to him.
> Think about this a minute. Even if all other arguments fail, you are
> talking about Tony and his crew. If you have watched this series
> faithfully you should know by now that this group is simply not
> capable of running a straight game.
Of course they could... you make MUCH more
money running a straight game. I think Tony
is smart enough to realize that, and would
like to have another executive game next year.
You don't gain anything by running a fixed game,
but you have everything to lose.
You think about this for a minute:
if the game was fixed,
a) Why did Paulie stop playing?
5 players is better than 4!
b) Why did Silvio lose 2,000.00?
c) Who won the money? Silvio is down 2K.
T2 is down 45K. JR is down... how much
we don't know. Did DickDoctor break even?
> When the hijacking of the truck
> resulted in a murder and Tony told Chris to return everything, they
> still took what they wanted off the rack before returning it. This
> behaviors permeates every waking moment of these people's lives. It
> would never occur to them to play it straight. Frank Jr. and the Doc
> know they're playing with the mob. They know on some level that the
> probability of everything being on the up and up is low.
> Have you actually ever played this kind of poker?
No. I've never had to pay a rake. Games in which I've played
the deal had always rotated... dealer's choice, and if there
were 8 people, the dealer didn't draw cards... 7 or less, they did.
But I have been in situations in which players have tried teaming
up on other players... though more often than not it would backfire.
You might know what you have, you might know what your partner has...
but you don't know what the other 5 people are holding!
> Most participants know they are going to lose but feel that as
> long as they only lose what they can afford it's just the cost
> of entertainment.
Are you nuts? I've never played with anyone who didn't think
they would end up with everyone else's cash. The reason we
played was for entertainment yes... but also because we thought
we could make an extra $300.00 dollars!
> As long as they win once in a while they're ok.
Not true. As long as they WON, they are all right...
if they lose, they bitch about it until they can
get back in there and make up for the last time.
> Loosen up. I'm not going to convince you but I won't call you names.
I apologize if I offended you... but I still stand by the statement.
Regards,
Mark
SmittyWH
there was a poker game in which some of the pots got up to $30,000. At that
game, they took 3%, and even that seemed a little high.
Thumper
game to get to.
Hoodoo
>You think about this for a minute:
>if the game was fixed,
> a) Why did Paulie stop playing?
> 5 players is better than 4!
> b) Why did Silvio lose 2,000.00?
> c) Who won the money? Silvio is down 2K.
> T2 is down 45K. JR is down... how much
> we don't know. Did DickDoctor break even?
All I know is "Tomorrow's pitching today".
--
Please remove obvious pest deterrent in email
address for personal replies.
There are more love songs than anything else.
If songs could make you do something we'd all
love one another. - Frank Zappa
Gino
way with the Poker tables at Casinos...
I was down at foxwoods a few weeks back (casino in CT) and just won a few
hundred from blackjack (from the measly $40 I brought down with me!). I
wanted to hit the poker room, I walk in, stood and watched a game for a
1/2 hour and almost shit my pants.... There were people losing hundreds of
dollars a hand....
I'll stick with small stakes blackjack.
Mark wrote:
> "Bennet K. Langlotz" wrote:
> > Mark <eng...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > >And your theory just flew out the window... again.
> > And The boys were drinking champagne after the game just to fool me,
> > and make me think they had really won, when they hadn't?
> > Be polite.
> :)
> Silvio LOST. For all intents and purposes,
> Paulie didn't play. The house will always
> win whether the players win or lose, that
> was my point. The longer the game lasts,
> the more money the house makes. The bigger
> the pots, regardless of who takes them, the
> more money the house makes! Silvio was
> sitting in to take up space, not to cheat
> the other players, but to make it a game.
> I'll say it again, poker is no fun with
> less than 4 people!
>
> Mark
Gino
estimated average hand (example) is 5 minutes.
that is 288 hands per 24 hours .....
The house takes ~$277 per pot (remember these pots were over several
thousand each). So there you go.
((24 * 60) / 5) * 277.77 = $80,000
that is
>
> At least I agree with this.
>
> Feel free to explain how one can earn $80,000 in less than 24 or 48
> hours by taking a dealer cut from each pot. You will need to persuade
> me by number of minutes per hand, number of dollars per pot, time
> played, etc.