in poker, there's almost no advantage to...
$Zero
having a reputation as a bluffer.
the maths are already stacked against you without encouraging even
more callers.
however, in poker, _unless_ you're a good bluffer, you have almost no
chance of winning. *
assuming you're not playing with complete fools, that is.
* anyway, this is the paradox of poker.
math is indeed a very important aspect of the game.
however, all things considered, if you're not interested in perfecting
your bluffing skills (and reads), in all probability, income-wise,
you'd be far better off perfecting your scrabble game.
or chess.
or tennis.
or eight ball.
...
of course, when considering the value of this advice, given the
incredible amount of complete fools out there playing poker, all bets
are off.
...
-$Zero...
Neil Young cranks it out again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/40958f836e7a1565
Grand Mal
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bf1d140-2f12-460a...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> in poker, there's almost no advantage to...
In poker, nearly anything can be an advantage, including...
> having a reputation as a bluffer.
I love it, absolutely love it, when someone thinks I'm bluffing.
>
> the maths are already stacked against you without encouraging even
> more callers.
No, the math is even if there's only chairs around the table. As soon as
people sit in the chairs the numbers start to be negotiable.
>
> however, in poker, _unless_ you're a good bluffer, you have almost no
> chance of winning. *
>
> assuming you're not playing with complete fools, that is.
>
> * anyway, this is the paradox of poker.
Well, you never show your cards after you've won a bluff. That's a given
(unless you're playing 'Jacks or Better' or another game where you have to
show openers).
> math is indeed a very important aspect of the game.
>
> however, all things considered, if you're not interested in perfecting
> your bluffing skills (and reads), in all probability, income-wise,
> you'd be far better off perfecting your scrabble game.
>
> or chess.
>
> or tennis.
>
> or eight ball.
>
> ...
>
> of course, when considering the value of this advice, given the
> incredible amount of complete fools out there playing poker, all bets
> are off.
>
Aye, there's the rub. Except that, when fools are involved, all bets are on.
boots
>in poker, there's almost no advantage to...
>
>having a reputation as a bluffer.
>
>the maths are already stacked against you without encouraging even
>more callers.
>
>however, in poker, _unless_ you're a good bluffer, you have almost no
>chance of winning. *
>
>assuming you're not playing with complete fools, that is.
>
>* anyway, this is the paradox of poker.
>
>math is indeed a very important aspect of the game.
>
>however, all things considered, if you're not interested in perfecting
>your bluffing skills (and reads), in all probability, income-wise,
>you'd be far better off perfecting your scrabble game.
>
>or chess.
>
>or tennis.
>
>or eight ball.
>
>...
>
>of course, when considering the value of this advice, given the
>incredible amount of complete fools out there playing poker, all bets
>are off.
In gambling what matters is outcome, not method.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >in poker, there's almost no advantage to...
>
> >having a reputation as a bluffer.
>
> >the maths are already stacked against you without encouraging even
> >more callers.
>
> >you have almost no chance of winning. *
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >however, all things considered, if you're not interested in perfecting
> >your bluffing skills (and reads), in all probability, income-wise,
> >you'd be far better off perfecting your scrabble game.
>
> >or chess.
>
> >or tennis.
>
> >or eight ball.
>
> >...
>
> >of course, when considering the value of this advice, given the
> >incredible amount of complete fools out there playing poker, all bets
> >are off.
>
> In gambling what matters is outcome, not method.
wise counsel.
although, much better applied to playing the lottery than playing
poker.
methodically speaking.
still, for most people, playing the lottery and playing poker are
almost indistinguishable, regardless of the "systems" they think
they've learned or developed.
so for them, your observation applies equally to both.
-$Zero...
staring at the wall
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e71131b3e97fd19f
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > in poker, there's almost no advantage to...
>
> In poker, nearly anything can be an advantage, including...
>
> > having a reputation as a bluffer.
which is why i used the word "almost", however:
> I love it, absolutely love it, when someone thinks I'm bluffing.
well, sure. but the thing is, if you have a reputation for bluffing,
over the long term, it still won't work in your favor because all of
those times when you have slightly less than the best hand, you're
reputation as a bluffer will always come back to haunt you rather than
help you because it encourages less folds.
it's far easier to fake weakness and make it work for you when you
have a reputation as playing very conservative.
when you have a reputation of being a bluffer, nobody respects your
cards, true, but the problem with that is, as a reputed bluffer, it's
much more difficult to scare away people with decent hands for all of
those times when you DON'T have the sure nuts -- which is far more
frequent occurrence than those times when you DO have the best hand.
see what i'm saying?
the funnest of all worlds is to have a reputation as a seriously
reformed bluffer turned totally safe player.
that REALLY fucks with everyone's head.
> > the maths are already stacked against you without encouraging even
> > more callers.
>
> No, the math is even if there's only chairs around the table. As soon as
> people sit in the chairs the numbers start to be negotiable.
no doubt about that.
the human nature factor is the most resource-rich aspect of poker.
> > however, in poker, _unless_ you're a good bluffer, you have almost no
> > chance of winning. *
>
> > assuming you're not playing with complete fools, that is.
>
> > * anyway, this is the paradox of poker.
>
> Well, you never show your cards after you've won a bluff.
for the most part, no.
but there are those very special times when showing a wild winning
bluff can so demoralize an opponent that you can trigger them into an
emotional tilt by doing so.
however, you have to present it as though you were on tilt yourself,
or you'll get a bluffers rep, which as i stated above is definitely
not in your favor.
> That's a given
> (unless you're playing 'Jacks or Better' or another game
> where you have to show openers).
>
>
>
> > math is indeed a very important aspect of the game.
>
> > however, all things considered, if you're not interested in perfecting
> > your bluffing skills (and reads), in all probability, income-wise,
> > you'd be far better off perfecting your scrabble game.
>
> > or chess.
>
> > or tennis.
>
> > or eight ball.
>
> > ...
>
> > of course, when considering the value of this advice, given the
> > incredible amount of complete fools out there playing poker, all bets
> > are off.
>
> Aye, there's the rub. Except that, when fools are involved, all bets are on.
which is the other side of the coin of my point.
the ironic cruel reality side.
because when you get enough fools together who are always staying in,
the odds increase that at least one of them will catch something
better than you.
it's best to have a minimal amount of complete fools in the game.
one or two is plenty.
-$Zero...
"There's a bailout coming but it's not for me
It's for all those creeps watching tickers on TV
There's a bailout coming but it's not for me"
-- Neil Young
[song: Fork in the Road (2009)]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/40958f836e7a1565
Because there's only so much time in a minute!
http://AttnDeficit.com
boots
Do I detect the assumption that in gambling outcomes are determined by
the maths?
Keep reading $Z, there is a certain madness to my method and I have
faith that being who you are you will eventually discern it if you
have not already. <g>