Showing posts with label WSPPD?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WSPPD?. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Should poker players embrace new forms of poker?
This post, possibly the last in my series of posts addressing non-adversarial concerns of poker players, was quite difficult for me to put together because I changed my mind about the answer. I used to think that embracing new forms of poker was a good thing, but after considering it more carefully I now think most players are justified in their reluctance to spend time on a new game.
As I was gearing up to write this article, I convinced myself that my affinity for new games came mostly from the fact that my advantage comes from my superior fundamentals and creativity. After all, playing a new game requires players to draw on fundamental, general principles of poker as opposed to the knowledge of the peculiarities of a particular game. I concocted an analogy between a poker player who plays the same form of poker each day and a golfer who plays the same course each day. Sure, such a golfer could probably establish a profitable advantage over other players on that one course, but if you were truly a good golfer, you would embrace the challenge of playing a new course. You would need to draw on your creativity and your ability to see parallels with courses you've played before, and having good fundamentals would help carry you through the challenge.
In reality, I doubt any professional golfer would tee off for a tournament without ever having practiced the course, and poker players who insist on practicing a new form of poker before anteing up are being similarly prudent. The truth is, I, too, am hesitant to jump into new games for substantial stakes. Instead, I try the game at low stakes first, which is similar to practicing a golf course before a tournament. I think I was fooling myself in thinking that I was willing to put my fundamentals and creativity to the test to the same extent that I have been willing to put to the test my time-tested skills in games like No Limit Hold'em. In NLHE, I have hundreds of hours of results and statistics to support my decision to play at substantial stakes.
That said, I do think there is substantial value in occasionally playing poker variants for low stakes. For one thing, it can act as practice for the games you play regularly. It forces you to focus on different aspects of poker and might help you to see new strategic parallels. In unfamiliar games, the mistakes of your opponents tend to be far more pronounced, and so you might notice some tendencies that are too subtle to have noticed in NLHE but would still be exploitable. Also, exercising your creativity really is fun, and this can reenergize your poker game in general.
You could also choose to do your homework and become truly superior player at a new game. Spend a few days studying the odds for drawing various hands. Work out the correct amounts to bet, call, or raise in several representative scenarios. Play heads-up with a friend and see what situations call for further study. Then play for a day at the lowest stakes offered and make note of what types of mistakes your opponents make. Go back home and calculate how best to exploit them. Then take a stab at some more substantial stakes. At this point, you are probably going to be one of the best players, because very few people will have gone to all this trouble. They will mostly be like me, having fun venturing into unfamiliar waters with only their wits about them. You will have both your wits and a flashlight to help you see where you are going. Still, take care to observe your opponents' mistakes. If you can't find any and you aren't winning, move back down in stakes. This is probably the only prudent and professional way to play a new game for substantial stakes. Your advantage will probably diminish after a few weeks.
Playing a new game can be fun and even profitable, but, like anything, it carries with it an opportunity cost. If you enjoy doing your own research, you can calculate the odds and exploit the unexperienced players for a while, and this might temporarily give you a higher EV than your opponents. On the other hand, it might not, and you are forgoing the value of playing in your standard game (or doing something else entirely).
One thing I've been trying to do with this series is to consider what effect each proposal would have on the poker community as a whole. So, would embracing new games help the community? It's hard to say, but I can see some potential benefits. It could attract interest from new players. Having the option to play a new game also provides a fun alternative for players like me, who might want a break from NLHE every once in a while. Perhaps most significantly, a new and better game always has a chance to catch on and revolutionize poker. After all, Texas Hold'em and was a new game not so very long ago.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Should poker players be willing to play in short-handed games?
Absolutely. Not only should you be willing to play short handed, but short-handed games are actually preferable to full-ring games.
Many players refuse to play unless a game is nearly full. Still more will play if there are five or six players but not if there are fewer than that. Sometimes, while sitting with three or four other players who are unwilling to play until more players arrive, I ask them why they don't like to play shorthanded. One such player told me that short-handed games are too expensive because the blinds come around too often. Sometimes it's simply that they don't want to play shorthanded in a game with me in it. Some players come for the social atmosphere and find that the competition gets too personal with fewer players. Other players seem to just like to sit around folding most of the time while waiting for AA or KK. Still other players probably have other concerns.
So, why do I think short-handed games are not only worthwhile but are actually better for poker players? Let's look at the three main concerns of a poker player: winnings, social experience, and game purity.
Effect on winnings: The old adage that "you need to play more hands when you play short-handed" is overly vague. The truth is that there is a much better way to transfer your strategy from a full-ring game to a short-handed game: When playing X-handed, play exactly as you would play in the same position relative to the button in a 9 handed game after the first (9-X) players fold. As I will now demonstrate, the two scenarios are very similar.
Suppose you are playing in the cutoff or button of a 9-handed game and the first five players after the big blind fold before the flop. If you have an idea of how to play in this situation, then you can play in a 4-handed game. There are only three very minor differences in the two situations. First, the 4-handed scenario would move faster because the deal would be quicker and you wouldn't need to wait for the first five players to fold. Second, the hand in the 4-handed game would be cheaper in most casinos because in most casinos the short-handed game would have a smaller rake and maybe no jackpot drop. (Both scenarios have four players left, so you are about equally likely to win the hand and end up paying the drop.) Third, in the four-handed game, you wouldn't need to worry about any bunching effects, and so the game is slightly easier if you are trying to combinatorially guess your opponents' hands. (As we will see presently, this is probably a negligible concern anyway.) So, the game is faster, cheaper, and easier. Faster and cheaper are clear advantages. Easier is a wash because it applies to your opponents as well as to you.
So, the strategy in a short-handed game has a nearly direct parallel to a situation most full-ring players are already familiar with: the situation where the first several players fold. Consider the implications of this. The first five hands after the blind are the least-often-played hands. They are the spots where you are most often sitting and doing nothing except waiting for your opponents to finish playing (and maybe gathering information to use against them). If you could just eliminate these five spots, you would vastly increase the rate at which you would have decisions to make. That is exactly what happens when you play short-handed. Winning poker players make their money by making better decisions than their opponents, so having more decisions in any given period of time translates directly to a higher win rate.
In addition, short-handed games require players to quickly gain a good sense of their opponent's strategies, because they will be going up against the same opponents in each hand. Also, the nature of short handed games is that they tend to fluctuate in size, requiring an ability to adjust to changing circumstances. These are skills that good players can put to better use in short-handed games than full-ring games.
I anticipate two main objections to my argument that short-handed games are better for your win rate. First, the situations I've described are not exactly the same. After all, in a 9-handed game where the first five players have folded, there is a "bunching" effect: because folded hands are slightly more likely to have contained low cards, the remaining cards are slightly more likely to be high (and thus strong). Just for a quick example, suppose the first five players will each play if and only if they are dealt an ace. Suppose they all fold this hand. If you are in the cutoff and also don't have an ace, then all four aces are still left and there are only 40 cards left (52 minus 12). For each of your opponents, the chance of having pocket aces is now 1 in 130 (4/40 times 3/39), much better than the usual 1 in 221. However, this is an extreme example. In practice, players do play some low cards and they do fold with hands like A2 (most players, anyway). The "bunching" effect is just not all that big a factor. Maybe I'll do a deeper analysis of this later. For now, I'll just say that I don't believe this is a big enough effect to contradict my claim that you can view them as being essentially the same. I concede that it makes sense to be tiny bit more wary of your opponents in the 9-handed game after five folds than in the 4-handed scenario, but making a big adjustment would be a mistake. You would be safe if you made no adjustment at all.
Second, you may argue something like:
There are some rational explanations for why a winning player would have a higher EV in full-ring games. Perhaps they really aren't good at playing in the cutoff and on the button compared to their proficiency at playing in early position. Perhaps they thrive on post-flop situations that are multi-handed. Perhaps they don't have the ability to concentrate in the way that is required when you need to make many decisions each hour. Perhaps they make their profit by preying on players who play poorly in early position, or perhaps they play in a venue where such players are particularly prevalent. Perhaps their game does not lower the fees for short-handed games. If these describe your situation, you may have a strong case that you have a better EV when playing full-ring games. However, I don't think these are common characteristics of poker players or venues, and, in any case, any advantage you may have in EV per hand when playing full-ring games would have to outweigh the increased number of hands you are able to play in the faster short-handed games. A 4-handed game likely has twice as many hands per hour than a 9-handed game. Asking a player to make twice as much per hand in a 9-handed game than a 4-handed game is a very tall order.
In the end, I think that with a smaller rake and a greatly increased decision-rate, short handed games make for much more efficient winnings.
Big advantage to short-handed games, assuming you are better than your opponents in late postion and on the blinds.
Effect on social atmostphere: Full-ring games afford players the opportunity to sit back and relax. They chat with their opponents and even discuss poker strategy without worrying too much that the player they are speaking with will play many hands with them. Basically, the game is less contentious. On the other hand, they can sometimes get boring and players get impatient with each other for playing slowly.
Small advantage to full-ring games.
Effect on game purity: Smaller rake means slightly less negative effect on the game. Fluctuating game size requires a flexible strategy, which I view as a slight positive. However, some would argue that a full-ring game, with its slower pace and emphasis on patience and observation, is the way "pure" poker was meant to be played.
Very small advantage to short-handed games.
Unless you come mostly for the social experience, you should prefer short-handed games.
Many players refuse to play unless a game is nearly full. Still more will play if there are five or six players but not if there are fewer than that. Sometimes, while sitting with three or four other players who are unwilling to play until more players arrive, I ask them why they don't like to play shorthanded. One such player told me that short-handed games are too expensive because the blinds come around too often. Sometimes it's simply that they don't want to play shorthanded in a game with me in it. Some players come for the social atmosphere and find that the competition gets too personal with fewer players. Other players seem to just like to sit around folding most of the time while waiting for AA or KK. Still other players probably have other concerns.
So, why do I think short-handed games are not only worthwhile but are actually better for poker players? Let's look at the three main concerns of a poker player: winnings, social experience, and game purity.
Effect on winnings: The old adage that "you need to play more hands when you play short-handed" is overly vague. The truth is that there is a much better way to transfer your strategy from a full-ring game to a short-handed game: When playing X-handed, play exactly as you would play in the same position relative to the button in a 9 handed game after the first (9-X) players fold. As I will now demonstrate, the two scenarios are very similar.
Suppose you are playing in the cutoff or button of a 9-handed game and the first five players after the big blind fold before the flop. If you have an idea of how to play in this situation, then you can play in a 4-handed game. There are only three very minor differences in the two situations. First, the 4-handed scenario would move faster because the deal would be quicker and you wouldn't need to wait for the first five players to fold. Second, the hand in the 4-handed game would be cheaper in most casinos because in most casinos the short-handed game would have a smaller rake and maybe no jackpot drop. (Both scenarios have four players left, so you are about equally likely to win the hand and end up paying the drop.) Third, in the four-handed game, you wouldn't need to worry about any bunching effects, and so the game is slightly easier if you are trying to combinatorially guess your opponents' hands. (As we will see presently, this is probably a negligible concern anyway.) So, the game is faster, cheaper, and easier. Faster and cheaper are clear advantages. Easier is a wash because it applies to your opponents as well as to you.
So, the strategy in a short-handed game has a nearly direct parallel to a situation most full-ring players are already familiar with: the situation where the first several players fold. Consider the implications of this. The first five hands after the blind are the least-often-played hands. They are the spots where you are most often sitting and doing nothing except waiting for your opponents to finish playing (and maybe gathering information to use against them). If you could just eliminate these five spots, you would vastly increase the rate at which you would have decisions to make. That is exactly what happens when you play short-handed. Winning poker players make their money by making better decisions than their opponents, so having more decisions in any given period of time translates directly to a higher win rate.
In addition, short-handed games require players to quickly gain a good sense of their opponent's strategies, because they will be going up against the same opponents in each hand. Also, the nature of short handed games is that they tend to fluctuate in size, requiring an ability to adjust to changing circumstances. These are skills that good players can put to better use in short-handed games than full-ring games.
I anticipate two main objections to my argument that short-handed games are better for your win rate. First, the situations I've described are not exactly the same. After all, in a 9-handed game where the first five players have folded, there is a "bunching" effect: because folded hands are slightly more likely to have contained low cards, the remaining cards are slightly more likely to be high (and thus strong). Just for a quick example, suppose the first five players will each play if and only if they are dealt an ace. Suppose they all fold this hand. If you are in the cutoff and also don't have an ace, then all four aces are still left and there are only 40 cards left (52 minus 12). For each of your opponents, the chance of having pocket aces is now 1 in 130 (4/40 times 3/39), much better than the usual 1 in 221. However, this is an extreme example. In practice, players do play some low cards and they do fold with hands like A2 (most players, anyway). The "bunching" effect is just not all that big a factor. Maybe I'll do a deeper analysis of this later. For now, I'll just say that I don't believe this is a big enough effect to contradict my claim that you can view them as being essentially the same. I concede that it makes sense to be tiny bit more wary of your opponents in the 9-handed game after five folds than in the 4-handed scenario, but making a big adjustment would be a mistake. You would be safe if you made no adjustment at all.
Second, you may argue something like:
Sure, those scenarios are essentially the same, but you are overlooking some real advantages to having those early-position hands that exist only in full-ring games. These afford me important opportunities to apply my superior poker skills. For one thing, I can use the time after I fold these hands to watch my opponents play. Since I'm more observant than my opponents and since I'm better able to apply new information, this represents a real advantage to me. Even ignoring this, my basic strategy in these EP hands is far superior to some of my opponents. The biggest weakness of many of my opponents is that they play too loosely, and this weakness is most pronounced in EP. Why remove these opportunities for my opponents to play badly?These are reasonably strong arguments. It's true that playing short-handed eliminates some opportunities for strategic advantage, and for a thorough analysis, I would need to consider the value of these strategic advantages. For now, let me just give an intuitive explanation for why I don't think these arguments are strong enough contradict my claim that short-handed games are better. Yes, we are giving up some opportunities to gain value over our opponents through superior use of observation and superior play in EP. However, there is an opportunity cost to these advantages. For the benefit of getting to sit and observe your opponents, you are losing the opportunity to actually be playing more hands and applying your strategic advantages; if you really want extra time to observe your opponents, you can achieve that in a short-handed game by simply sitting out a few rounds and watching. As for your advantage over your opponents who play terribly in EP, this comes at the cost of the advantage you have over your opponents' LP and blinds strategy. Every hand we would get to play in EP is replaced in short-handed games by extra hands in LP and the blinds. Since these are hands that you are much more likely to be playing (rather than folding), it seems to me that your advantage over your opponents here is likely even greater than the advantage you have over your opponents in early position. I agree that it is much easier for your opponents to play terribly in EP, but it is also much easier for you to play great in LP and the blinds, because they often involve lots of decision making deep into hands. Playing "great" in EP basically just means having the discipline to fold a lot.
There are some rational explanations for why a winning player would have a higher EV in full-ring games. Perhaps they really aren't good at playing in the cutoff and on the button compared to their proficiency at playing in early position. Perhaps they thrive on post-flop situations that are multi-handed. Perhaps they don't have the ability to concentrate in the way that is required when you need to make many decisions each hour. Perhaps they make their profit by preying on players who play poorly in early position, or perhaps they play in a venue where such players are particularly prevalent. Perhaps their game does not lower the fees for short-handed games. If these describe your situation, you may have a strong case that you have a better EV when playing full-ring games. However, I don't think these are common characteristics of poker players or venues, and, in any case, any advantage you may have in EV per hand when playing full-ring games would have to outweigh the increased number of hands you are able to play in the faster short-handed games. A 4-handed game likely has twice as many hands per hour than a 9-handed game. Asking a player to make twice as much per hand in a 9-handed game than a 4-handed game is a very tall order.
In the end, I think that with a smaller rake and a greatly increased decision-rate, short handed games make for much more efficient winnings.
Big advantage to short-handed games, assuming you are better than your opponents in late postion and on the blinds.
Effect on social atmostphere: Full-ring games afford players the opportunity to sit back and relax. They chat with their opponents and even discuss poker strategy without worrying too much that the player they are speaking with will play many hands with them. Basically, the game is less contentious. On the other hand, they can sometimes get boring and players get impatient with each other for playing slowly.
Small advantage to full-ring games.
Effect on game purity: Smaller rake means slightly less negative effect on the game. Fluctuating game size requires a flexible strategy, which I view as a slight positive. However, some would argue that a full-ring game, with its slower pace and emphasis on patience and observation, is the way "pure" poker was meant to be played.
Very small advantage to short-handed games.
Unless you come mostly for the social experience, you should prefer short-handed games.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
What is the best fee structure for poker players?
(Another in my series of posts addressing what I think poker players should want from a card room.)
In Los Angeles, the rake tends to be $1 taken from the pot before the flop and another $5 after the flop, including $1 for the jackpot drop. In Las Vegas, it used to be as low as $4 with the fourth dollar not being taken out until the pot reached $80 or even $120. In higher-limit games (10-20 NL and above or 100-200 limit or above), the players usually pay "time," which means they pay something like $5-$15 to the house every half hour, but the pots are left unadulterated.
Nobody likes paying these fees, but we all acknowledge that the casino needs money to for all sorts of expenses and would like to make a profit on top of that. This does not mean that players should just accept whatever fees are levied and by whatever means the casino pleases. Not all fee structures are equally bad for players, and, whatever the structure, a smaller fee is clearly better. So, what structure is best for casino poker players? Can we do better? How much does the size of the fee really matter? Should we be "comparison shopping" and pressing the casinos to keep their fees low?
------
First, let's do a comparison of paying rake versus "time."
Effect on winnings: If you are playing in a 9-handed NLHE game, you will likely play about 30 hands per hour and win about 3. If you play tight and take a break once in a while, this is probably closer to 2.5 hands won per hour. Time games cost about $10-$25 per hour plus maybe $3 in tips. In a raked game, it costs $7 per hand won, including tip. Multiplying by 2.5, this gives $17.50 per hour. This corresponds to a $14.50/hour time game (assuming $3 of tipping per hour). This means that if you are a tight player, most time games are slightly more expensive.
Most players do not chop in time games, but most players do chop in raked games. It's probably better for you if your opponents chop because the game will go faster. This probably adds one or two hands per hour. The downside is that you don't get to watch your opponent's heads-up strategy as often if they are chopping, but I think an extra hand or two should be worth more than this extra information.
As I've said before, taking money from a pot rewards and encourages tighter play, which is bad for the game, especially NLHE. Adding money to the pot has the reverse effect. You are effectively playing higher stakes when you pay time instead of rake.
The advantage here really depends on the size of the rake or time fee. Time fees are usually slightly higher, but this is offset by chopping and increased pot sizes.
Effect on social experience: The time games encourage players to stay at the table, lest they waste hands they already paid for. Most players like this, but I find it annoying. I like taking a few leisurely breaks during a session, and I don't mind if the game becomes shorthanded.
Rake games encourage chopping the blinds, which helps the game go faster. On the other hand, if you don't chop, you might have some upset neighbors in a rake game.
Slight advantage to time games.
Effect on game purity: Time fees preserve the purity of the game. Rake fees alter the pot size and encourage chopping. This is especially problematic in low-limit games where the rake is a large percentage of the pot.
Advantage to time games.
Time games often cost a couple extra dollars per hour to play. I think it's worth it for game purity and social experience, but only if it's not too expensive. In higher-limit games, the rake does not disrupt the game too much and I would only pay an extra $3 or so per hour to play a time game. Even this might be too extravagant. That's an extra $3000 per year if you are a pro playing 1000 hours.
------
How important is the size of the fee?
If you do some comparison shopping, you can likely find a place that takes $1 or $2 less in rake ($2.50 to $7 or so per hour) or charges $5 or so less per hour in time fees. An amateur player might play 100-200 hours a year, which comes to around $500-$1000. A pro might pay an extra $5000-$10,000 per year. I'd say it's a very significant but not overwhelming concern.
------
What is the ideal fee structure? Well, I identified problems with both rake and time fees. The rake affects the purity of the game and rewards tighter play. The time fees unduly discourage taking breaks. The following idea fixes both problems:
Make the button pay the fee each hand. Like a "hand fee," only it's paid just by the player who has the best position. The one drawback here is that you can't really adjust the fee to the size of the pot like you can with a rake, and if there is no flop it's still only fair to charge the button the full amount. If this results in the game being too expensive, the casinos can start charging $4/hand instead of $5 (for example).
If someone pays his blinds but skips his button, treat it as if he missed a blind -- that is, he must post or wait for the blinds to reach him before he gets another hand. This fixes the problems with both the rake and time fees.
Are any new problems likely to arise with this solution? Any way players will try to "game the system" other than skipping the button, which I already addressed? I can't think of any.
*****
I am considering playing in the WSOP main event this year. (I might look into selling up to fifty 1% shares in my winnings. Is that legal?) It's something that I almost feel I should do; playing the main event would be a great way to cap off my poker career, and it's something that people always ask me about when they hear I played professionally. Considering that I haven't played recently, my EV is surely lower than ever, but my enjoyment would probably be higher than ever.
Still, Noon to 12:30 am for days on end? That is too much poker!
In Los Angeles, the rake tends to be $1 taken from the pot before the flop and another $5 after the flop, including $1 for the jackpot drop. In Las Vegas, it used to be as low as $4 with the fourth dollar not being taken out until the pot reached $80 or even $120. In higher-limit games (10-20 NL and above or 100-200 limit or above), the players usually pay "time," which means they pay something like $5-$15 to the house every half hour, but the pots are left unadulterated.
Nobody likes paying these fees, but we all acknowledge that the casino needs money to for all sorts of expenses and would like to make a profit on top of that. This does not mean that players should just accept whatever fees are levied and by whatever means the casino pleases. Not all fee structures are equally bad for players, and, whatever the structure, a smaller fee is clearly better. So, what structure is best for casino poker players? Can we do better? How much does the size of the fee really matter? Should we be "comparison shopping" and pressing the casinos to keep their fees low?
------
First, let's do a comparison of paying rake versus "time."
Effect on winnings: If you are playing in a 9-handed NLHE game, you will likely play about 30 hands per hour and win about 3. If you play tight and take a break once in a while, this is probably closer to 2.5 hands won per hour. Time games cost about $10-$25 per hour plus maybe $3 in tips. In a raked game, it costs $7 per hand won, including tip. Multiplying by 2.5, this gives $17.50 per hour. This corresponds to a $14.50/hour time game (assuming $3 of tipping per hour). This means that if you are a tight player, most time games are slightly more expensive.
Most players do not chop in time games, but most players do chop in raked games. It's probably better for you if your opponents chop because the game will go faster. This probably adds one or two hands per hour. The downside is that you don't get to watch your opponent's heads-up strategy as often if they are chopping, but I think an extra hand or two should be worth more than this extra information.
As I've said before, taking money from a pot rewards and encourages tighter play, which is bad for the game, especially NLHE. Adding money to the pot has the reverse effect. You are effectively playing higher stakes when you pay time instead of rake.
The advantage here really depends on the size of the rake or time fee. Time fees are usually slightly higher, but this is offset by chopping and increased pot sizes.
Effect on social experience: The time games encourage players to stay at the table, lest they waste hands they already paid for. Most players like this, but I find it annoying. I like taking a few leisurely breaks during a session, and I don't mind if the game becomes shorthanded.
Rake games encourage chopping the blinds, which helps the game go faster. On the other hand, if you don't chop, you might have some upset neighbors in a rake game.
Slight advantage to time games.
Effect on game purity: Time fees preserve the purity of the game. Rake fees alter the pot size and encourage chopping. This is especially problematic in low-limit games where the rake is a large percentage of the pot.
Advantage to time games.
Time games often cost a couple extra dollars per hour to play. I think it's worth it for game purity and social experience, but only if it's not too expensive. In higher-limit games, the rake does not disrupt the game too much and I would only pay an extra $3 or so per hour to play a time game. Even this might be too extravagant. That's an extra $3000 per year if you are a pro playing 1000 hours.
------
How important is the size of the fee?
If you do some comparison shopping, you can likely find a place that takes $1 or $2 less in rake ($2.50 to $7 or so per hour) or charges $5 or so less per hour in time fees. An amateur player might play 100-200 hours a year, which comes to around $500-$1000. A pro might pay an extra $5000-$10,000 per year. I'd say it's a very significant but not overwhelming concern.
------
What is the ideal fee structure? Well, I identified problems with both rake and time fees. The rake affects the purity of the game and rewards tighter play. The time fees unduly discourage taking breaks. The following idea fixes both problems:
Make the button pay the fee each hand. Like a "hand fee," only it's paid just by the player who has the best position. The one drawback here is that you can't really adjust the fee to the size of the pot like you can with a rake, and if there is no flop it's still only fair to charge the button the full amount. If this results in the game being too expensive, the casinos can start charging $4/hand instead of $5 (for example).
If someone pays his blinds but skips his button, treat it as if he missed a blind -- that is, he must post or wait for the blinds to reach him before he gets another hand. This fixes the problems with both the rake and time fees.
Are any new problems likely to arise with this solution? Any way players will try to "game the system" other than skipping the button, which I already addressed? I can't think of any.
*****
I am considering playing in the WSOP main event this year. (I might look into selling up to fifty 1% shares in my winnings. Is that legal?) It's something that I almost feel I should do; playing the main event would be a great way to cap off my poker career, and it's something that people always ask me about when they hear I played professionally. Considering that I haven't played recently, my EV is surely lower than ever, but my enjoyment would probably be higher than ever.
Still, Noon to 12:30 am for days on end? That is too much poker!
Friday, May 18, 2012
Should Poker Players Point Out Dealer Errors?
I think so, but this may be specific to my own peculiar view.
At a poker table, it is the dealer's job to make sure the game is being played by the book. Some dealers are better at this than others, and even the best dealers make occasional mistakes. Bets are miscounted, hands are misread, players are directed to play out of turn, anti-collusion rules go unenforced, pots are split incorrectly, and any number of other mistakes can happen. When I notice these things, I like to point them out and get them corrected, but when I do some other players sometimes get upset. Should I be pointing these things out? Let's look at the main factors.
1. Effect on my winnings.
The only direct effect is that I will usually point out errors even if they were in my favor, such as an opponent putting in two many chips to call a bet. I lose money when I do that.
One indirect factor is the effect of either upsetting or pleasing other players. However, there's not that much they can do about it, and not many people take these things very personally, anyway.
Another indirect factor is that new players might feel more comfortable in the casino, which may help to make the average competition a little softer.
This category is a wash, with maybe a tiny advantage to NOT pointing out errors, especially those errors that directly result in more chips for myself.
2. Effect on the social atmosphere.
Usually, if I don't point out an error, it will go unnoticed by whomever it hurt. So, by pointing out the errors, I might be making the social atmosphere a little more tense.
An indirect effect is that everyone can relax a little more about the whether the rules are being followed. We can trust that somebody else will usually point out any mistakes.
Another indirect effect is that players might trust each other a little more, which I think encourages a better social atmosphere in the long run.
For me, the major reason I like to point out any errors I see is that the alternative is unfair to inexperienced players and players who are new to a casino. For inexperienced players, they obviously are less likely to realize if a mistake has been made. For players new to a casino, they suffer from the fact that the other players are likely to know each other and be inclined to look out for each other. So, errors that were made in the new players' favor are more likely to be pointed out and reversed, putting new players at an unfair disadvantage. When this happens, the social atmosphere becomes much worse. However, these situations are rarely so clear cut as to make a big difference.
Personally, I just feel better if I do what feels like the "right" thing, so I would be particularly uncomfortable if I ignored errors. You may be different.
Advantage to pointing out errors, but this may be partly specific to myself.
3. Effect on the purity of the game. This depends on what you think "pure" poker means. To me, it means a game of poker played by the rules, but other purists might argue that poker should be a purely individualistic game, and no player should say anything that could help another player out, even if it's just to ensure that rules are being followed.
Advantage to pointing out errors, but players with different philosophies may disagree.
I personally would certainly like it if players took a more active role in policing their games, but it doesn't seem likely that we could overturn the prevailing mentality that players should avoid getting involved in other players' hands.
*****
I accepted a spot in the PhD program in statistics at UMBC.
*****
I've been posting on a blog called "Skepolitical," a portmanteau of "skeptic" and "political." My most recent post was on Attachment Parenting.
At a poker table, it is the dealer's job to make sure the game is being played by the book. Some dealers are better at this than others, and even the best dealers make occasional mistakes. Bets are miscounted, hands are misread, players are directed to play out of turn, anti-collusion rules go unenforced, pots are split incorrectly, and any number of other mistakes can happen. When I notice these things, I like to point them out and get them corrected, but when I do some other players sometimes get upset. Should I be pointing these things out? Let's look at the main factors.
1. Effect on my winnings.
The only direct effect is that I will usually point out errors even if they were in my favor, such as an opponent putting in two many chips to call a bet. I lose money when I do that.
One indirect factor is the effect of either upsetting or pleasing other players. However, there's not that much they can do about it, and not many people take these things very personally, anyway.
Another indirect factor is that new players might feel more comfortable in the casino, which may help to make the average competition a little softer.
This category is a wash, with maybe a tiny advantage to NOT pointing out errors, especially those errors that directly result in more chips for myself.
2. Effect on the social atmosphere.
Usually, if I don't point out an error, it will go unnoticed by whomever it hurt. So, by pointing out the errors, I might be making the social atmosphere a little more tense.
An indirect effect is that everyone can relax a little more about the whether the rules are being followed. We can trust that somebody else will usually point out any mistakes.
Another indirect effect is that players might trust each other a little more, which I think encourages a better social atmosphere in the long run.
For me, the major reason I like to point out any errors I see is that the alternative is unfair to inexperienced players and players who are new to a casino. For inexperienced players, they obviously are less likely to realize if a mistake has been made. For players new to a casino, they suffer from the fact that the other players are likely to know each other and be inclined to look out for each other. So, errors that were made in the new players' favor are more likely to be pointed out and reversed, putting new players at an unfair disadvantage. When this happens, the social atmosphere becomes much worse. However, these situations are rarely so clear cut as to make a big difference.
Personally, I just feel better if I do what feels like the "right" thing, so I would be particularly uncomfortable if I ignored errors. You may be different.
Advantage to pointing out errors, but this may be partly specific to myself.
3. Effect on the purity of the game. This depends on what you think "pure" poker means. To me, it means a game of poker played by the rules, but other purists might argue that poker should be a purely individualistic game, and no player should say anything that could help another player out, even if it's just to ensure that rules are being followed.
Advantage to pointing out errors, but players with different philosophies may disagree.
I personally would certainly like it if players took a more active role in policing their games, but it doesn't seem likely that we could overturn the prevailing mentality that players should avoid getting involved in other players' hands.
*****
I accepted a spot in the PhD program in statistics at UMBC.
*****
I've been posting on a blog called "Skepolitical," a portmanteau of "skeptic" and "political." My most recent post was on Attachment Parenting.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Should No Limit Holdem Players Want Antes in Their Games?
Two of the main triggers of the poker boom in the 2000's, the movie Rounders and ESPN's well-produced broadcast of the WSOP (especially the Moneymaker victory), both specifically glorified the game of no-limit holdem. Rounders famously quoted Doyle Brunson calling NLHE the "Cadillac of poker games." Brand-new poker players came to the casinos looking for holdem games, especially no-limit holdem games. Before long, veteran stud players migrated to the no-limit games hoping to prey upon the newbies. The result is that, compared to holdem games, stud games have plummeted in popularity since the 1990's. Today, stud games feel downright antiquated.
One distinguishing feature of stud games is that they use antes, and, as a result, antes now seem as antiquated as the stud games they're used for. Actually, while antes are almost never used in NLHE cash games, they do usually come into play in the later rounds of tournaments. This is cause for consternation among some tournament players, mostly because the antes increase the effect of luck as compared to skill. Perhaps ironically, then, one place you can occasionally see antes in NLHE cash games is in the very high-stakes games, where you might expect the players to want to maximize the importance of skill. The reason they like antes is that many of these top players have recognized the problem I mentioned midway through my previous post on jackpots: standard NLHE has very little action if everyone in the game is playing a strong, solid, tight and aggressive game. To fix this problem, top pros have sometimes decided to add antes to their games. So, should the rest of us be advocating for the introduction of antes into our NLHE games? Probably, but let's look at the major considerations.
1. Maximizing winnings.
2. Having an enjoyable social experience.
3. Having a pure, intellectually stimulating game of poker.
All three factors have opposing forces that I will attempt to weigh against each other.
1. Maximizing winnings: If you are a strong player with a given set of opponents, your EV will probably be slightly improved if you are using an ante. With more action, you will be correct to play more hands, and this will give you more opportunities to use your superior skill against your opponents. Also, there will be more money in each pot, which means more potential profit. There are two major drawbacks, however. First, your expected volatility will certainly rise substantially because the antes directly increase the luck factor and, with more money being bet, you will effectively be playing higher stakes. This will possibly force you to move down to lower stakes. Second, your typical opponent's biggest weakness, playing too many hands, will suddenly become much less of a liability. Your weak opponents will be playing better even if they fail to adjust for the introduction of the ante. This is all subjective, but my guess is that these factors give a bit of a net boost to EV.
The previous paragraph assumes "a given set of opponents," but we must also consider the effect on the player supply in an ante game versus a no-ante game. In the short run, only good players seem likely to want to use antes. The first players who will want to make the move to "ante NLHE" are those who are confident in their ability to adjust to the new strategic challenges posed by the introduction of an ante and those who recognize the problem I just described with NLHE losing action if you are at a table of solid players. We can expect that these players are better than average, and they will certainly not be novices. Despite this, I think that in the long run, bad players will really enjoy the antes. Having more action and higher volatility is way more fun. If we can get to the point where antes are no longer a novel concept, novices will be happy to play with them. In the long run, which is what I'm primarily concerned with in these blog posts, I think the antes will attract more bad players than good players because of the increased luck factor. Another small net positive for EV.
2. Social experience: For most people, getting to play more hands is more fun. Sure, there will be the odd player who likes to sit back and wait for AA or KK, but who needs those guys anyway? Others will object to the increased luck factor, but just as many will enjoy it. In the short run, some players will be put off by the novelty of antes, but others (such as myself) like thinking about novel strategic situations, and in any case the novelty will wear off. A net positive.
3. Pure, stimulating game of poker: Some purists, including yours truly, are just concerned with having a robust, stimulating, fairly-played game, unencumbered by factors introduced by the casino such as jackpots, rakes, or confusing rules or promotions. The antes affect none of these factors except that they have the potential to engender a much more stimulating game by discouraging tight, nitty play. Some purists additionally want a traditional or low-luck game of poker. For these players, the antes may be a problem. From my perspective, however, the antes represent a major boon to the game itself.
Many of the factors above relate to my personal preferences, which may make it hard to convince other players (or my readers) to come to my side if they are not already so inclined. For example, if you understand the importance of having luck in a poker game (this is what attracts the bad players) but you still think it's better to try to minimize it, there's not much I can do to convince you that antes would be a good thing. Also, my approximations on the effect on EV are certainly up for debate. However, if you agree with me on these factors (and you should!) then you'll agree that introducing antes is a really good idea.
I wonder whether we can ever really make the jump to adding antes in lower stakes games. Perhaps it's like the QWERTY keyboard: research shows it's not optimal, but it's just not worth making the switch. It's not surprising that the high-stakes NLHE games were the first to adopt antes. Nobody playing those stakes is going to have an issue with getting outside their comfort zone to play a slightly novel form of poker. (Well, maybe Andy Beal.) They're not worried about scaring away new players, and they are looking to maximize the amount of action in their games. It's also possible that these high stakes games have fewer action players and are thus more prone to going cold.
All of these factors that encourage the use of antes diminish as you go down in stakes. What I think needs to happen for antes to become prevalent is for enough regular players to realize that the top pros are playing with antes. When that happens, the game will no longer look as weird and novel as a Dvorak keyboard. In the meantime, regular players can advocate for antes by convincing their fellow poker players that antes are a good thing and by asking their floor men to make "interest" lists for ante games.
One distinguishing feature of stud games is that they use antes, and, as a result, antes now seem as antiquated as the stud games they're used for. Actually, while antes are almost never used in NLHE cash games, they do usually come into play in the later rounds of tournaments. This is cause for consternation among some tournament players, mostly because the antes increase the effect of luck as compared to skill. Perhaps ironically, then, one place you can occasionally see antes in NLHE cash games is in the very high-stakes games, where you might expect the players to want to maximize the importance of skill. The reason they like antes is that many of these top players have recognized the problem I mentioned midway through my previous post on jackpots: standard NLHE has very little action if everyone in the game is playing a strong, solid, tight and aggressive game. To fix this problem, top pros have sometimes decided to add antes to their games. So, should the rest of us be advocating for the introduction of antes into our NLHE games? Probably, but let's look at the major considerations.
1. Maximizing winnings.
2. Having an enjoyable social experience.
3. Having a pure, intellectually stimulating game of poker.
All three factors have opposing forces that I will attempt to weigh against each other.
1. Maximizing winnings: If you are a strong player with a given set of opponents, your EV will probably be slightly improved if you are using an ante. With more action, you will be correct to play more hands, and this will give you more opportunities to use your superior skill against your opponents. Also, there will be more money in each pot, which means more potential profit. There are two major drawbacks, however. First, your expected volatility will certainly rise substantially because the antes directly increase the luck factor and, with more money being bet, you will effectively be playing higher stakes. This will possibly force you to move down to lower stakes. Second, your typical opponent's biggest weakness, playing too many hands, will suddenly become much less of a liability. Your weak opponents will be playing better even if they fail to adjust for the introduction of the ante. This is all subjective, but my guess is that these factors give a bit of a net boost to EV.
The previous paragraph assumes "a given set of opponents," but we must also consider the effect on the player supply in an ante game versus a no-ante game. In the short run, only good players seem likely to want to use antes. The first players who will want to make the move to "ante NLHE" are those who are confident in their ability to adjust to the new strategic challenges posed by the introduction of an ante and those who recognize the problem I just described with NLHE losing action if you are at a table of solid players. We can expect that these players are better than average, and they will certainly not be novices. Despite this, I think that in the long run, bad players will really enjoy the antes. Having more action and higher volatility is way more fun. If we can get to the point where antes are no longer a novel concept, novices will be happy to play with them. In the long run, which is what I'm primarily concerned with in these blog posts, I think the antes will attract more bad players than good players because of the increased luck factor. Another small net positive for EV.
2. Social experience: For most people, getting to play more hands is more fun. Sure, there will be the odd player who likes to sit back and wait for AA or KK, but who needs those guys anyway? Others will object to the increased luck factor, but just as many will enjoy it. In the short run, some players will be put off by the novelty of antes, but others (such as myself) like thinking about novel strategic situations, and in any case the novelty will wear off. A net positive.
3. Pure, stimulating game of poker: Some purists, including yours truly, are just concerned with having a robust, stimulating, fairly-played game, unencumbered by factors introduced by the casino such as jackpots, rakes, or confusing rules or promotions. The antes affect none of these factors except that they have the potential to engender a much more stimulating game by discouraging tight, nitty play. Some purists additionally want a traditional or low-luck game of poker. For these players, the antes may be a problem. From my perspective, however, the antes represent a major boon to the game itself.
Many of the factors above relate to my personal preferences, which may make it hard to convince other players (or my readers) to come to my side if they are not already so inclined. For example, if you understand the importance of having luck in a poker game (this is what attracts the bad players) but you still think it's better to try to minimize it, there's not much I can do to convince you that antes would be a good thing. Also, my approximations on the effect on EV are certainly up for debate. However, if you agree with me on these factors (and you should!) then you'll agree that introducing antes is a really good idea.
I wonder whether we can ever really make the jump to adding antes in lower stakes games. Perhaps it's like the QWERTY keyboard: research shows it's not optimal, but it's just not worth making the switch. It's not surprising that the high-stakes NLHE games were the first to adopt antes. Nobody playing those stakes is going to have an issue with getting outside their comfort zone to play a slightly novel form of poker. (Well, maybe Andy Beal.) They're not worried about scaring away new players, and they are looking to maximize the amount of action in their games. It's also possible that these high stakes games have fewer action players and are thus more prone to going cold.
All of these factors that encourage the use of antes diminish as you go down in stakes. What I think needs to happen for antes to become prevalent is for enough regular players to realize that the top pros are playing with antes. When that happens, the game will no longer look as weird and novel as a Dvorak keyboard. In the meantime, regular players can advocate for antes by convincing their fellow poker players that antes are a good thing and by asking their floor men to make "interest" lists for ante games.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Should Poker Players Want Jackpots in Their Games?
This is the second in what I hope will become a series of posts on the things that (good) poker players should look for in an ideal casino game. Regular players in poker rooms hold sway with the casino management, and this series can be viewed as my personal commentary on what I think you should be lobbying for if you are a good poker player.
For this post, I'll be thinking primarily of the "Bad Beat" type of jackpot, which I think is the worse of the two. I'll be looking at how it affects the three main concerns I mentioned in my previous post:
1. Maximizing Winnings.
2. Having an enjoyable social experience.
3. Playing a pure, intellectually stimulating game of poker.
I don't have anything to say about concern #2 here, but some players may have a strong personal preference for or against jackpots. Personally, I don't like them much. Let's look at concern #3 and then #1.
If playing a pure game of poker is your main reason for coming to a casino, you will hate jackpots, especially bad-beat jackpots. For purists, putting finely-tuned poker strategies to work against real opponents is the essence of what makes playing poker worthwhile. It can be a joyous experience to put theory into practice and have it work out. Jackpots destroy this by changing the players' incentive structure, thereby interfering with the logical inferences about your opponents' decisions that characterize a pure game of poker. These disruptions are most evident in Bad Beat Jackpot games during hands where there are two Aces on board, because the easiest way to win a jackpot is for a third Ace to hit the board while one player has the case Ace and the other player holds a large pocket pair. Winning the actual pot becomes insignificant, with players focusing only on making sure they do not miss out on the 1/40 or so chance at winning a few thousand dollars.
There is another, subtler, consequence of jackpots on the purity of the game that is often overlooked. The $1 jackpot fee is taken from each pot, and this affects optimal play. A slightly smaller pot means that it's optimal to play slightly tighter (and, if other players make are making that adjustment, it becomes correct to play more aggressively). This is a minor disruption, but it is made worse by the fact that another $5 is usually being taken out for the casino's rake, and my sense is that each extra dollar taken out is marginally worse than the previous. (Consider, for example, the effect of taking the first dollar out of a $1000 pot compared to taking the thousandth dollar out after already removing the first 999!) In No-Limit Hold'em, which already has a problem of having too little action when everyone in the game is solid, the problem is especially pronounced. A future post may explore the possibility of adding an ante to NLHE games in order to liven them up a bit.
The jackpots introduce opportunities for corrupt practices by players, dealers, and administrators. Honest players now have one more thing to be on the lookout for in order to protect themselves.
When a jackpot is actually hit, the game comes to a screeching halt. Winners celebrate, decks are examined for evidence of cheating, administrators skim off the top of the jackpot (legally and sometimes illegally), ID's are taken out, and forms are filled out for tax purposes. A nightmare for a purist who just wants to sit and play poker.
I hesitate to call myself a purist (after all, it ranks third on my list of concerns), but maybe I am. Certainly, I'm sympathetic to this way thinking, and I consider "game purity" to be the major reason to dislike jackpots. I previously would have told you that Maximizing Winnings is my primary issue with jackpots, but the effect of jackpots on winnings is actually pretty complicated. Let's examine the pros and cons.
Having often argued against jackpots, I'm well-versed in the negatives. The simplest possible analysis is to look at the EV of each dollar paid into the jackpot. In California, I've been assured that the casino is allowed to take 15% for administrative costs, so each dollar returns 85 cents at best. (This is assuming you can trust administrators not to skim off the top.) The money you put in will sit around for months, on average, so the net present value of that money is slightly less than 85 cents. Then, you are expected to tip. (Tipping can be forgone, I suppose, but everyone I know has tipped after their jackpot wins.) Most players tip 5-10%, so our return is now down to about 75%.
Things are still worse than that, though, for several reasons. First, jackpots increase the volatility of our win rate substantially. Second, the deck-checking is unfairly biased towards delaying the jackpot payouts, because they are occasionally cancelled. (Once in a while the deck-check reveals a bad deck and the jackpot is not paid, but is it very rare for a deck to be checked when the jackpot is not paid out. This means sometimes payments have gone into the jackpot drop in hands that would have been voided had the jackpot been won and the deck checked. To be fair, the decks should be checked every time a dollar is paid to the drop, but this is impractical for obvious reasons.) Third, the slightly smaller pots mean tighter play becomes correct, and this can cut into the win rate of strong, creative players. Fourth, when the jackpot is actually won, the game will be delayed, eliminating winnings you expected to have during that time playing poker. These factors are hard to quantify, but I would say that between the EV and volatility issues another 5% of utility is lost. So, we are at about 70% return, assuming there is no cheating or illicit skimming by the casino management.
I've heard a few good arguments for having jackpots amid many weak arguments. The most worthy argument is that jackpots attracts amateur players. All else being equal, having to play the jackpot drop costs me about $4 an hour and in the long run I get paid back about $3 in jackpot winnings. So, ignoring strategic effects and time delays, it really only costs me about $1 per hour. On the flip side, a single fish at the table is certainly worth much more than this. Even just a slightly weak player can make up for that $1/hour jackpot loss. Moreover, a good player will tend to play hands that have a good chance at making a jackpot, such as high pocket pairs or big Aces. This means that, for good players, the return on investment should be slightly higher than for weaker players. My sense is that this is a very minor effect, but I could be wrong. It is something, at least.
In conclusion, I would say that the only very significant effect of jackpots on any relevant concern is on the purity of the game. Jackpots are unmitigated disasters for game purity. However, your bankroll will benefit if the jackpot scares off the other poker purists. Purists tend to be good players. If your only concern is for making money, the jackpot might actually be helping you in the long run by attracting worse players to the game. Keep in mind, however, that if these worse players are not in the game at any particular time, you would certainly be better off without the jackpot drop.
*****
I did not get into the UMD College Park Applied Math department. I am leaning towards accepting the position in the PhD program in Statistics at UMBC.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Advice That Will Help Both My Opponents and Myself
Most of the advice and analysis on this blog could easily be used against me if readers found me at their poker table. (Indirectly, it can hurt me even if we never play against each other by marginally improving the play of the average poker player.) I enjoy doing strategy and hand analysis on this blog, and I think it's been worth any small amounts of EV I may have lost.
A commenter (Rick) suggested that I give some advice that would actually help me if it were followed by my opponents. This sounds easy: Just give bad advice! An intriguing idea, but it wouldn't make much difference because my poker-playing readers can mostly discern bad advice from good, anyway. Fortunately, there is another way: Give advice that helps not only me but also my opponents. This is clearly the angle Rick was suggesting. This seems like a good idea, so I'm going to devote a few posts to encouraging behavior that will improve the culture of casino poker.
When I'm in a poker room, I have three main concerns. Players will surely differ on the relative importance of these three factors, but I think nearly all players are implicitly concerned with these three things. For me, I would rank them as follows.
1. Maximizing my winnings. This is an explicit goal of most players, and the main concern of most poker pros. Like other poker players, I tend focus on ways in which I can win money from other players, but there are also plenty of things players can do to help not only themselves but also other players (either all the other players or some subset).
2. Having an enjoyable social experience. Poker is a social game, after all. Occasionally, I will come across players for whom this seems to be the primary goal of their poker games.
3. Playing an interesting game of poker. This is the concern of the poker purists, who play for the love of the game.
The first piece of advice I want to give is conventional wisdom but is very difficult for many people to follow: Be nice to the bad players. This helps the other players fulfill Concern #1 because the bad players are likely to stick around for longer. It usually also helps the bad players fulfill Concern #2. Unfortunately, poker players are often too immature to resist castigating bad players for bad beats and the like. Personally, I also wish that people were nicer to the good players, but that is not necessarily good for fulfilling Concern #1. There are a few of players at the Bike who are so unpleasant that I tend to try to avoid them, and I imagine it is good for their win rate to get me out of their games.
That's it for today. Stay tuned for my next attempt to help improve the culture of casino poker.
A commenter (Rick) suggested that I give some advice that would actually help me if it were followed by my opponents. This sounds easy: Just give bad advice! An intriguing idea, but it wouldn't make much difference because my poker-playing readers can mostly discern bad advice from good, anyway. Fortunately, there is another way: Give advice that helps not only me but also my opponents. This is clearly the angle Rick was suggesting. This seems like a good idea, so I'm going to devote a few posts to encouraging behavior that will improve the culture of casino poker.
When I'm in a poker room, I have three main concerns. Players will surely differ on the relative importance of these three factors, but I think nearly all players are implicitly concerned with these three things. For me, I would rank them as follows.
1. Maximizing my winnings. This is an explicit goal of most players, and the main concern of most poker pros. Like other poker players, I tend focus on ways in which I can win money from other players, but there are also plenty of things players can do to help not only themselves but also other players (either all the other players or some subset).
2. Having an enjoyable social experience. Poker is a social game, after all. Occasionally, I will come across players for whom this seems to be the primary goal of their poker games.
3. Playing an interesting game of poker. This is the concern of the poker purists, who play for the love of the game.
The first piece of advice I want to give is conventional wisdom but is very difficult for many people to follow: Be nice to the bad players. This helps the other players fulfill Concern #1 because the bad players are likely to stick around for longer. It usually also helps the bad players fulfill Concern #2. Unfortunately, poker players are often too immature to resist castigating bad players for bad beats and the like. Personally, I also wish that people were nicer to the good players, but that is not necessarily good for fulfilling Concern #1. There are a few of players at the Bike who are so unpleasant that I tend to try to avoid them, and I imagine it is good for their win rate to get me out of their games.
That's it for today. Stay tuned for my next attempt to help improve the culture of casino poker.
*****
I've been taking an online course on game theory run by two professors at Stanford.
*****
I got into the PhD Statistics programs at UMBC and George Washington, but without funding. I'm still waiting on UMD College Park's PhD program in Applied Math, Applied Statistics, and Scientific Computation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)