The Bike contests a prop's unemployment claim

Back on December 1, 2010, I was informed by the Bicycle Casino that they were eliminating my position as a host/prop for the $500 NL games. They told me I could choose either to become a prop in the $2 green chip section (where they play games like 8-16 limit and $80 buyin NL holdem) or be laid off. They gave me a sheet to sign that looked something like the following, except instead of the second option being "I choose to be laid off," it said something like "I prefer to quit," which might have imade it difficult for me to collect unemployment insurance payments. When I decided to "choose to be laid off," I was a little worried that I wouldn't get my benefits, but everything worked out fine.

I signed this form after HR agreed to rephrase the "laid off" option. (I removed my ID#.)

I'm bringing this up now because recently one of my former fellow props asked me if I still had this document. Back in December 2010, he and another prop opted to take the pay cut rather than be laid off. He was assured, as I was, that if he took this option he could continue to play the $5 yellow chip games in the Plaza section, even though his position would officially be as a prop for the smaller games in the Royal Section. Unlike me, he trusted them to honor this promise. I thought they would allow it for only a month or two, but as it happens, they actually honored it for over a year. Then they told him and the other prop that they had to start working in the Royal Section after all. He refused this role change and quit. The Bike then contested his application for unemployment insurance payments, claiming that he had quit and was not laid off. According to him, the Bike also claimed that the above document had never been offered. That's why he asked me if I had it.

As you can see, I did have a photo of the memo. It seemed prudent to have a copy for myself in case I had any trouble getting my unemployment benefits. I had several reasons not to consider the casino particularly trustworthy. These include several minor broken promises, rumors of illicit business dealings such as accepting kick-backs on overpriced renovation projects, and a clear disrespect for the props by some of the middle managers. Also, they routinely changed the expectations of our roles in minor ways without consulting us and sometimes without even informing us. In any case, if I was to be leaving, they wouldn't have any particular interest in doing me any favors. I had a chat with an employment lawyer who said it was best for me not to sign anything but that the above document sounded okay. I signed it and had no problem getting my benefits.


In the end, the prop won the case against the Bike, and he will be getting his unemployment benefits. I don't know what the ruling hinged upon exactly, but I guess it was that his agreed-upon role at the casino had been altered significantly enough to be considered an elimination of the position on the part of the casino.


*****


The big news today is that PokerStars has acquired Full Tilt as part of a settlement with the Department of Justice over last year's charges of fraud. It looks like foreign players will be getting their money back, but U.S. players' accounts remain in limbo.

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.

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.

Entering "jackpot" into the search field on this blog yields many instances of my bemoaning their existence in my games, but in truth my disdain for jackpots has waned recently. (This is decidedly not due to the fact that I've won a substantial amount from jackpots, which many of my casino acquaintances assumed would change my negative opinion of jackpots in general. Talk about results-oriented thinking!) There are many different types of jackpots awarded in poker games at casinos. In Los Angeles, the "Bad Beat Jackpot" is by far the most pervasive, but in Las Vegas, I think the "High-Hand Jackpot" might still be more common. Both usually take $1 out of each pot (sometimes only if there is a flop) and award money to players in rare instances such as losing with a very strong hand (Bad Beat) or just winning with certain types of very strong hands (High Hand).

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.

Do players at the casinos usually know who the props are?

This was another of the questions from my Swarthmore math talk, which I'm revisiting and answering on the blog.

To varying degrees, all of the props at the casinos in Los Angeles try to blend in with the customers. Some will outright lie to customers about whether they are props, while others might make it obvious without even being asked. In general, none of the props wear any identification, and the casinos operate under the assumption that it's better if customers don't know that there are any props at all. I think we were technically supposed to tell people the truth if we were asked, and I know that the floorpeople needed to inform customers of who the props were if asked. Beyond that, there was a lot of secrecy. Shortly after I started at the Bike, we had a meeting in which one of the supervisors told us that if someone asks us if someone else is a prop, we should just say we don't know. "It's not really lying because for all you know, he quit that morning and isn't a prop anymore." If you are concerned about who the props are, just go ask a floorman.

In practice, the regular players at a casino do know who the props are, but new players usually do not. In fact, the new players usually don't even know that there are any props at all. I didn't know when I started going to casinos.

Why didn't you play online instead of live?

A commenter suggested I answer this question, which is similar to one I was asked after the talk.

It's true that playing online makes a lot of sense for a professional poker player. You can play from home, you can play way more games per hour, and you can keep track of very useful data on yourself and your opponents much more easily than in the casino. Although the competition is tougher (or so I have heard and believe), if you can beat the games online, it makes way more financial sense to play online than in a casino. If you get good enough at multitabling shorthanded games to win even 25 cents per hand, you can earn more per hour than someone playing live and winning $4 per hand. In addition, it's likely that the ratio of your win rate to your volatility will be relatively low because every $X that you win will come over many more hands, evening out the wins and losses. So, why didn't I play online?

There are three main reasons. All of them have to do with focusing on abstract issues related to my quality of life as opposed to my finances.

First of all, I simply don't enjoy playing online and playing in a casino remains fun. I just prefer being around people to sitting in my house at my computer. I like the structure of going out and avoiding the distractions of being at home. I like the culture of live poker, playing with real cards and real chips. I also like the aspects of pure poker that get obscured by online play, which is actually my next point.

The second reason is that online poker isn't real poker, but merely a good substitute. I want to be able to look at and talk to my opponents. I actually think this is a minor aspect of real poker, but it still matters and it still makes the game more fun and interesting. Perhaps most importantly, I think live poker is more "pure" because there is probably less cheating. It's way too easy to collude in online poker ("hey, I've got pocket aces, can you raise for me now?"). Being able to see your opponents not only makes it harder for them to cheat but also makes them less likely to want to cheat. Several people have admitted to me that they have colluded online. I doubt most of these people would be willing to cheat people in live poker because it just feels so much meaner to cheat a real person than an avatar. All of this is ignoring the "superuser" problem of poker site employees helping their friends cheat by revealing opponents' hands. (Online poker scandals listed here.)  We also have the issue of poker bots, which are probably beatable but certainly diminish the "purity" of the game.

Third, it simply didn't seem worth getting back into online poker after the UIGEA was passed, which was a year after I moved to Vegas. I actually did try to deposit money once or twice since then, but when I realized it would be a complicated process I gave up and never looked back. I also try to be lawful whenever possible (I'm one of the few pro poker players who makes an effort to report his earnings to the IRS accurately and I don't attend obviously illegal home games), so avoiding online poker lets me sidestep the ambiguous legal standing of online poker in America nowadays.

So, basically I had a strong personal preference for live poker, cheating seems more rampant online, and the laws make things complicated.

Poker Ethics

There was a doozy of an ethical dilemma last week at the poker table. I think I probably should have acted differently, but it's not entirely clear.

There are lots of rather subtle ethical dilemmas that come up in poker, and I am comfortable coming down on the side of keeping the game as pure as possible. Sometimes two players will collude, and this can run the gamut from the very subtle to blatant cheating. As an example of very subtle collusion, two friends at a table might agree to check whenever they are the only two left in a hand. This might seem harmless, but in some cases, one player might have a hand that he wants checked down and thus he might try to knock a third player out of the pot (or vice-versa, trying to keep a player in the pot). In the high-low stud game at the Bike, there is at least one player who takes advantage of one of his "friends" by doing this. Even if the players don't alter their decisions before the hand becomes heads-up, checking the hand down denies the other players the opportunity to gather information about how their opponents play. This isn't fair. I avoid even the subtlest collusion, but there are several players in my regular games who do this. I choose not to complain unless the collusion is at least slightly more egregious.

"One man to a hand" is a pretty well-known poker rule, but it is occasionally broken in subtle ways. Sometimes a player will show his hand to the guy sitting next to him. If this player then comments on the hand, saying, "that's an easy call," or something, this seems like a pretty clear violation of the rule, but it is very unlikely the hand would be called dead. I would still call the floorman over to make a decision. Then, if it happened a second time, maybe the hand would be called dead. Technically, nobody should be making any comment about someone's hand until it is face up on the table at showdown. Once the hand is revealed, anyone at the table can help the player and dealer to read it. Occasionally, I will notice a dealer mistake at showdown and point it out. I feel this is discretionary, but my default tends to be to point it out.

Last week, two players went all-in for about $600 each. One player, a regular who I know pretty well, had AQs and made a flush on a K7666 board. He put his hand face-up at showdown. The other player, new to the game, sat looking at his cards and the board in disgust for about 30 seconds before tossing his cards, face up, into the muck. He had AK for a full house. Although he clearly intended to concede the pot, he is technically the winner in this situation. However, the dealer immediately turned his cards face down and pushed the $1200 pot to the player with AQs. The player with AK remains oblivious to the fact that he had the best hand.

If the AK had belonged to a friend of mine, I would have called the floorman over, and most likely the player with AK would have been awarded the pot. Shouldn't I give a stranger the same courtesy? Certainly, my acquaintance with the AQs would have been disgusted with me, but, ethically, that should probably not be a concern of mine.