Mason owes me an apology

It might take a while, and I don't mind if it does, but one day Mason (and for that matter, any poker writer who wants to keep up with things) is going to be writing about Big River/M7 and explaining why it's such a good game, using my insights as to why a bet at fourth street is such a bad thing in a seven-card game, why five rounds is one too many for a serious poker game, why the river-down rule is totally against the principles of rational game design etc etc.


Now if he or anyone else who writes poker books for a living wants to come out and say that they will never do any such thing, that will suit me just fine: make my day, as they say. But he chooses not to run, like Seinfeld, and probably for the same reason. But he is only delaying the inevitable, and the longer he or any poker writer holds out the more obvious it will be how wrong they are, and how little they really understand poker.


The self-serving silence he is maintaining is totally at odds with the role of teacher and scientist which he professes. He is welcome to continue this course of action for as long as he wishes: after all, he has a lot of obsolete books to sell before the tide changes. But sooner or later he is going to have to change his tune or be left behind. So be it. I have no intention of making it easier for him or anyone who has, IMO demonstrated their true level of understanding of poker by ignoring both the game and the arguments which demonstrate it's clear technical superiority to both HOldem and Down-the-river, arguments which he is perfectly capable of understanding since he uses the appropriate comparitive techniques himself for other purposes. Waiting until the players themselves discover Big-river and then playing catch-up by writing books which use my arguments to explain to them what a good game it is they are playing will be betrayal of every principle of intellectual honesty, since the arguments and the game are available now, and if he cannot understand them or take the time to actually play the game to find out if they are correct, then how can he claim any special level of understanding? The longer it goes on, the bigger the climb-down he, and any poker writer will have to make when they realize that they owe me a debt of gratitude, and an apology, not the insulting and self-serving silence they maintain in the face of cogent arguments, and the best possible test of skill in a seven-card game.

I dont know much about your game. But i have never heard of it or seen it in any casino that I play in. But if you think it will overtake holdem in popularity I think you are just being foolhardy.


Pat

Hi Pat, yeah, so everyone tells me, so I guess that makes me an idiot or pretty smart, depending on whether I'm right or not. To me it's simply a matter of joining the dots: seven-card stud, in the defective form of Down-the-river, stomped all over Holdem for forty or fifty years, and is still very popular, since it is the only game in widespread play which uses the three-card start (the best starting proposition in poker,) and non-communal cards. If we look a few years ahead to a time when "seven-card stud" means Big-river/mississippi and it has subsumed Down-the-river's market share, then it is not a huge step to add the percentage market points to overtake Holdem. Since market swings of this size and far greater have taken place over the past twenty years with Omaha and Holdem, the idea that their hold on the market is invincible is as hollow as the idea which most Down-the-river players had in the seventies that Holdem would never pose a threat to their game. Actually holdem would never have been a threat to Down-the-river if No-limit championship play hadn't become a major part of the game: that's what brought holdem into widespread play, eventually: even in 1978 Doyle Brunson was having to explain to the poker world what the game was in his book Super/systems, since no one knew anything about it. Since Big-river/M7 is an excellent no-limit championship game, Holdem's long-term advantage is now zero, or negative, except that it has a big player base and BR/M7 has none: when that changes so will everything else.


Big-river is 7cs with the fourth and five cards dealt together in a two-card flip and the last card dealt face-up, BTW.

I have no doubt that Mississippi Stud (Mstud) is a great improvement over 7stud. Five rounds of betting is, IMHO, too many. Besides slowing down the game by 20% or more, fourth street is pretty barren of strategy, amounting to little more than a big mid-game ante. The effect is that bad players can chase to the river with a minimal downside, making the game more of a crap-shoot, I think.


For example, say you raise on Third with a Queen (highest card on board), and three or four players call. Now what?


As for the river card, I think I would prefer it up. This too would speed up the game. Each player in 7stud has to peek at or Squeeeeeeezz that last card, usually in series, until you just want to lean over the table and slap them. (Therefore: less tilt pressure, LOL.) In addition to the increased speed, the last card up allows for more informed play. Having it down throws a little more crap-shooting into the game.


The only problem with Mstud, and I'm speculating, is that good players might have too much of an advantage for the game to sustain itself.


Tom D

Tom, thanks for the thoughful reply. I have to agree with you about the slow squeeze in Down-the-river: it's much worse when you play with HP or PL betting, because it's always the same loose cannons who are all-in who take the longest. When I think of the poker-man-years which have been wasted on all-in slow squeezes.... Damn, I'm doing the world a favour here by abolishing them altogether.


It's an interesting point to say that Big River may be too hard on inferior players, but there are plenty of compensations for them. To deliberately dumb-down a game by turning the river-card down is a pretty big step to take without good reason: 2/7 hole-cards is ideal, as Holdem demonstrates. And for anyone interested in poker as a rational activity, particularly at the championship level, to suggest that a game should be dumbed down to give the suckers a chance is, well, misguided. Not that you are suggesting that of course, but I understand that one poker theorist has some such argument. It's the same sort of thing which was said about contract bridge when it was invented: that it was too hard for most people: that may be true, but let them stick to euchre or five-hundred, or in Poker, Down-the-river, if they want to play a form of the game which has no championship status and less potential for the use of intelligence. Other things being equal, serious (and indeed average) players will prefer a game which gives them the most powerful weapons during play.


Opps, I've been using the wrong email address, which is actually davidzanetti@bigpond.com.au rather than zdavidzetc, which was my handle on the now defunct my-deja email facility.

I don't comment about your game which you are constantly promoting because I have never thought about it in any way. If it ever begins to get some real play in our cardrooms, I may begin to look at it. But I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

David,


I tried your link above and it didn't work. Then I "Googled" you (I used your name and poker in the search block) and ended up with the link below.


Regards,


Rick

Hi Mason, thanks for the response. You are welcome to leave it at that if you wish, though I can't see how you can possibly trust your own conclusion if you haven't thought about it. You've just announced your uniformed prejudice, giving no reasons at all. Wilful ignorance is rarely excusable, and never in a teacher speaking of developments, theoretical and practical, in his own field, and especially when it can lead to the inference that short-term self-interest is involved, as it can in this case. Your refusal to even look at a game which is the only way to play no-limit championship seven-card stud speaks volumes.

Why is it important to you that Mason Malmuth and other poker "authorities" legitimize your game? Why do you want them to recognize you as some type of poker visionary before you've actually succeded at establishing this game?


You present youself as somebody who is more interested in being praised (worshipped?) for his ideas rather than somebody who is genuinely interested in promoting a new form of poker. This alone will make many people dismiss your ideas without seriously considering them. Your self-congratulartory attitude immediately puts people off.


Asking (harassing?) Mason Malmuth for an apology isn't going to accomplish anything. It just makes you look vain and silly. It will hurt your goal of establishing Mississippi Stud rather than helping it.


As for the game, it seems to have genuine promise. I've read your entire website and think your ideas are sound. I play both Hold'em and Stud and think your game incorporates the best features of both games. If you sell it properly, it could certainly succeed.


What have you done to get this game spread, especailly in Las Vegas? Have you been in regular contact with the management of the big poker rooms at the Bellagio and Mirage? How about outside of Las Vegas?


Keep this in mind. You're essentially an entrepreneur trying to sell a new product. You're not trying to sell it to Mason Malmuth or other poker "authorities". You want to sell it to players. Forget about Mason Malmuth and what he does/doesn't think about your game. Only you are going to move your product foward.


And remember, superior products don't always succeed at beating their competition. Mississippi Stud isn't going to become successful simply because it has better theoretical gameplay. There is a long line of superior products which were beaten by inferior products for multitudes of reasons (price, convienience, marketing). It may serve you well to find a new way to promote your game rather than the self-serving whiny tone which is customary of your posts on this site.

...as the saying goes. When you're talking about the virtues of your game, you sound rational and interesting; when you start insulting Mason Malmuth (who as others point out, owes you absolutely nothing), you come off like a flaming idiot. I'm sure that's not your intention. As a promoter of a new game, you want to woo people, not repel them! Big River sounds interesting and I might give it a try at my home game; meanwhile, consider turning down the volume.

Rick,


It didn't work for me either, but the link below should:


BTW, I like the concept of the game, and have tried it in a couple of home games. I like it better than traditional 7stud.


I have no affiliation with David Zanetti.


Regards.

I have more projects than I currently have time. So I have to set my priorities. If I lived in a vacuum, then perhaps I would show a tiny bit of interest in your game. But right now it is last on my list, and it will be up to others to move it up. By the way, I expect it to stay in it's location and will be very surprised if I ever have to consider it.


I also suspect that your knowledge and understanding of limit poker is extremely limited (no pun intended). If you understood these forms of poker better you wouldn't be carrying on so much about your version of big bet poker. You would discover that there is much more to limit poker than you realize and that there is a reason these games now totally dominate live action play in our cardrooms.

Hi again Mason, I'm not sure if my disinterest in playing limit betting games is particularly relevent, except that having played plenty half-pot and pot-limit down-the-river I am well aware of it's problems as a big-bet game. In any case, Big River is far superior to Down-the river however it is played: check Tom D's post on this thread for some of the reasons why. For some feedback on what it's like to play the game and how people are taking to it, see Andrew Prock's Barge report on RGP. It's a pretty good sign when someone candidly admits going to sleep thinking of nothing but playing BR/M7, and wanting to play plenty more of it asap.


And BTW, they don't play limit-betting games on television, so if seven-card stud is ever to make into the developments which are taking place in that area - and of course the huge NL tournament scene - it can only be in the form of Big river.


Down-the-river is steadily declining in it's market share, and one would have thought that someone with an interest in the game might take the time to consider why, and whether it's absence from the NL championship tables, it's lack of a multi-card draw, and it's slowness, all of which are caused by it's arcane and illogical 19th century layout, might have a lot to do with it.


Saying that you are too busy to even think about it is a joke. You have plenty of time to correct people on such crucial issues as how to play queens utg at three-fish table, or whatever the hot-topic is this week, but none at all to consider the only game which can reverse the steady decline in interest in seven-card stud.


Anyway, it's your call, I can only lead the horse to water.

"Saying that you are too busy to even think about it is a joke. You have plenty of time to correct people on such crucial issues as how to play queens utg at three-fish table, or whatever the hot-topic is this week, but none at all to consider the only game which can reverse the steady decline in interest in seven-card stud."


Return(talking about QQ in LHE) >> Return(talking about Miss. Stud., etc.) by the mere number of LHE games in the world.


Ya' know, one problem I think you are going to have convinceing many people on 2+2 or RGP that they should abandon HE is that most are poker players. Not stud players, or HE players, or omaha players, or limit poker players, or big bet players but poker players. Spread a game they can get an advantage at and they will play. Sure, many will have favorite forms, but in general its the form they can find games at they will play. The compelling reason to learn another game is because the fish are schooling in that game. I havn't see any fish show a flicker of interest for Miss. Stud.


I played about 20 hours of Miss Stud 8 or better at Binion's in August (and probably 5-10 hours of Miss Studd and Miss Stud 8 at other times and in home games). I bet it hasn't been spread at Binion's since. I think the balance of skill and luck is so far out of whack towards skill that even with a dedicated group of players you couldn't get a once a week game going for a whole year in the LV, LA, or the Bay Area.


Personally I think Mason is wrong about the skill needed to play big bet poker relative to limit poker. But thats a red herring. The vast majority of ring games these days are limit thus it pays to know how to play limit. The number of PL stud games I can find (and I happen to know where to find one) couldn't even keep me in cat food.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, Dynasty and Mr B. and thanks for letting me know about the failed link, Rick. the website is www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven (http://www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven) It's pretty basic in form, but the content is there I think.


I have a lot of trouble getting the tone right, I admit. My frustration boils over occasionally. It felt as if the efforts of the last two years were wasted, if not actively resisted, so I raised the volume and at least received a response. I've tried the quiet voice of reason, and been quietly ignored, or actively flamed.


My certainty that I am correct comes across as arrogance, vanity etc, but I've tried coming cap-in-hand and it doesn't work either, so I would just as soon call it as I see it.


As for getting the casinos to spread it, I've sent of a lot of emails, and made personal contact with a aquite a few individuals, but it's difficult to get the message through: I've been expecting player demand to do the trick, but it's a chicken and egg situation: they won't spread it till the players demand it, and the players can't get a taste of it until the casinos spread it. I think next years RGE player-run events might be a watershed in that the good news is spreading from Barge outwards, so change may be in the air.

If you can convince a Pit-boss or tournament director to spread it, please do!


It's good to hear that a few people are interested in the game: I tend to forget that there are far more readers than posters, and that a lot of the negative comments comes from people who, following Mason's example, haven't bothered to try the game, and simply dismissed both the games and the supporting theories out of hand. I'll try to lighten up a little. I'm only stubborn when I don't get my own way ;-)


BTW, when Mason changes his mind he will indeed owe me an apology and a debt of gratitude for showing him the future of seven-card stud. As far as I can see he is cutting off his nose to spite his face by ignoring it, since it will benefit him in the future: new game, new markets etc etc.

Cheers,

DZ

Thanks for the feedback. It's an interesting view, but in terms of your personal preference Michael, which game would you rather play, down-the-river or mississippi? I find the two-card flip so playable that it is impossible to play DTR anymore, and I suspect that is how it will be for most. I also think that pit-bosses will like the extra hands per hour as much as the players, when it is played with limit betting. Time will tell.....


I also should take heart from the change which has taknen place in perceptions over the past two years: BR M7 as gone from being a "piece of @#$%" to too damn good a game for the average player to handle. I think we underestimate the average player and what they want: they want excitement, and the opportunity to strut their stuff: BR/M7 delivers that, and is a lot less complex to learn because of it's lack of flaws.


Anyway, thanks again,


Cheers.

Anybody else living (or visiting) in Las Vegas interested in playing a few hours of Mississippi Stud at the Mirage or Bellagio? If we can assemble a small group of players to show up at a specific time on a specifi day, we could probably get either poker room to spread the game (We can also ask the room in advance to be prepared). I'd be willing to play on a weekly basis just to give the game a try.


Personally, I'd want to play for smaller stakes- either 1-5 spread limit or 5-10 fixed limit. Pot-limit and No-limit just aren't my games.

"I've tried the quiet voice of reason, and been quietly ignored, or actively flamed."


Does that include accusing me of plagerism? By the way, publishers don't take this accusation lightly.


By the way, in my book Poker Essays, Volume II there are two essays called "What's Makes a Poker Game Worth Playing, Parts One and Two." I suspect you should look at them. Of course you'll need to buy the book/

I'm not sure you can do this. For a game to be spread, I believe it has to be approved in Nevada. The poker room manager would know for sure.

I know nothing significant of state gaming regulations so I can't debate that issue.


However, according to the Card Player article (which has a link in Rick Nebiolo's post above) the game was spread at Binion's Horseshoe so I assumed that it would be possible to do it at any strip poker room.


Of course, talking with management at the Bellagio or Mirage will be the easiest solution. If players are interested, I'll do it sometime in the next week when I'm playing there.

I absolutely withdraw and apologise for any accusation of plagiarism against you Mason Malmuth. I've already done so on the original thread on RGP from last week, and on this page, and I'll gladly post a new one which says so in the title on RPG if you wish, without any comment or qualification at all.


But to explain further here, my rash statement was brought on by the date on your essay, which was dated a year or so after I first started posting similar comments on twoplustwo, though in a completely different context which led to me being flamed for it. If I understand correctly it was actually an old essay and the date was of it's addition to the on-line collection, not it's original publication. I should have checked before I said anything.


Thanks for the tip on your book, which will certainly be one of the first I will buy when I stock up on poker books, which I don't do very often. My main card-book at present is David Parlett's Oxford guide to Card games, for the historical side, which I don't think is available off-the-shelf in the US.

Couldn't agree with that anymore. Although i must say I don't like the river being dealt face up. It seems like this takes away from the bluffing and reading skills somewhat, although obviously it adds other facets of reading as well. Also pretty hard to get action if all 5 up cards form a complete hand.


It seems to me like the game is better suited to limit play than big bet, at least for its development stage anyway. The 2 card flip, and lower limit on 5th street, obviously make drawing hands more powerful than normal stud, and make protection of early made hands more difficult (not nec a good or bad thing).

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


A game must be approved to play in the state of NV. I believe this 7 stud game would fall under the general rules of 7 card stud poker, if not the game can be submitted to gaming for approval.


Randy Refeld

Unfortunately for Mr. Zanetti, it doesn't appear that many Vegas folks are interested in trying out the game.


I'll be sure to put my offer up again the next time Mr. Zanetti brings up his Mississippi Stud debate.