The Rock

[The Dude]

I find it hard to believe that any winning player who is not suffering from bankroll considerations would not want the rock in their game.

Jim Brier listed six negative effects the rock has on a game. IMO, only one of these is valid - the issue of confusion/controversy. The others all deal with the EV effects, and even opponents to The Rock know a winning player's EV is greater when the rock is in play. Jim even says it in his article. So what do reasons 2-6 in Jim's article even matter? You could list these as adjustments you need to make in your game when playing with The Rock, but they are definately not reasons to NOT play with The Rock.

I'm going to avoid the temptation to pick apart his indivudual arguments, and just say that I disagree with his conclusion - as do almost every other winning player I've ever talked to.

[bernie]

A rock, like a kill game, has the better chance of lesser players going bust faster. You're looking at shortterm over longterm.

This is more of an issue in smaller rooms/areas.

b

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
A rock, like a kill game, has the better chance of lesser players going bust faster. You're looking at shortterm over longterm.


[/ QUOTE ]
If that's true, then you would want Muckleshoot to get rid of their 20-40 game, so the fish could play 10-20 longer.

Look, here's the bottom line. The Rock generates action. In most Rock games I play, players loosen up when it's in play, not tighten up. It's counter-intuitive, but it's true. Many, many fish are action junkies - and The Rock generates action. Whether or not the fish can afford to continually lose money in a bigger game is a completely separate issue - and has nothing to do with the faulty arguments Jim gave in his article.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's true, then you would want Muckleshoot to get rid of their 20-40 game, so the fish could play 10-20 longer.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the same thing at all. Lots of people can afford to play 10-20 and not 20-40. If 10-20 was a rock game, the normal 10-20 people would be playing over their heads and it would become a very tight game eventually. Likely, much like the 6-12 used to play. Which was, with regularity, the tightest game I've ever been on.

Same with someone who is banked, somewhat, for a normal 4-8 game is not in the same 'bank' situation if you put a rock on the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Look, here's the bottom line. The Rock generates action. In most Rock games I play, players loosen up when it's in play, not tighten up. It's counter-intuitive, but it's true. Many, many fish are action junkies - and The Rock generates action. Whether or not the fish can afford to continually lose money in a bigger game is a completely separate issue

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was part of his argument. If it wasn't it should've been. It's a very key factor against it.

Using smaller denomination of chips for bigger limits (ie...more chips to put in the pot for a bet like lil's does with 8-16 playing with $2 chips) also generates action.

Yes, it's +EV for the good player and it will generate action. For awhile. However, it's also not a good longterm game, imo. You don't want the donators to bust out that quick and be discouraged. Especially if they really have a bad session and blow a load.

Bleed them slowly.

b

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't the same thing at all. Lots of people can afford to play 10-20 and not 20-40. If 10-20 was a rock game, the normal 10-20 people would be playing over their heads

[/ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm not saying that all games should be rock games. Fish are almost always playing over thier heads anyways, so they tend to lose the maximum they can afford to lose, or a little more. It's really a question of how many times per year a fish can afford to go - whether they play 10-20 or 20-40, they'll lose close to the same amount anyway. So the real question is whether or not it's the type of game they want.

Nobody argues whether or not a Rock game is more porfitable for winning players. It is. If fish have more fun in action games, and you make more money, what's the problem?

The only people I have ever met who don't like Rock games are nits. The weak/passive Vegas local types, who come into a game and eat The Rock. The tourists were having fun, I was making more money, and they came in and blew it. IMO, if a whole table has already agreed to a Rock and there are multiple non-Rock games going, one player shouldn't be able to come in and bust it up. Well, maybe they should, I don't know. But I will be bitter about it.

I hate nits.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
if a whole table has already agreed to a Rock and there are multiple non-Rock games going, one player shouldn't be able to come in and bust it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "rock," like the "kill," I actually don't really care one way or the other -- if it's there, fine, if it's not, whatever. HOWEVER, I do agree with you 100% that no one should be allowed to come to the table and eliminate the Rock. That's just wrong. If you come to a game seeing the Rock -- or a Kill system -- that's what you get. Period. Granted, I'm maybe unique being as I don't care one way or the other, but the annoyance it causes the other 8 people when 1 person wants it gone makes the whole experience a negative one in my book.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that any winning player who is not suffering from bankroll considerations would not want the rock in their game.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am a winning player and I would not want the rock in my game. The reason is simple: I make money from players making mistakes. Usually, that mistake is playing too many hands. Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively. This turns what would normally be clear pre-flop errors into "tricky/aggressive" play. Obviously, if your normal game is NOT loose passive (or loose-aggressive, to a lesser extent), this disadvantage does not apply. If you're the kind of player who does better in LAG games, the rock will probably help you.

And now, here's the funny self-deprecating humor in post. I read Jim's article at work...really just skimming it. I got about halfway through, when I thought "what does this rubber band filled with chips have to do with playing against a real nit?!"

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is simple: I make money from players making mistakes. Usually, that mistake is playing too many hands. Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming I understand how the rock works this is not correct. You should play tighter. The reason is that it costs more relative to the blinds to see the flop.

[Clarkmeister]

"Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively."

You may well be a winning player, but you are completely incorrect with this statement.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason is simple: I make money from players making mistakes. Usually, that mistake is playing too many hands. Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming I understand how the rock works this is not correct. You should play tighter. The reason is that it costs more relative to the blinds to see the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I think you're right (yet another reason I shouldn't play with "the rock"--I barely understand how it works!) I was thinking of the rock as analygous to a kill blind, which it really isn't. A KB becomes yours when you win it...you have to give the rock back!

The point I was trying to make (badly), was that as a general principle pots with extra money in them (late posts, straddles, KBs, etc.) *should* motivate extra action. In games where there's already too much (incorrect) action, the revised structure unintentially makes loose play more correct.

[Clarkmeister]

I agree 100% Dude. I was going to post something similar but didn't want to initiate such a thread. I've noticed one thing about the rock and winning players - the unimaginative nits hate it, the truly good winners who really understand the game love it.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively."

You may well be a winning player, but you are completely incorrect with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it is so. /images/graemlins/blush.gif (Damn these forums are tough...make a few mistakes it's pointed out mighty fast. I gotta get quicker with my "edit" button)

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed one thing about the rock and winning players - the unimaginative nits hate it, the truly good winners who really understand the game love it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Worth repeating.

[bernie]

I will agree that if using a rock didn't eventually kill the action, I'd prefer it. Along with kill games. This is one reason I tend to like the kill games online as they have a higher flop % overall.

Im thinking more in terms of smaller casinos with a smaller player base. Which includes many places outside of Vegas, or any other big prime casino/cardroom for that matter, that don't have the influx of players coming in every week.

I think I remember hearing about how the Kenmore Lanes kill game almost died long ago. No doubt the kill likely had something to do with it. With the boom, it's since rebounded a bit if I heard it right.

[ QUOTE ]
if a whole table has already agreed to a Rock and there are multiple non-Rock games going, one player shouldn't be able to come in and bust it up. Well, maybe they should,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that they shouldn't be able to come in and break it up. They are in the minority, if they don't like it, they can leave. To me, this would be the equivalent of them going into a BJ game, not liking some of the rules, and asking for some of them changed.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to like to make the nits uncomfortable. They don't give much action and they bitch about not getting any.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is simple: I make money from players making mistakes. Usually, that mistake is playing too many hands. Because the rock adds money to the pot, players SHOULD play looser and more aggressively. This turns what would normally be clear pre-flop errors into "tricky/aggressive" play. Obviously, if your normal game is NOT loose passive (or loose-aggressive, to a lesser extent), this disadvantage does not apply. If you're the kind of player who does better in LAG games, the rock will probably help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mistakes are greatly magnified when you have a kill or rock in the game. Not to mention, anyone losing in a kill/rock pot has alot more chips to recoup when the limit goes back to normal than if the limit stayed normal.

Players should not play looser in these pots, btw. You actually play tighter. Why would you play looser? Because the pot is bigger? Look at the bet size in relation.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I was trying to make (badly), was that as a general principle pots with extra money in them (late posts, straddles, KBs, etc.) *should* motivate extra action. In games where there's already too much (incorrect) action, the revised structure unintentially makes loose play more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. It makes their play even more incorrect. On a bigger scale overall. Starting with preflop, compounding all the way through the hand bet-wise in relation to the normal limit they will be playing the greater percentage of the time.

b

[Demana]

I just read Jim's article and what struck me was the tone. It felt like he was whining because he played in a game with the rock, lost money, and is now blaming the rock for his losing session.

[J_V]

I've never played with the Rock, but you'd be crazy not to love it. Unless ofcourse you're "Ace-King" Bob, who got arrives at 9am with his coffee and cardplayer magazine folds 15 straight hands, raises AA UTG steals the blinds and shows it. Than it's too much action.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to avoid the temptation to pick apart his indivudual arguments, and just say that I disagree with his conclusion - as do almost every other winning player I've ever talked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to comment about the ones that really stuck out to me, namely 2, 3, and 4. He's complaining that you can't get free flops to make big hands with. The problem is that everyone in the big blind will play those hands the same way, so you're not gaining anything over your opponents. Where you gain is when you fold your 92o in the BB correctly, and the others at the table call incorrectly. Same goes with the SB, and playing suited connectors and other speculative hands. Your bad playing opponents will still be playing these hands, and you gain when they do.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to avoid the temptation to pick apart his indivudual arguments, and just say that I disagree with his conclusion - as do almost every other winning player I've ever talked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to comment about the ones that really stuck out to me, namely 2, 3, and 4. He's complaining that you can't get free flops to make big hands with. The problem is that everyone in the big blind will play those hands the same way, so you're not gaining anything over your opponents. Where you gain is when you fold your 92o in the BB correctly, and the others at the table call incorrectly. Same goes with the SB, and playing suited connectors and other speculative hands. Your bad playing opponents will still be playing these hands, and you gain when they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought nits hated the rock /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[The Dude]

nh.

[The Dude]

BTW, my just-finished Vegas trip has a few games relevant to this discussion. I played in 4 or 5 individual 20-40 games with the Rock going in the past 5 days, and two of them were the best two 20 games I've ever played in. Otherwise tight, decent players loosened up and started playing way too many hands, LAGs became maniacs, and weak/tight Vegas locals folded WAY too many hands preflop and on the flop, allowing the rest of us to win more than our fair share.

Good times.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, my just-finished Vegas trip has a few games relevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although my only experience with the Rock so far was in the 2+2 game, I can see how this variation encourages bad play and loosens up the table's playing standards. Unlike a KILL game which is mandated by the card room, a rock is mandated by the players. Any player at any time can opt-out of posting the UTG straddle with the rock, but this is of course the same as a decision not to chop... its greatly frowned upon. Most players know they cannot arbitrarily change their decision to chop without prior notice to the table, I would assume playing with the rock is essentially the same once a new player understands the concept.

We went head to head with a local angry old man when playing the 2+2 game with a rock, he accused us of making up our own rules as we went along. Although this situation was unique, the floor did rule in our favor. I think once he understood the concept of the rock he actually liked it (although he would never show it under his angry disposition).

I look forward to introducing the rock into games in NYC like the ol' reliable PS 4/8, and Satellite's pink chip game.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
We went head to head with a local angry old man when playing the 2+2 game with a rock, he accused us of making up our own rules as we went along. Although this situation was unique, the floor did rule in our favor. I think once he understood the concept of the rock he actually liked it (although he would never show it under his angry disposition).


[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was sitting next to him, so I got to talk to him a little about it. He was okay with The Rock, he just didn't like that the person put The Rock out there after he had already folded his hand.

Confusion when a new player comes into the game is a valid argument against putting The Rock in play.

[ QUOTE ]
Any player at any time can opt-out of posting the UTG straddle with the rock, but this is of course the same as a decision not to chop... its greatly frowned upon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, not exactly. Everybody at the table agrees to put The Rock into play in the first place, so if anybody has an objection to it, it just doesn't come out in the first place. Occaisionally you'll get a new player who comes into the game and eats it, but not very often.

[turnipmonster]

what really seems wrong and messed up is the practice of rock eating. I can't believe people do this without endless harassment from the rest of the table.

[tylerdurden]

You can't sit down at a kill game and say "I don't play with a kill" and force the game to become a "regular" game, why should you be allowed to do it in a rock game?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Occaisionally you'll get a new player who comes into the game and eats it, but not very often.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here at Foxwoods, we don't have a Rock game, but I've been where they have had them and I can't imagine telling everyone when I sit down that I won't play with The Rock -- if I don't like it, I can sit somewhere else.

That being the case, wouldn't the simplest thing to do be to tell people when they sit down: This is a Rock game. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you can't sit here unless you agree.

Simple and clean.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
That being the case, wouldn't the simplest thing to do be to tell people when they sit down: This is a Rock game. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you can't sit here unless you agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Problem is, The Rock is always brought into play by player agreement I've never seen a cardroom that has a Rock in by rule. So if the new player called the floorman, he would just say support the new player's right to eat The Rock.

In fact, one graveyard shift this past trip to Vegas I made the mistake of telling the floorman what we were doing. He informed us that The Mirage does not allow Rocks in play. I went back and told the table, and we all agreed to do it anyway. The Floor came by 10 mins later, saw The Rock, and told the dealer to un-rubberband it. So we all had a gentlemen's agreement to straddle when it would have been our Rock. We passed around the empty rubberband to remind ourselves.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was sitting next to him, so I got to talk to him a little about it. He was okay with The Rock, he just didn't like that the person put The Rock out there after he had already folded his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But his argument was pointless since even if he didn't call the rock pre-flop straddle he would have to call Felicia's bet. If he was the next person to act after the UTG then his argument would have been valid.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif