A Nice Man in the Casino

[andyfox]

I walk into the casino and there is a seat in the 20-40 game. I tell the dealer I'll take my big blind while I'm waiting for chips. The player on my imemdiate left, a nice man I've played with before, raises. Everyone folds, including me.

The dealer tells him I owe him $20, which I do. He takes his big blind and, since I'm still awaiting the arrival of my chips, he gives me a stack of chips ($100). I pay him the $20 I owe him from the previous hand.

I flop good and there's some fireworks on the flop. He has folded and he gives me another stack to continue to play the hand. I make a flush on the river and win a big pot. I count down the remaining $180 I owe him from the winnings, and give it to him.

Now they call me for the $30-60 game. As I'm leaving, he tells me I only gave him $180, I owe him $20. I remind him I gave him the $20 before. He says OK, and I go to the $30-60 game.

After about 10 minutes, he comes over and politely asks to talk to me away from the table. He tells me that I lost $20 to him the first hand, and borrowed $200, so I still owe him $20. I tell him I don't think so, but I don't want him to think I screwed him, so I go and get $20 and give it to him. He says, no, if I think it's right, it's right, and gives me back the $20.

I resume my seat at the 30-60 table, give the matter some thought, and come to realize that, of course, he's right, and I owe him $20. I walk over to the 20-40 game and give him the $20 with a profuse apology. He laughs and tells me not to worry about it.

Ten minutes later he comes over to the 30-60 table on his way to the cashier cage. He takes off two $5 chips and says he just won three big pots in a row and felt he wanted to share his good fortune with me.

Nicest part of the day.

And I won $1,600.

[mike l.]

"And I won $1,600."

holy crumb, do you ever lose man? i mean seriously.. mason jokes about running good for years on end, but ive actually seen him lose. and ive seen dynasty and the clarkmeister lose. tommy told me about an enormous no limit hand he lost one time, so i know he lost at least that once. and i know mike l. loses his ass all the time. but you man, sheesh, are you just making 7 figures a year in those brown chip games or what??

[andyfox]

I never lose, no.

[Easy E]

When are you writing it?

[CrackerZack]

Another pleasant story Andy, maybe California isn't so bad.

And if it makes you feel better, I would've made the same mistake you did and thought you had paid him back and were right until I sat and thought about it for a second. Oops... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Softrock]

Andy - Do you believe in Karma? The rational part of me does not, of course, but I still in my heart believe that "what goes around, comes around". Many poker players cannot distinguish between being as cutthroat as possible within the context oa a hand from being nasty outside the context of a hand. As the saying goes I would check-raise my Mother if I thought it was +EV - but I strive to be the nicest guy at the table otherwise. I know it pays off in terms of my disposition and who I am, but I've also come to believe that it's +EV.

[Tommy Angelo]

I'm twice confused. First, I still think you got shorted. lol

Second, who is the nice man in the title? You or him?

Good story. Thanks.


Tommy

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer tells him I owe him $20, which I do. He takes his big blind and, since I'm still awaiting the arrival of my chips, he gives me a stack of chips ($100). I pay him the $20 I owe him from the previous hand.

I flop good and there's some fireworks on the flop. He has folded and he gives me another stack to continue to play the hand. I make a flush on the river and win a big pot. I count down the remaining $180 I owe him from the winnings, and give it to him.


[/ QUOTE ]
The he's and him's in the above make this vague enough to be difficult to interpret. However it appears to me you paid him (the other player) $20 too much.

My interpretation: you lose $20 to a player but can't pay. He gives you $100, you immediately return $20 to him, and owe him $80 more. Other player loans you another $100, and you owe him a total of $180 at that point. You pay him $180. How do you owe him another $20?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
My interpretation: you lose $20 to a player but can't pay. He gives you $100, you immediately return $20 to him, and owe him $80 more.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, Andy owed the guy $120 total ($20 blind he owed him + $100 loaned to Andy).

[mosch]

I agree with you on this point. If you're friendly, play fair and don't get nasty when you're beat you get more action, because people enjoy having you at the table, even if you routinely take some of their money.

All other things being equal, if you can play with the grouchy tight-aggressive guy who throws his cards when he's beat, or the tight-aggressive guy who is friendly and funny, what table would you prefer to play at?

[Aces McGee]

Andyfox owed his opponent $20 from the hand he played with no chips, $100 for the first stack of chips, and another $100 for the second stack. That's $220 total.

Andyfox originally paid the man $20, then another $180. That's $200 total, leaving him with a debt of $20.

[Schmed]

I'm with ya, I mean I want to be with people at the table who are fun to be with. I try to be like that as well.

I will admit that I do get a lot of satisfaction out of making some grouchy ass throw his cards down and pout...but it is unpleasant until he leaves...... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

He's the nice man.

It's amazing how confusing this simple transaction was. But then again I'm math challenged.

He loaned me $200. Then I lost $20 to him. So I owe him $220.

No?

[BruceZ]

We can't tell from your original story, because you didn't say how large was the stack of chips he loaned you, "He has folded and he gives me another stack to continue to play the hand", you only said that you paid him back $180 for it. If the stack was $180, then you were even. If it was $200, then you still owed him $20. The $20 you paid him before was for when he beat you in the blind. If that was part of the $200 you thought you owed, meaning the stack was $180, then he loaned you $200 all together, and you paid $200 all together, and you were even. If the stack was $200 in addition to the $20 blind, then he loaned you $220 all together, and you only paid him $200, so you owed another $20. So the question is how much did he loan you all together, and how much did you pay all together, and these two numbers are supposed to be equal, that's the fundamental concept.

[George Rice]

You owe $200 to him for the two stacks of nickels he gave to you. You owe $20 to the pot wich was won by him. It's easier to see if you pretend for a moment that someone else had won that pot.

[tiltboy]

[Rushmore]

I enjoyed your post, but my enjoyment dissipated when I read the responses questioning the numbers, and questioning the veracity of your bookkeeping.

Sometimes, it seems like folks just don't want to get the point.

[Ray Zee]

you fell for an old con. while you think he is being nice he short stacked the two stacks he gave you then stole your blind as well. the two chips he gave you he had just stolen from someone else and he needed to get away from the table.
glad you won anyway.:)

[andyfox]

Each stack came directly from his rack, so they were $100 each. And I did indeed owe him the extra $20. As one of hte other posters pointed out, it's easy to see if you imagine the $20 blind being owed to a different player.

But we two idiots sure were confused, or at least I was.

[Zeno]

Sounds like something Vito would do. Vito showed me a move that he used back east to cheat people at the craps table.

Just a test post Mr. Zee.

-Zeno

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif. clearly one of the best series of posts in history of 2 + 2....it's amazing, if we're in control of our emotions; and care about, at the least, thinking about the other guy's viewpoint; how we end up winners at the end of the day.

contrast this with only complaining about my cards, my bad luck, i never get any breaks, i deserve any extra money i get because of these bad breaks...etc...and see how you end up loser...

lol

gr8 posts..

gl /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[John Cole]

Andy,

Good post, and thanks; you've managed to supply one math problem that Bruce, George Rice, and I can all figure out. And, I couldn't even begin to estimate the odds of that happening ever again.

[M.B.E.]

Andy, thanks for launching another great thread.

Moral of the story (#1): Give other players the benefit of the doubt in any dispute, unless you have a good reason not to.

Moral of the story (#2): If you owe someone $x, and he lends you $y more, just say "thanks, now I owe you $(x+y)". It's way confusing to pay back $x out of the $y.

[M.B.E.]

Bruce, one of the meanings of "stack" is "20 chips". That's what the term usually means in the context of a limit game. But in tournaments and no-limit games, it's generally used to mean "all of (a given player's) chips that are in play". So the term has a number of inconsistent meanings, but you can generally tell from the context which is meant.

[John Cole]

Is there still enough time to delete the above post before Bruce sees it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bruce, I'm joking. Really.

Best,

John

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't tell from your original story, because you didn't say how large was the stack of chips he loaned you, "He has folded and he gives me another stack to continue to play the hand",

[/ QUOTE ]

If one were being extremely nitty, one could point out that the story does not state that the second stack is the same type of stack as the first stack Andy refers to: he gives me a stack of chips ($100).

[ QUOTE ]
If the stack was $180, then you were even. If it was $200, then you still owed him $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if one were being that nitty, one would probably also point out that if the second stack was $180, Andy would most definitely not be even and would still owe the gentleman $100 for the first stack after paying him $200 for the $20 blind and $180 second stack.

[BruceZ]

But if one were being that nitty, one would probably also point out that if the second stack was $180, Andy would most definitely not be even and would still owe the gentleman $100 for the first stack after paying him $200 for the $20 blind and $180 second stack.

Actually, nitty or not, it never said the first stack came from the same guy, and I didn't assume that it did. The "he" could refer to the dealer, who was waiting for a refill from the chip runner. That seemed a lot more reasonable to me than Andy trying to pay back the guy with his own money. In that case, Andy most certainly would be even if the second "stack" was $180.

Now I understand that the guy gave him a stack of $100 after Andy already owed him $20 for the blind, and Andy immediately gave the guy back $20 of his own money, so he owed $100 at that point, and then another $100 after the second stack for a total of $200. He then paid back $180, which was $20 short.

[BruceZ]

So I can't push out a "stack of 4 red chips"?

Lesson of the story...democrats shouldn't play with money they don't have if they can't think their way out of a paper bag? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm joking, really.

[BruceZ]

Actually, nitty or not, it never said the first stack came from the same guy, and I didn't assume that it did.

On second reading, I see you can infer this. However, then he could be even if the second stack were only $80. $180 for both stacks. I actually ignored the fact that there were two separate stacks, focusing instead on the total amount the guy gave him.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually ignored the fact that there were two separate stacks, focusing instead on the total amount the guy gave him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I knew that. I was just messing with you. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[John Cole]

Bruce,

No, you can't. Four red chips will, according to the definition, simply be four red chips and will not constitute a "stack." Like any good Republican, I respect the meaning of definitions.

[daryn]

this one is funny

[BruceZ]

So you're saying that Felicia Lee was wrong when she wrote:

By the time we got to the river, he didn't have much money left. He had three red chips to call my $20 bet. I looked down at his stack and said to the dealer, "He only has three red out there,"

I always thought English was acceptable at the poker table.

[andyfox]

A stack can indeed mean all those chips piled on top of one another. "He had stacks and stacks of chips."

But in limit poker, a stack is indeed generally known as 20 chips, the amount that fits into one of the five sections of a rack. Many times a new player in a game will ask for, or receive, a "stack" from another player while he's waiting for his checks. It is common knowledge that this means 20 chips. When a player says he was down 2 stacks, it is understood he means 40 chips.

I should, however, have said so in my initial post.

[baggins]

the difference between 'stack' and 'stack' can almost always be inferred from context. shouldn't need to explain.

besides, are we all really that nitty? it's a story, no need to correct his math or comment. just smile and nod...

[Tommy Angelo]

Bruce, congrats to you. Before this thread, you were the only person in the poker world who didn't know that in this context: "he gave me a stack," just as in this context: "I was stuck three stacks," the word "stack" means 20 chips. So now you know.

[BruceZ]

I thought he wanted an anwer to the math since he had a question mark. I needed more info. However, with the explanation of this bit of slang, his original story contains all of the necessary information.

[BruceZ]

I seriously doubt that's true, especially with all the online players to whom the term would have no meaning. I've heard the term used this way live and on this board, but I never really understood what the assumed stack size was. Seems arbitrary to me, what if I keep my chips in stacks of 10?

[Tommy Angelo]

Bruce, hello? A stack is not universally regarded as 20 chips because of how poker players stack chips. It's because of how cashiers do.

[BruceZ]

I know, that's the part that's arbitrary.

Kind of like horsepower. Most engineers and physists agree it's a dumb term since we have no idea what kind of horse we're talking about.

[John Cole]

Just keep in mind the words of Confucius:

Rectifying the Names
XII.17: Chi Kang-tzu asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, "To govern (cheng) means to rectify (cheng).11 If you lead on the people with correctness, who will dare not to be correct?"

XIII.3: Tzu-lu said, "The prince of Wei has been waiting for you, in order that you administer (cheng) the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?" The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify (cheng) names." "So, indeed!" said Tzu-lu. "You are wide of the mark. Why must their be such rectification?" The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties (li ) and music (yüeh) will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

[CrackerZack]

Its what fits in a rack. Unless you're at bellagio, they now fit 21 for some reason.

Tommy, be careful or a 400 page diatribe will appear entitled, "My problem with Tommy Angelo", if you continue to refute BruceZ. And then he'll make flushes less value than straights because more people play suited cards.

[Duke]

Nice. For a second I thought you were serious. Excellent job turning a blunder into some deadpan comedy. I was waiting for you to start saying how a rack actually was 2 chips, since nice racks consist of 2 tits.

~D

[BruceZ]

Its what fits in a rack. Unless you're at bellagio, they now fit 21 for some reason.

I rest my case.


Tommy, be careful or a 400 page diatribe will appear entitled, "My problem with Tommy Angelo", if you continue to refute BruceZ.

I only do that to worthless pond scum whom I have proven to be indisputably wrong on several issues, and who can't admit it after insulting me about them for months. Incidentally, that wasn't my title. That was the other guy's title directed to me in a post that preceded mine. On the contrary, I'm entirely willing to accept arbitrary conventions, no matter how inane they are. It's the people who refuse to admit that they are inane that I have trouble with.

[BruceZ]

Excuse me, unfamiliarity with slang can hardly be considered a "blunder".

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
Its what fits in a rack. Unless you're at bellagio, they now fit 21 for some reason.

I rest my case.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't rest too much case on that. The reason they fit 21 isn't due to design. I think the chips have actually gotten thinner due to so much use.

[BruceZ]

So does a "stack" refer to 21 chips only at the Bellagio, or is it still only 20? If it's still 20, then the term doesn't seem to have much to do with the size of the stack you get from the cashier as some have claimed. If it's 21, then the meaning depends on the casino as well as the context.

[Boris]

I'm still trying to figure out whether you're trying to be difficult or if you really don't know what a stack refers to in the context of a limit hold'em game or when buying chips.

But anyways, when you get a stack of chips from the cashier at the bellagio you get 20 chips. some careless poker players, when racking up, will find that each column in the rack will actually hold 21 chips and not the 20 they have come to expect. This is due to the fact that the chips get thinner over time due to wear and tear and not to the fact that the Bellagio is trying to impose a new proprietary standard on the poker world. In fact with the $10 and $20 chips you will not have this problem as only 20 of these chips will fit in a rack.

[CrackerZack]

A stack is always 20 chips. At the bellagio when I first played there about 3 years ago, exactly 20 chips fit in a row of a rack, there are 5 rows. Since then I have played there 7 or 8 times on 3 different trips and the chips seem to have worn down so now 21 chips will fit into the rack. This is not done by the casino on purpose, its more wear and tear on the chips.

Final verdict: Stack is 20.

Note: if this is a joke by bruce to see how many times you can get it explained, you win. i'll be laughed at.

[rharless]

Although 21 chips fit into each slot of the rack, they still only put 20 chips in each slot. Therefore, the cashier still gives you 5 stacks of 20 chips each when you buy a rack.

Btw, while we're on it, a "rack" is equal to 100 chips.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Btw, while we're on it, a "rack" is equal to 100 chips.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually a rack must be 38 inches or larger to qualify! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I suppose if your rack was a bit smaller but you could still stack 200 chips on it then yours would qualify as well!

[Ray Zee]

cole where do you get all this crap. confucius only said one important thing --- man who play poker on hillside should know game not on level.