Still a Good Game?

The 15-30 game was 7-handed when I sat down. It featured the maniacal Irving, who was playing every hand and raising most of them. A couple additional loose-aggresssives made it a wild game, with nearly all pots being multiway for multiple preflop bets. After the flop, Irving got maximum value from his draws and made hands, and tended to check-call with his nearly hopeless hands. However, Irving appeared to have an agreement with a couple of the other players to not bet after a hand became head-up on the turn or river. In addition, when one of these players won a pot in which the others were involved, he would give the others $15 or $30 from the pot. I did not enjoy watching these players check it out and share the pot after having raised me out, but they played so badly that I remained. Despite my tight play, I knew I would get paid off if I ever made a hand.


After a short while, however, the game became 5-handed including me, Irving, and his buddies. I was now unsure whether to remain in the game due to their soft-playing and pot-sharing habits; to what extent did their informal collusion reduce my edge? [I decided to pay the collection for another 30 minutes, only to have the game break a few minutes later when I won my first pot!]

"After a short while, however, the game became 5-handed including me, Irving, and his buddies. I was now unsure whether to remain in the game due to their soft-playing and pot-sharing habits."


I think you did very well not to make a fuss over the softplaying. It is simply part of our world. To get upset over it can do nothing but cost. As to the sizable rebates, especially if there are some short stacks, you'd be well within bounds to insist that they stop. That alone would alter the game somewhat toward a staighter integrity.


"To what extent did their informal collusion reduce my edge?"


I think it depends on how many buddies. If all four of the others are softplaying, then it's pretty much a pointless game, and generally when this happens, if they keep playing it means they think you're a mark. If only one other was playing hard against everyone, as you were, and he is seeing plenty of flops, then I think it's still a viable game.


I used to be terribly troubled by softplaying because it just seemed so impure. Now I think of it as a game condition, something to be dealt with by altered strategies, more like a special sort of challenge rather than a special sort of nuisance.


Tommy

Tommy,


Your post reminds me of a thread you were in a month or two ago that eventually discussed dealing with repeated violations of the “English Only Rule” (I don’t think that was the exact thread title and I did not have time to participate). In particular, I remember both you and Natedogg discussed excellent coping strategies.


Both of you are what I call “motivated players”. You beat the game for a tidy amount. Your own etiquette is beyond question. You understand and adapt to poker played as it is, not as it should be. You have adapted to these “game conditions” very well and I commend you for it.


Unfortunately, a large part of the player base (or the potential player base) is what I call “marginally motivated”. They are “motivated” in that they primarily play to win (rather then to satisfy an urge to gamble) and believe they should be good enough to do so. Unfortunately they are not quite disciplined enough, smart enough, alert enough, or knowledgeable enough to do better then break even.


These players are turned away from poker and the card clubs by these improprieties or the appearance of impropriety. Instead of blaming themselves or their play for mediocre results they believe the pushing, the softplaying, and the speaking of languages they don’t understand are responsible. You know the truth, they don’t.


I play in an Omaha H/L game where pushing chips is rampant. I gave up complaining about this and similar violations of etiquette and fair play long ago. The players who play THAT GAME accept it and perhaps enjoy it, even the ones who are suckered by pushing arrangements with tight players. I don’t push and beat the game anyway. But there are many players I would love to see play in this game (or building more games at the same limit) who are turned off. A few have mentioned this to me away from the table, in other clubs, or in other games. Most of them have not spoken to me. They are ghosts of the customers who could and would be playing if these rules where sensibly enforced by the house.


By sensibly I don’t think the dealer should say anything if an occasional chip is tossed after someone gives someone a massive beat. But these significant exchanges of chips (and in the other thread gross violations of the “English Only” rule) are very ominous to outsiders. The clubs should make a greater effort to stop the abuses. Most don’t and they have no easy way of counting the customers lost. For they are the unseen ghosts of customers long ago driven away.


Regards,


Rick

Great post. I don't think it's necessarily even the motivation of the "marginally " motivated that makes the difference. It's the feeling of being an outsider, not part of the group, that turns people off, whether they are playing to win or playing to satisfy the urge to gamble.


When I was between marriages, the card club was a social venue for me. I became very close with a number of people who I played with every day. We soft-played each other. We pushed chips. We paid each other $5 for every deuce we had in our hand before the draw. We left the game together (either calling it an evening or for a break) to go to the bar, or to go to eat, or somewhere else. I was an "insider." The cardroom managers, bartenders, dealers, and chip attendants all knew me.


I never thought about how this all must have felt to the non-insiders, especially those who lost. It's important to make the poorer players feel comfortable. Mason has even recommended foregoing a check-raise if you feel this will create hard feelings that may cause the opponent to leave the game.


I'm not even sure that they blame these things for losing. They may recognize that their own shortcomings are primarily to blame, but they certainly don't want to lose AND feel like an outsider looking in as well. One of our regular insiders lost, according to him, $30,000 a year ($15-30 draw). (There is no doubt he lost at least that much.) Yet he loved the game. It was certainly the comraderie, the feeling of being an insider, that kept him in the game.


My wife has noticed that I sleep better after I lose than after I win. Part of this, I think, has to do with the fact that if I'm comfortable where I play in terms of the customs of the game, I accept the losing as inevitable; no one wins all the time.


So I agree with you that the clubs should monitor these things more closely. There's nothing, I think, that can be done about soft-play, but the chip-pushing and card flashing, and the lack of enforcement of the English only and other rules that may cause people to mistrust a game, should be stopped.

Rick,


With respect for your experience and wisdom, I disagree. I'm as prone as anyone to reading posts with my own playing environment in mind, but I think on this topic a wider scope is best.


"But these significant exchanges of chips (and in the other thread gross violations of the “English Only” rule) are very ominous to outsiders. The clubs should make a greater effort to stop the abuses."


I don't think we can state universally that what is best for, say, a one-table room with a client base of 20, is also best for, say the LA megarooms. And there's everything in between. In the 20-table room like where I play, unique situations unfold that are worthy of special treatment. Like if everyone in the game speaks Cantonese, or if three dealers are in the game along with a husband-wife combo. A blanket enforcement of all rules across the board in all games across the country sounds nice, but it's not practical for the players or good-management by the house. I'm the only person I know who is distinctly AGAINST standardized rules in ring games. My view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is broke, improve the floor staff.


Tommy

Tommy,


I’m not sure we disagree much.


You wrote: “I don't think we can state universally that what is best for, say, a one-table room with a client base of 20, is also best for, say the LA megarooms.”


OK. Perhaps the problem I describe is more acute in the large, somewhat impersonal card barns.


“A blanket enforcement of all rules across the board in all games across the country sounds nice, but it's not practical for the players or good-management by the house.”


I don’t believe in “blanket enforcement”. I would like to see more politically sensitive and effective enforcement. For example, one time I heard a floorman announce at the beginning of a tournament: “No speaking in foreign languages.” Obviously this isn’t the way to go about things.


“I'm the only person I know who is distinctly AGAINST standardized rules in ring games.”


For the most part I’ve got off the standardized rules bandwagon. But we need to work towards better rules and allow room for innovation (like buy the button).


“My view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is broke, improve the floor staff. “


How do we know whether it is broke or not when the market for poker is controlled by statute? If I want to make and sell a better pastrami sandwich it isn’t too hard for me too open a fast food stand. But poker could be tapping into only a small percentage of the potential market given that it is almost impossible to open a new room.


Regards,


Rick

There was one other player who did not appear to be participating in the informal collusion. However, he was the first to quit, leaving me and the three soft-players. Do you think I should have quit at that time? [The colluding players quit about two hands later when I won my first pot.]


"As to the sizable rebates, especially if there are some short stacks, you'd be well within bounds to insist that they stop."


For reasons upon which I do not want to elaborate, I did not want to complain. One of Irving's buddies was in fact short-stacked, having recently made a minimum rebuy. Why is the chip pushing more harmful to me when the participants are short-stacked? Given that the pushers tended to play too loosely, is it possible that their chip pushing could have added to my edge by encouraging them to make even more dubious calls?

Michael,


"Why is the chip pushing more harmful to me when the participants are short-stacked?"


If their policies are consistent and you know what they are, then it's a wash and just part of the game. But I've been in games like this where I was beating the table, and the chip passing effect was that cash came out of their pockets slower because a guy that would have been going all-in for one bet was given an additional bet after the prior hand, so when he wins his all-in hand, he has, say, 6 bets now instead of 3, and if he wins his next hand, he's back in business, whereas without the chip-pushing, he'd still have to win two more hands to get up to where he had a full hand's worth of chips.


If you follwed that, super. It doesn't really give the chip-pushers an edge. It just makes the whole game feel weasly.


Tommy