Underage at Foxwoods?

[MMMMMM]

"I have a friend who is Asian and around 33 and still gets carded at casinos. I don't think it is predjudice, its just that some people have a hard time judging the age of a person who is not of their own kind."

It also might have something to do with the fact that Asians on average don't look as old (as whites for instance) until they get really old. Thinner & trimmer = less gut or tell-tale middle-age spread; plus Asian men don't bald as quickly or as much on average as Caucasians. Add in the general clean-cut look for the most part and a sharp haircut and add it all up, and hey, most Asian guys in their 30's simply look more youthful than most whites (especially overweight Americans) in their 30's.

So you're probably right that it is harder to judge ages across races--especially if one doesn't take into account typical or average differences such as mentioned above. Of course, as far as your friend is concerned, this is assuming he is not overweight and that he has a clean-cut youthful appearance.

[daryn]

why would you prefer a game full of solid players? i hear this a lot and i'll never understand it.

and i seriously doubt a 1-3 game in a casino can be beaten.. that rake is atrocious!

[brownie]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you prefer a game full of solid players? i hear this a lot and i'll never understand it.

and i seriously doubt a 1-3 game in a casino can be beaten.. that rake is atrocious!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my friends and I have beaten the Turning Stone 1-3 several times. In fact, I've never lost. It's mostly old folks and people wanting to spend the money they just won at blackjack. Sure, the rake's ridiculous (a $2 drop per hand plus a $1 toke, which often amounts to 15% of the pot) but the fishes swim so freely there that it's easy to beat.

I prefer solid players because they act appropriately, so they're easier to control and read. Other players (both very good players and very new players) are unpredictable. Online, the result is schooling, so that everyone in the hand against you is on some insane draw against your top two pair, and they all stay in. Someone catches and takes your pot. There's always the flip side of that, when you pull a huge pot off their sorry faces, but I prefer the slow, easy money you win from solid players over spending an afternoon dodging bullets. Maybe our definitions of 'solid' are different.

[daryn]

it's all about EV baby, and you get more from a table full of idiots. i wish i could play on a table where 9 people see every hand they get to the showdown with me, regardless of their holdings

[brownie]

I can play better and longer against players that don't surprise me with a 58o winner every third hand, so I'll make more money in the long run against solid players. You're less likely to lose your whole bankroll with smaller swings, and you're more likely to have a consistent take with solid players...there are other considerations than just wanting to play the stupidest bunch of rich folks you can find.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I'll make more money in the long run against solid players.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the above statement is totally untrue for anyone. oh well...


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
You're less likely to lose your whole bankroll with smaller swings,

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true.. but if you're working with an adequate bankroll to begin with, even the bigger swings should be no problem, and most people would take higher variance if it meant more EV, given a large enough bankroll


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
there are other considerations than just wanting to play the stupidest bunch of rich folks you can find.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm... whatever.. anyone else want to elaborate here?

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, my friends and I have beaten the Turning Stone 1-3 several times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Daryn is referring to the idea of "beating" the 1-3 game in the long run, not just a single session. I have beaten the Foxwoods $15 Blackjack game several times, I am up on my very short casino blackjack career. That does not mean the game is beatable. The rake in that 1-3 game really is atrocious, however, maybe the opponents are as well, and that's why the game could be beatable long term. However if you were playing 1-3 with that rake structure against the so called solid players you prefer the rakes and tips would just eat up everyone at the table, yourself included.

[CrackerZack]

if you can really make more money in the long run from solid players, you really really really shouldn't be playing 1-3. Top pros can't make more money of solid players other than idiots so if you can, you're at the wrong level.

As for playing the stupidest rich folks, as long as they aren't smelly, obnoxious and diseased, I think there is little else to look for in poker.

[brownie]

I think all of you guys are looking at this verry narrowly. Solid players, by my definition, aren't extremely good players. They are the guys who know what pot odds are but don't vary their play enough to be a real threat. They fold rags to a raise and bluff at the right frequency.

It is true (and you all seem to have read Sklansky well here) that when your opponents make mistakes, you make money. But there really is more to poker than odds and more to winning than EV calculated from simple facts like the frequency of bad bets your opponents make. Solid players play longer than fools who get rattled and head back to the craps table, solid players distribute their losses between one another to hide your superiority so you continue to get action. In my opinion, solid players are the ones you shear and the idiots are the ones you skin. I'd rather have a healthy textile mill than a feast.

Here's what I'm trying to say: idiots supply a lot of money to the poker community, but I prefer to let people like you play the idiots and then I play you. When I'm more stimulated, I last longer and play better. If my opponents don't understand what they're doing, I can't figure out what they're going to do, so I can't take advantage. The game becomes a matter of waiting for the nuts and looking for chances to steal a pot. In any event, this is looking like another of those BB conversations where the only response I get is "well I think you're wrong," so I'm going to stop here.

As for winning a few times at the 1-3 at TS...you're right, I'm sure this isn't good data. Money leaves the table so fast that you'd have to have an insane advantage over your opponents to come out ahead in the long run. However, the game is, I think, beatable because everyone understands that there is essentially a time limit on the game and that they must play appropriately before the chips evaporate. It is much more a game of luck, and the results are never impressive. Worth your time? Nope. Beatable? Sure.

[brownie]

Also, the reason I started this thread is that I don't like the 1-3 at TS and the 3-6 is full of fools.