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

[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.