soft playing

[Lee Jones]

I'm posting this mostly because Tommy, who should (and deep-down, does) know better, said "I'm all for soft-playing."

People, look around you - on the Travel Channel, on ESPN, in Barnes & Noble, where Positively Fifth Street is leaping off the shelves. Or at the "Play Money" games online.

There are tens of thousands of people standing just outside the door to cardrooms, both B&M and virtual, all over the world. They're nervously peeking through the door, fascinated by what they see. They want, oh so bad, to sit down and play. But it's scary. It's smokey (in some places). Everybody looks grumpy.

But in spite of all that, some of these people muster the courage to sit down and put their hard-earned money on the table.

What do they see? The pro's, the regulars, soft-playing each other. "Oh," thinks the new player, "they're just going easy on each other - they plan to take my money."

So he gets up and walks out.

I have a 6-8 page paper that I'd like to write about how we, as a poker community, do a lousy job of attracting and encouraging new players. Even as those tens of thousands of new players are standing at the door, just hoping somebody will politely invite them in.

Better for your game, better for my game - who carers? It's lousy for the game. Bet your damn hand.

Regards, Lee

[bernie]

first off, my rant over softplaying is a little different than what casper is referring to. there is some crossover, game affecting-wise, but i dont think casper is the type ive been talking about. just wanted to make that clear. no offense meant towards him.

but here's a situation that came up. 2 players are softplaying eachother. and it's obvious it's selective. the conundrum? they both suck. i mean, they donate quite a bit. i was pretty pissed when they were first doing it. it was so frickin blatant, and we had 2 or 3 'new' players on the table. but then i thought, do i want these 2 out of the game? do i want them to tighten up at all? the floor cant do anything and theyd just do it tomorrow anyways, am i going to complain every day?

even though it's bad for the game and newbies, it's an interesting ethic vs profit decision i think.

b

[bernie]

and i agree with all of it....

but one question. what can a cardroom really do about it? how far would they be willing to go? you can't force them to bet.

but i think you have the right idea that the players are the ones who should keep the integrity of the games in their regular rooms. but even then, complaining really doesnt do much.

i remember one time a buddy and me were playing. i was on his left. i c/r the flop and got it HU. he checks the turn and i bet. someone made a comment how it was cold to bet into a friend. after the hand i told the guy, 'we're friends outside this ring'. indicating the edge of the table. 'anything inside this ring is war and fair.'

players should be able to carry on a pleasant conversation while betting into the guy theyre conversing with in a HU pot.

ive also noticed that the less one softplays, they get a little more respect at a table. i know i respect guys who dont softplay more.

anyways...

great post lee.

regards to you...

b

[SoBeDude]

I couldn't agree more Lee,

(My local game has a lot of it. None of it from me. I check-raise the nice old lady who can't see, and the guy I go out and party with when I'm not playing cards.)

It seems we have the two best reasons then to try and curtail selective softplaying. First it hurts our win rate.

Second, it discourages new player participation.
Well, I guess that's the same as the first reason, now isn't it?

-Scott

[PokerBabe(aka)]

But Lee, Tommy only softplays one person (or two). Can you guess who?

As for the wannabe players, I agree 100% that there should be NO softplaying when tourists abound in a game. However, what's one bet among friends when one is getting pounded? The original post seemed to relate to play among pals, not among strangers.

I play with the same crew quite often and softplaying is rare. However, when it does occur, it's not a case of checking it all the way down. Typically, it's checking on the river and saving the loser one bet. Have you never, ever done same?

LGPG, Babe [img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img]

[Tommy Angelo]

Very good post, Lee. Your post title is where our disagreement is. Your meta perspective is cooperative, altruistic and humanitarian, while my view is narrow, selfish, and uninterested.

You wrote: "I'm posting this mostly because Tommy, who should (and deep-down, does) know better, said 'I'm all for soft-playing.'"

Just to clarify, I was talking about the opponents doing the softplaying. Not me doing it.

I think we have two questions now.

1) Does softplaying by some opponents hurt the results of the non-softplayers? I would answer no, not necessarily, based on my case history alone:

Almost all of my table time is and has been in a home-court environment. When softplaying is going on, I know about it, and I think I know how to manipulate it to my advantage. In long years past, in well-organized home games, I've played in full games where it was me and maybe one or two other players who didn't work for or borrow from the house somehow. There was flagrant softplaying all over the place, and I'm not going to go into why, but I believe I had a bigger edge with the softplaying than if everyone had just played hard all the way. The information war was unlosable.

But that's not at all what you are talking about. On to question two:

2) Is softplaying "bad for poker" in the meta sense, and a deterrent to new players?

Since the recent surge in interest in poker, the games around here have not changed in number, duration, ease/difficulty, or frequency of new faces (which has always been very high). There I am being selfish again. Lee? Do I have to have an opinion on the "bad for poker" thing? On the topic of slowplaying or anything else? Am I allowed to not care about the big picture except for when my little picture gets smudged? Meanwhile, I won't softplay, and I'll help new players feel comfortable.

(Q: What do you call the recent swell of online players? A: White punks on hope.)


Tommy

[Lee Jones]

As for the wannabe players, I agree 100% that there should be NO softplaying when tourists abound in a game.

So if tourists (or any newbie, for that matter) abound in a game, no softplaying. But what if there's one newbie? Or one local newbie and a tourist? See my point - you're headed down a very slippery slope.

I play with the same crew quite often and softplaying is rare. However, when it does occur, it's not a case of checking it all the way down. Typically, it's checking on the river and saving
the loser one bet. Have you never, ever done same?

Never, ever in a casino/cardroom game (you asked). Hell, sitting in the SB, I stole the BB from my wife in a Mirage 6-12 over the weekend [1] [2]. I have softplayed in home games, but that was because I was teaching somebody.

It seems to me that if the same crew always softplays each other, and they're of similar ability, then the net effect should wash out over time, and be fundamentally equivalent to turning the cards up and checking to the river [3].

I think that softplaying is by far not the most serious concern in the poker business right now. But the issue was raised so I jumped in. To summarize:

1. It gives the wrong message to any newbie/visitor at the table, even (or perhaps especially) if there's just one or two of 'em.

2. If the softplayer subset is all of similar skill, then the net effect of the softplaying is nil. If they're not, then softplaying is a tactical play (along the lines that Tommy mentioned), and we should be discussing it in a whole different light.

Regards, Lee

[1] It was delightful meeting the B[img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img]be at the Orleans - thank you for tracking me down.

[2] Then I split my winnings with my wife after the game.

[3] And don't give me the "increased rake" argument. In the red chip games, the rake cap has usually been hit on the flop.

[CrackerZack]

When I play with friends I expect them to raise, C/R, even take shots at me if they think they can move me off my hand. Its not personal and I don't take it as such. I expect them not to also.

[DaBartman]

Yes, it will hurt your game. It is also a form of dishonesty. If I ever quit check raising my mother, I'll quit poker forever.

Kee-rist! Guess I should have read past the lead post first. Best goddamn thread I've seen in months! I hesitated to use the "C" word, no one else did!

[bernie]

"1. It gives the wrong message to any newbie/visitor at the table, even (or perhaps especially) if there's just one or two of 'em."

it's like if they walked into a store and saw a transaction for an item. the salesman is selling it to a buddy or 2 for $10. the newbie gets to the counter and finds the price raised to $11.

what happens?

he eventually goes to another store.

b