Casino Game 42

Is there any psych advantage in a low limit game to having a large stack of chips?

Answer 1:

Yes, most agree that having a lot of chips gives an illusion of strength. It isn’t an illusion, however, if you know how to use the chips.

Answer 2:

I would agree that having a large stack can give the appearance of strength by making it look like you are piling up winnings or merely from the castle effect, of course a reduction in the large stack can lead to a belief that you are on tilt.  Some players also can start playing on short money, even if they are not if the stack begins to get low.

Answer 3:

i was just wondering, with the regular buy-in for a 7stud game being around $100-150 where i play, is it a psychological advantage to get a rack and a half of white($1), or better off mixing it up?

Any opinions, good or bad, on the LL HE (4-8 or less) games at Sam’s Town or the Station Casinos?

Answer 1:

Both have good rooms. I played at Palace Station today. They have a 29,000 bad beat with a 15,000 bonus, if the bad beat is hit during some slow periods. They provide a $5.00 comp for three hours of play; also, they are planning another $100,000 free roll in September for all Station casinos.  The staff is friendly and the dealers competent. Likewise for Sam’s Town, who are offering a $7500 free roll for 25 hours of play in a two week period.  Both companies believe in poker.

Answer 2:

I play at both and agree.  Very well managed rooms.  

If you play at P. S. for two hours and get hungry you can get a comp (that’s what Greg Nares tells me anyway).  $5 as you says (for any restaurant except Burger King).  One bad thing — it expires same day.  They have a $3-$6 (w/half kill to $5-$10) sud high-low game most afternoons — hard to find stud/8 around town.

Answer 3:

The sunset station has a great 3-6-9 limit holdem and Omaha and sometimes they spread 6-9-12. The jackpots are great, and the people are friendly.   The dealers are good and very friendly; it’s just a great place to spend some time.

Next week I will be spending some time in San Mateo, Ca. and also a couple of days in the L. A. area.  What are some opinions about the best low limit (4-8, 6-12) holdem rooms in which to play in both areas?  

Answer 1:

Any card room in the LA area will do.  I suggest trying Hollywood park for starters, just remember to bring lots of bullets and to fasten your seatbelt, if you are not familiar with the so-call ram and jam holdem games you are in for a treat.

Answer 2:

There is a club in San Mateo itself called Pacific News, but I’ve not been there.  They are very small.

If you further north to San Bruno and Colma, you will find Artichoke Joe’s and Lucky Chances, respectively.  They are large rooms and offer games starting at the 3-6 level.

Answer 3:

Pretty much any game.

What is meant by ‘limping in’……..like “I limped in on the big blind”?

Answer 1:

It means that you do not have a good hand, but would like to see the flop or the next card if it will not cost you too much.  So if you are the big blind and there has been one raise, you might ‘limp in’ with a call where as if there were multiple raises you would fold.  And if there were no raises and you are the big blind, you would of course just check so you could see the flop.

Answer 2:

‘Limping in’ would be just calling the original bring in bet without a raise.  For example if the big blind (BB) is 10 and the person under the gun (the person to act first after the big blind) just ‘limps in’ for 10 instead of a raise…or if the BB just checks without a raise I suppose that would also be considered limping in.

 Answer 3:

“Limping in” means “opening for the minimum”.  You can “limp in” in Holdem with A.  Usually it implies weakness on the part of the hand but that is not the point.  Limping is coming in for the minimum bet, usually before anybody else comes in. “Limped in on the big blind” is not a common term.  It’s basically impossible to limp in on the big blind, you either just check because nobody has raised (that is, everyone else limped in), or you call a raise. Calling a raise is never “limping in”, period.

I came up with one solution for on-line collusion.  It has the advantage of preventing collusion but the disadvantage of changing the structure of the game.  The solution is for the computer to run the tables hand for hand and randomly assign players to the tables at the beginning of each hand.  This can be done in such a way as to maintain each player’s position relative to the button.  From any individual’s perspective he/she would remain in the same seat, at the same table and the button would move normally.  On each hand a random group of players would be seated in the other seats.  If there were N tables I would only be seated with my collusion partner 1/N times.

Answer 1:

Believe it or not, this concept has been discussed. It leaves large teams able to communicate and identify themselves to each other, though. Still interesting. It would probably reduce collusion attempts, but it’s difficult to implement and explain. The main way this idea comes up has less to do with collusion. If players are shifted to new games as soon as they fold, you can have new hands dealt almost instantly. This requires a large number of games, Otherwise you spend too much time waiting for the seats to fill with players who have folded at other tables, and you might as well stay at the same table.

Answer 2:

If this really worked it would be awesome. Of course it would take away one of the fundamental elements of the game, observing how other players play and adjusting your play accordingly. Seems to me, however, that many of the people who wouldn’t play due to this are already not playing in online games. I know some online players go so far as to keenly observe other players and keep notes on their play, but I bet most don’t. One other thing to consider as a player – if you get used to getting a new hand within seconds of folding the old one, going back to a live game could really try your patience.

Answer 3:

 That’s exactly the disadvantage to which I was referring.  You wouldn’t be able to do that.  Also, it would take longer to learn your opponents play because they will only be at your table 1 time in N tables.

I picked up suject book used mainly because it was in its third printing.  Does Ken Warren understand low stakes Holdem?

Answer 1:

He might but he doesn’t understand how to calculate odds very well… Although many of his thoughts are ok.. He makes many errors in his calculations of how much a hand is favored over another… At least in his last copy…Steady. Money travels from those who don’t know correct odds to those that do…

Answer 2:

Yes, he does understand low-limit poker.  A couple of the sections aren’t well written and might be misleading, but overall it’s a good book.  It’s the only book on the market that specifically targets the most common spread limit structure 1-4-8-8 with 1/2 blinds. The odds mistakes aren’t really important.

Answer 3:

This was the first poker book I ever purchased. It produced a remarkable improvement in my game. I’ve gone on to read several others that have added to my arsenal of knowledge. IfWarren’s book is the first book you’ve studied than it should produce similar results. The fact that you purchased a poker book and want to improve your game by studying is what produces advances in your play. BTW, I’m been readingCarson’s digital book and I’m finding parts to be very interesting and enlightening.

DISCLAIMER: I won theCarsonbook because I knocked him out of the MARGE no limit holdem tournament. I skipped most of the early sections because they were too elementary. However, the parts on poker theory make me think and analyze which is a key to learning any subject.

There’s a thread about whether or not it is a good idea to “straddle” but I have no idea what that is.  Could someone help me here?

 Answer 1:

 Straddling is like posting a voluntary blind twice the size of the big blind.  In a 4-8 game, the small blind is $2, the BB is $4, and a straddler might put up a straddle of $8.  In essence, it’s like raising the blind before looking at your cards. Some (most?) rooms rule that a straddle is live, meaning that the straddler has the option to raise when the action comes back to him (just like how the blinds have the option to raise).

 Answer 2:

Straddling is something i encourage, but don’t do. I MIGHT do it if I knew it would loosen the game up (it often does if you get a couple guys in a row to  follow).  Two nights ago a guy straddled two rounds in a row and got AA BOTH TIMES.  I think i’ve already “seen it all”. Before you all go and think how great it is to straddle-he lost more in the first AA than he won in the second AA-the first AA i think he was up against: KK, JJ, TT and 77.  Two sets were flopped.

Answer 3:

Now that’s Poker the way it should be–Stir up the game a little–Who won’t to be in a game where everyone hides behind the bottom?

I’ve been playing in some shorthanded games lately at Canterbury-mainly because i usually get there around last call and play late.  Some questions:

1.  What are some ways i can maximize my potential against fish?  I understand that pairs go way up in value with less and that draws are much worse.  I also know to play aggressively, but by how much?  With 4-5 players, should I raise preflop with A-big card?  Pocket pairs?  I’m just not sure how much I should lower my standards.  Axo playable?  

2.  How do I defend against a good player?  I know I “should” switch tables but I want to get better at poker and that involves playing against good opponents.  I already consider myself a big enough player at the table, but I ran into a guy the other day who BLEW ME AWAY.  

Answer 1:

First of all, define short-handed. Secondly, it seems to me that there are two different strategies against fish- one advocates sitting tight and playing tight, and the other is, well, a bit vaguer.  It sort of seems to advocate jumping in there, but being an expert.  Go figure.  I’ve been up against this question for a few weeks. Let me know if you find a way to beat fish other than following the gospel of S and M.

 Answer 2:

As mentioned, there are two schools of thought.  (Pardon the pun). You can play like a rock.  Classically tight-aggressive, predictable and mathematical.  Someone who has read S&M cover to cover.  You can add considerable flair to this basic strategy, but ultimately a rock will never be the best player in the card room. The other style is what I would call ‘fast play’.  I personally have switched from a computer-like rock to a fast player in the past six months, and I can’t recommend it highly enough.  What’s critically important for fast play is that you learn tells and how to read people.  You must be highly, highly aggressive. I could describe fast play a number of ways, but essentially it’s like this: From the moment your opponent picks up his cards to about the time the turn card hits, you are attempting to work out what cards he has, and more importantly, how he’s going to play those cards.  It’s a lot easier to do this when you’re the one doing the betting and he’s the one doing the calling.  Personally, I wear a cap and prescription sunglasses, and stare at their faces throughout the entire hand (thought they wouldn’t realize it).  So that what HE has is more important than what YOU have.  If you know he has a made hand AND will call to the river, you simply play your cards properly.  If you know he has a flush draw, you then just start jamming the pot until the flush card hits.  If it doesn’t hit, you bet again and pick up the pot. When in the pot against a highly aggressive player (whether an expert or a maniac), most people will let that person do the betting and will play weak-tight. It actually takes a lot of guts to raise the most aggressive player in the game. By fast playing, you control the game.  You force them to play incorrectly.  If the best anyone else can do is check and call or check and fold, you’ll clean them up. I also ought to say that raising before the flop becomes mandatory.  You can’t let the blind see the

Answer 3:

I guess they do.  But what I’m principally referring to is a style of play that causes your opponents to play weak-tight (and therefore incorrectly). You’re unlikely to get every opponent playing weak-tight at a big bet game. Raising it up in a big-bet game is certainly potentially profitable, but it’s also a good way to lose all your chips. Thus you would need to be much more selectively aggressive.

I’ve read about this book by Frank R. Wallace. It seems to be geared toward house games. Will reading it is of any major help in the casino.

Answer 1:

I don’t think that it would be of much help for playing in a casino game. Although there are sections on playing, much of the book is dedicated to the ‘business’ of poker, or making money playing poker as a sort of semi-professional hobby. I thought some of the sections on money management, game selection/management were interesting, but the stuff on legal issues is dated. There is some good historical material as well and decent probability tables of various sorts. The book is strongly geared toward house games and all kinds of manipulative ways to extract as much money as possible, over the long run, from the people in the games. As an example, he encourages playing crazy wild card games because players will not understand the games as well and gives up more of their money. This book is almost more of a business administration guide to poker than a how-to-play book. As far as guaranteeing an income for life, well, this book did not help me nearly as much as Jones, Sklansky or Malmuth have.

Answer 2:

This is actually a fascinating book because of its insight into utter ruthlessness. It’s not a how to, but it does have useful insights into the treatment of long-suffering fish (stroke them when they’re down, praise them for their rolling suck outs) and control. Worth reading, despite the way that it’s aged.

Answer 3:

This book is a great book to read.  I suggest you look at it and decide for yourself whether you can use any of the information in the casino. I have found the book to be very useful, even though the author has clearly gone off the deep end in later publications.  He pushes ethics to their extreme and is, unintentionally I’m sure, amusingly intense. This is also a great book to read if you are worried that you are becoming obsessed with this great pastime.  You will see that no matter how compulsive or obsessive you may be, by contrast to Wallace, you are quite OK!

I heard that Michael Jordan lost $54,000 dollars playing poker this past weekend in Atlantic City. Does anyone have any information that can validate the rumor???

Answer 1:

Don’t know if that is true or not, but Michael Jordan does like to play poker.  Bear in mind, however, that $54,000 to Michael is like 54 cents to most of us!

Answer 2:

Actually, it’s like us losing about $38.00 in a poker game. Assuming that Mike’s worth is about $175,000,000 (about 1/270th the amount of Bill Gates), then him losing $54,000 is adds up to about 0.03% of his total worth. Now, if the average American is worth about $125,000 at age 65 (less is you’re younger), then 0.03% of your total worth is about $38.50, give or take some pennies.

Answer 3:

He showed up at the Mirage a couple of years ago, the day before the All Star game inSaltLake. He played blackjack alone at a table. 5 hands for $3000 each. Assuming that he plays reasonably well, he might lose 1.5% or $45 per hand, $225 per deal. 100 deals an hour would then be an expected $22,500 loss. Well within an affordable entertainment budget for him, Bill Cosby or Bill Gates (who also show up at the Mirage). But the latter preferred 3-6 Hold’em. Probably why he can still give $5 billion to charitable foundations last year.  (Which by happenstance I think is the same order of magnitude as the total gambling take on the Strip last year).