|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 8:15:06 PM PACIFIC |
 Submitted for you consideration ..., Paul Stine, 30. May 2003 20:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Consider the following theoretical scenario: You are playing real money $5-$10 limit hold'em. The table you are playing at has one empty seat. To make the table "full" the house allows a new player to sit in the game. The house is providing the new player with his stake, he cannot redeem his chips for cash, they belong to the house. This player is, in essence, a shill. The house is, of course, collecting it's usual rake. Is this a good situation for you or a bad situation for you as a 'real money' player at the table? Consider that the shill has little to no stake in whether he wins or loses and tends to play accordingly. An analogous situation would be letting a 'play money' player play at a 'real money' table. If you win his chips you can cash them out at face value. If you lose your chips, the loss is just as real. Now, suppose the player commented to you that playing on house money allowed him to play much looser than he would normally play. Suppose that his normal play is the same as yours. I'd like to hear what you all think. Paul Stine College Station, TX | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Submitted for you consideration ..., Swagman, 30. May 2003 21:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| He wasn't just coming at them first in. He was coming at them with the worst possible hands in Hold'em. This was a delibrate messege that he wanted to establish early at the final table. He was saying that a raise early on from him could be weak. And it paid off many times when the others called him down with marginal hands. It was an image thing had very little to do with what you were saying. IMHO | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| WRONG THREAD!!!, BigDMcGee, 2. Jun 2003 01:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think your post is in the wrong thread, swag!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: WRONG THREAD!!!, Swagman, 2. Jun 2003 03:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Aye one of my post was sent to wrong thread on mistake (. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Submitted for you consideration ..., gary ford, 30. May 2003 23:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. May 2003 20:17 Paul Stine wrote: > Consider the following theoretical scenario: > > You are playing real money $5-$10 limit hold'em. The table you are playing at > has one empty seat. To make the table "full" the house allows a new player to > sit in the game. The house is providing the new player with his stake, he cannot > redeem his chips for cash, they belong to the house. This player is, in essence, > a shill. > > The house is, of course, collecting it's usual rake. > > Is this a good situation for you or a bad situation for you as a 'real money' > player at the table? Consider that the shill has little to no stake in whether > he wins or loses and tends to play accordingly. > > An analogous situation would be letting a 'play money' player play at a 'real > money' table. If you win his chips you can cash them out at face value. If you > lose your chips, the loss is just as real. > > Now, suppose the player commented to you that playing on house money allowed > him to play much looser than he would normally play. Suppose that his normal > play is the same as yours. > > I'd like to hear what you all think. > > Paul Stine > College Station, TX In the OLD days in California , both props and shills were used. In fact , I was a 5/50 player for a while. Half my money half the houses. I did play more loosely , but if i got too loose the house wouldnt back me any more. The most common shill is the post/fold type. Some casinos allow dealers to stay on the clock, sit in and play their own money. Generally the house must identify any "props" if asked. Once you identify their status and playing style its easy to adjust. My dream is to play at a table with 9 poker dealers playing their own money. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Submitted for you consideration ..., Snorbolus, 31. May 2003 07:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. May 2003 20:17 Paul Stine wrote: > Consider the following theoretical scenario:........ Sounds great! As long as they play worse than me bring them on. I don't care who's money they are losing Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Submitted for you consideration ..., stdioh, 2. Jun 2003 09:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'd be happy to sit there. The guy has no vested interest in the hands he's playing so he is going to call too much for entertainment value. Thus I will value bet him more often. Likewise he is likely going to bet and raise more often, again for entertainment, so I will call him more often and be wary about being pushed off a pot when a scare card comes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|