|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 10/11/2008 11:25:04 PM PACIFIC |
 Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, mkpoker, 12. Oct 2003 08:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Playing at my local B&M 3/6, a new player joined the game who simply didn't know how to play. When I say she didn't know how to play, I don't mean that she was a poor player....I mean she didn't know the basic rules (hand ranking, betting, etc.) Every time it was her turn to act, the dealer had to explain that she could raise, call, or fold (and then the dealer had to explain what each action was). It was no act...the player had obviously never played poker before. She played about 20 hands in a row (she didn't really "get" folding) and lost all but one. What's more, her participation slowed the game to an unpleasant snail's pace. I got up from the table and explained the situation to the floor manager. He came over and suggested to the woman that she take a break, during which he would give her a quick tutorial. She took a break...and never came back. To put it mildly, the other player at the table were displeased that I had approached the floor manager. Personally, I thought it was outrageous that the dealer didn't signal the floorman first. Aren't there cardroom rules about this? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Louie D., 12. Oct 2003 09:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, I Know the feeling. But did you not like her $ ? . I personally would have not said a word. You stated she lost 19 out of 20 hands. Hopefully you got some of that $. I can understand slowing the game up is a pain and can get very fustrateing. But you have a player #1 that is new and want to give $ away that's fine with me. Just bare with it and what ur turn to drag in a few Pots. All ur pain and suffering will go away. Peace Louied | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, hokie95, 12. Oct 2003 09:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have a perfect solution for you: Next time that happens, yell out, as loud as you can "Is Hokie95 here?" If I say "yes I am." Ask me to switch seats with you. Everybody's a winner. Especially Hokie95. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, MozMan, 12. Oct 2003 10:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| hey mk- Yeah, I know how you feel, it's really frustrating. Unfortunately, your approach probably just embarrassed her into leaving. We see a lot of that, and usually some regular at the table will strike up a conversation with the newby and help him/her keep up with the game, offer general advice, etc. Anything to keep them interested and teach them the basic mechanics of the game. Hell, this is what they did for me the first time I sat down there! :-) -Moz "The more you ignore me, the closer I get. You're wasting your time." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, ReMMy, 12. Oct 2003 10:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think we have an obligation as experienced players to try and help complete newbies and also make them feel welcome. Lets face it, you're playing 3/6, this is not high limit holdem. I totally agree w/ the above advice, try to coach the player, and remember that the game just slowed down, but your profit per hour has probably gone up. If I were sitting next to the player, I would probably suggest they sit out a few hands and let me explain the game to them... There's no way I want that player to leave the game, these players generally sit for a relatively short time and give up their entire stack! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Blade, 12. Oct 2003 13:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Mk, You asked for opinions so I am going to give you mine. Now I have read many of your post and #1 you are obviously a better player than me and #2 you seem like a generally helpful guy but....... that was a real jerk move. You absolutely embarrased this player into leaving and you had no right to do so. Everyone has to start somewhere and beginners have a right to play at the table just as you do. You didn't mention anything about her being rude or someother inappropiate behavior. Your only complaint was that she slowed the game down. This is your problem and not hers. Perhaps you were the one who needed to take a break or request a table change. It would be a real shame if this PERSON (player is impersonal) who hand found something that interested her now decides to give it up because of your actions resulting in an unpleasant experience. I played online for many months before walking into a casino and was nervous to the point of shaking for my first hour of play. I cannot imagine how someone who was still learning the game must have felt. You filled every stereotype of the typical male oldschool poker player and based on what I have read here you are better than that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, kimmi690, 12. Oct 2003 14:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I hate to say it but that was a really awful move on your part...being an excellent player, you should have welcomed the chance to help her improve on her game and teach her...how did you start? I am SURE there was a time someone thought to themselves "good lord, boy, pick up the pace". They probably stopped to help you. Don't be a jerk next time, and look at it as a payday for you. And you never know, you may see her again, and she might just take your money ...a woman scorned and so forth.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Schuster, 12. Oct 2003 14:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm with the rest of the posters. Had you given this player the quick tutorial yourself, your pockets would likely be fuller. Poker is about welcoming your customers just as much as making the right play. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, modestmice, 12. Oct 2003 15:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| wow. everyone probably said the same thing im goint to buti cant stop.... always always welcome new players dude, geez. if you cant deal (like me) then put in a table change, man! new players are the lifeblood of poker, and everyone had to start somewhere. at least u were not mean, where i live in the bay area, ive seen abusive language directed at new players trying to learn. its just staggering to think (to me) table change, you dont own the table. on 12. Oct 2003 08:42 mkpoker wrote: > Playing at my local B&M 3/6, a new player joined the game who simply didn't know > how to play. When I say she didn't know how to play, I don't mean that she was > a poor player....I mean she didn't know the basic rules (hand ranking, betting, > etc.) > > Every time it was her turn to act, the dealer had to explain that she could > raise, call, or fold (and then the dealer had to explain what each action was). > It was no act...the player had obviously never played poker before. She played > about 20 hands in a row (she didn't really "get" folding) and lost all but one. > What's more, her participation slowed the game to an unpleasant snail's pace. > > I got up from the table and explained the situation to the floor manager. He > came over and suggested to the woman that she take a break, during which he > would give her a quick tutorial. She took a break...and never came back. To > put it mildly, the other player at the table were displeased that I had > approached the floor manager. > > Personally, I thought it was outrageous that the dealer didn't signal the > floorman first. Aren't there cardroom rules about this? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, mkpoker, 12. Oct 2003 17:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think the moral of this story is: If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question, lol. (Of course, I did want others' opinions,--that's why I posted). Seriously, I take all your comments in the good spirit in which they were intended...I agree now that I shouldn't have intervened.. I do want to add, however, that my primary concern was for the player...the speed of the game was a secondary concern. I don't think (and I still hold this view) that a casino should deal to a person without the basic tools to play. Just like they'd turn away a blackjack player who's too drunk to stand (or at least they should), they shouldn't let someone play poker who doesn't know even the most basic rules. Such a player doesn't stand a fair chance. IMHO, this is quite different than a "newbie" who's never played for money before and needs a little helping hand. In the example I faced, the didn't know which cards constitute which hands. At the end of every hand, she turned her cards up and the dealer explained what she had and why that was beaten by what the other player had). BUT, I take you point well that it's up to the person and the management. Fellow players shouldn't intervene. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Angel, 12. Oct 2003 18:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, let me be the first to disagree with the general consensus. I have no problem with the way mk handled this - I think he handled it just fine and I think that the vast majority of those who have commented on this are falling into the trap of being results oriented instead of making the right decision. Blade, you said: "It would be a real shame if this PERSON (player is impersonal) who hand found something that interested her now decides to give it up because of your actions resulting in an unpleasant experience." And of course, you are right. On the other hand, it would be a real shame if this person who had found something that interested her now decides to give it up because of his inaction resulting in a $400 loss in which she felt she had been taken advantage of (re: unpleasant experience). No one can give a one on one tutorial at the table; too many cooks spoil the stew and all that - but I can give a new player a 5 minute tutorial away from the table that could save them hundreds over the next couple of hours at a $3/$6 table. Losing does not make a pleasant experience. Hindsight is 20/20 but another new player may have come back and thanked him for intervening on her behalf and trying to help her. I noted that mk said, "She played about 20 hands in a row (she didn't really "get" folding) and lost all but one. What's more, her participation slowed the game to an unpleasant snail's pace." Notice that her losing came first - that she slowed the game down was in the "What's more" department. People tend to introduce topics in order of their percieved importance - it appears that he viewed her losing with no hope of winning to be paramount - followed by her slowing the game down. The concept that you can shear a sheep many times but you can skin it only once comes to mind - get the woman some advice or she'll soon be out of the poker community. Many a person can lose $100/wk for life at the table - but significantly fewer can afford to play every hand and not really "get" folding for long. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, modestmice, 12. Oct 2003 18:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| your points make no sense to me. going to the floor manager is whats at issue here. and i dont understand how you can rationalize going to mangement over a player that doesnt know what they are doing. thats just out of line. the goal with a new player is to treat them with respect and be helpful as possible, without being arrogant or interfering with their play. the fact that this player will lose money means nothing and is immaterial. poker is a game and is gambling and no one is responsible for insuring that players do not lose their money, so that they will come back. by that logic, i would spend much of my time "tutoring" new players and helping them become "good" so they can come back. doesnt make a lick of sense. these are adults we are talking about, not children. on 12. Oct 2003 18:22 Angel wrote: > Well, let me be the first to disagree with the general consensus. I have no problem > with the way mk handled this - I think he handled it just fine and I think that the > vast majority of those who have commented on this are falling into the trap of being > results oriented instead of making the right decision. Blade, you said: "It would be > a real shame if this PERSON (player is impersonal) who hand found something that > interested her now decides to give it up because of your actions resulting in an > unpleasant experience." And of course, you are right. On the other hand, it would > be a real shame if this person who had found something that interested her now > decides to give it up because of his inaction resulting in a $400 loss in which she > felt she had been taken advantage of (re: unpleasant experience). No one can give a > one on one tutorial at the table; too many cooks spoil the stew and all that - but I > can give a new player a 5 minute tutorial away from the table that could save them > hundreds over the next couple of hours at a $3/$6 table. Losing does not make a > pleasant experience. Hindsight is 20/20 but another new player may have come back > and thanked him for intervening on her behalf and trying to help her. I noted that > mk said, "She played about 20 hands in a row (she didn't really "get" folding) and > lost all but one. What's more, her participation slowed the game to an unpleasant > snail's pace." Notice that her losing came first - that she slowed the game down was > in the "What's more" department. People tend to introduce topics in order of their > percieved importance - it appears that he viewed her losing with no hope of winning > to be paramount - followed by her slowing the game down. The concept that you can > shear a sheep many times but you can skin it only once comes to mind - get the woman > some advice or she'll soon be out of the poker community. Many a person can lose > $100/wk for life at the table - but significantly fewer can afford to play every hand > and not really "get" folding for long. > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Angel, 12. Oct 2003 19:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| modestmice, Ok, let's address going to the floor manager. Honestly, I thought I had. Perhaps our difference of opinion is because you think I'm promoting going to management to complain? Perhaps not. Either way, I think a trip to the floor manager to say a player needs help is not out of line. I think a trip to the floor manager to say that *I* need help cause this player is slowing down *my* game is out of line - but I don't believe that is what mk was doing - I could be wrong. If, as you say (and I agree btw), "the goal with a new player is to treat them with respect and be helpful as possible" then how would getting a player the help that you think they should be treated with - wrong? Also, I didn't mean to imply that we should be responsible for making sure new players don't lose (although I wish they would all win big the first time) - there is a difference between giving them a chance to book a winner 20% of the time and beating them till they can't afford to play anymore. A tutorial that explains what a bet and a check is - and that a full house beats a pair is hardly me being "responsible for insuring that players do not lose their money" it is about keeping them around - and over time - I will take alot more of their money. If I need to hold their hand for a little bit like they were children - then I shall do so - all the way to their bank. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, modestmice, 12. Oct 2003 20:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| this is not about holding their hand. you said you disagreeed with everyone about going to the manager. obviously you agree with going to the manager? im confused. thats the issue here. dont u think it puts a new person on the defensive to go to a manager and say something like that? its just not the solution, in my opinion, for this situation. since ive experienced this same situation at tables before, all i can say is, you should help the person as much as possible to keep the game going, but if the game gets annoying to you because of the newbie, put in a table change. very simple. 12. Oct 2003 19:12 Angel wrote: > modestmice, Ok, let's address going to the floor manager. Honestly, I thought I had. Perhaps our > difference of opinion is because you think I'm promoting going to management to complain? > Perhaps not. Either way, I think a trip to the floor manager to say a player needs help is not > out of line. I think a trip to the floor manager to say that *I* need help cause this player > is slowing down *my* game is out of line - but I don't believe that is what mk was doing - I > could be wrong. If, as you say (and I agree btw), "the goal with a new player is to treat > them with respect and be helpful as possible" then how would getting a player the help that you > think they should be treated with - wrong? Also, I didn't mean to imply that we should be > responsible for making sure new players don't lose (although I wish they would all win big the > first time) - there is a difference between giving them a chance to book a winner 20% of the > time and beating them till they can't afford to play anymore. A tutorial that explains what a > bet and a check is - and that a full house beats a pair is hardly me being "responsible for > insuring that players do not lose their money" it is about keeping them around - and over time > - I will take alot more of their money. If I need to hold their hand for a little bit like > they were children - then I shall do so - all the way to their bank. > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Angel, 12. Oct 2003 20:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "dont u think it puts a new person on the defensive to go to a manager and say something like that?" That would depend on two things in my opinion. 1. How the manager handled it. If he handled it incompetantly then certainly it could become a bad situation. 2. How emotionally secure and/or mature the person being approached is. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, mkpoker, 12. Oct 2003 21:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I didn't expect this post to generate so much interest! But here are a few more details which I think will clear up some of the disagreement. In response to Angel's question, I went to the manager to say that a player needed help...not to complain about the game. Incidentally, had I been sitting next to the player, I might have spoken to her myself. But I was seated across the table, so I would have had to shout across, which obviously would have been more confrontational and far more embarassing to her. I left the table and told the manager (who I know from being a semi-regular) that a player in my game obviously didn't know the rules and could probably use some help (like all casinos, my local B&M offers free classes for beginners). I also told him that I thought the dealer should have signaled him, because the situation was so obvious. The manager came to the table, approached the player at the conclusion of a hand and said she looked like she could use some help. He suggested she enroll in one of the free instructional classes and added that if she didn't want to wait, he'd give her a few quick pointers. She agreed, left the table, and didn't return that night. Obviously, I have no idea if she was "emotionally stable" or felt embarassed by the exchange. I thought the manager handled the situation fine --mk P.S. Thanks Angel for sticking up for me! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, MozMan, 12. Oct 2003 21:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I don't know how big your B&M is, but it sounds like this player could possibly have returned to another table when she was done with her tutorial as well... -Moz "The more you ignore me, the closer I get. You're wasting your time." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, modestmice, 12. Oct 2003 21:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| sounds like it wasnt as bad then. my cardrooms can be a bit gruff at the mangement level, but they handled it nicely. i just don't like getting involved i guess. cheers on 12. Oct 2003 21:09 mkpoker wrote: > I didn't expect this post to generate so much interest! But here are a few more details which I think will > clear up some of the disagreement. > > In response to Angel's question, I went to the manager to say that a player needed help...not to complain > about the game. Incidentally, had I been sitting next to the player, I might have spoken to her myself. But > I was seated across the table, so I would have had to shout across, which obviously would have been more > confrontational and far more embarassing to her. > > I left the table and told the manager (who I know from being a semi-regular) that a player in my game > obviously didn't know the rules and could probably use some help (like all casinos, my local B&M offers free > classes for beginners). I also told him that I thought the dealer should have signaled him, because the > situation was so obvious. > > The manager came to the table, approached the player at the conclusion of a hand and said she looked like she > could use some help. He suggested she enroll in one of the free instructional classes and added that if she > didn't want to wait, he'd give her a few quick pointers. She agreed, left the table, and didn't return that > night. > > Obviously, I have no idea if she was "emotionally stable" or felt embarassed by the exchange. I thought the > manager handled the situation fine > > --mk > > P.S. Thanks Angel for sticking up for me! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, gary ford, 13. Oct 2003 00:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 12. Oct 2003 21:09 mkpoker wrote: > I didn't expect this post to generate so much interest! But here are a few more details which I think will > clear up some of the disagreement. > > In response to Angel's question, I went to the manager to say that a player needed help...not to complain > about the game. Incidentally, had I been sitting next to the player, I might have spoken to her myself. But > I was seated across the table, so I would have had to shout across, which obviously would have been more > confrontational and far more embarassing to her. > > I left the table and told the manager (who I know from being a semi-regular) that a player in my game > obviously didn't know the rules and could probably use some help (like all casinos, my local B&M offers free > classes for beginners). I also told him that I thought the dealer should have signaled him, because the > situation was so obvious. > > The manager came to the table, approached the player at the conclusion of a hand and said she looked like she > could use some help. He suggested she enroll in one of the free instructional classes and added that if she > didn't want to wait, he'd give her a few quick pointers. She agreed, left the table, and didn't return that > night. > > Obviously, I have no idea if she was "emotionally stable" or felt embarassed by the exchange. I thought the > manager handled the situation fine > > --mk\ Most of the posters seemed to express the view that the person should be helped How that person should be helped was another thing entirely. Why that person should be helped was barely addressed. The game of poker as we know it is being changed radically. The flood of new players has created logistic problems that most cardroom mangers are not equipped to handle. Poker has been static for years--the province of regulars -- now all these newbies are invading the province and most cardroom amagers are basking in the increased business without any idea of what this means to the weak infrastructure of poker. When we get into the 2nd season of WPT and the introduction of Celebrity Poker Showdown, the flood of new players will increase dramatically. Most of the posters here experienced the crash of Party Poker when the rush of "newbies" started. The increase from 2,000 players to 6,000 players swamped the site. if you check now , you;ll see 18/19,000 players. Can you see 3 hour waits at your favorite cardroom? Can you see 6 players at the table who are rank beginners? Can you see the whole thing collapsing after a year or so of bad experences by the "newbies" i agree with the poster who said 'shear them but dont skin them" but also don't forget to feed them and nurture them. gary > > P.S. Thanks Angel for sticking up for me! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, stock53, 13. Oct 2003 09:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| While I understand your reasoning for calling the floor manager, let me propose to you a different situation: You are at a blackjack table, you are a pretty good player and know how to play by the book. A woman comes and sits next to you. You see that she probably has never played before or doesn't understand the concept of blackjack. For example, she would hit on 16 with dealer showing a 6. Or she would split her tens. Or she doubles down with a 9 against 10. That's pretty awful, you agree? Just as bad as not knowing hand rankings. What will you do? Would you try to explain to her that her play is bad? Would you call a floor person and insist on a tutorial for her? NO, NO, NO. Of course, you wouldn't interfere. Now, the only difference in your situation is that instead of a casino making money of this woman, you are the one participating in skinning her. So this makes you feel guilty. But then you shouldn't be playing poker at all or any other zero-sum games for that matter. Let me know if you don't agree with anything here. stock53 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Angel, 13. Oct 2003 10:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| stock53, Hope you don't mind a response from someone other than the original poster but here goes... The situation which you described is not the same in my opinion. This is why: If this woman continue's to play blackjack this poorly, she shall go broke. Unless she is also a vested member of the poker community or my wife - I could care less. If she's a member of the poker community then I want that money to come our way and not the casino's way - which is the only reason I would care. In the poker community however, we count on the recreational player without whom many of us would have to look for other work. We need to give a recreational player value for their dollar. If they have no chance of winning then, for the vast majority of players, their losses exceed their ability to continue playing poker as a form of regular entertainment. It is that which I have a problem with. Let her lose $100 wk and she'll lose $5200/yr and $52,000 over the next ten years; let her lose $2000 today and *I* lose $50,000 over the next ten years when she doesn't come back. If the women's Oprah - then all bets are off and to heck with the tutorial - she can't lose enough to affect her ability to play tomorrow - so I say nothing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, stock53, 13. Oct 2003 11:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with your point partially, but how do you know that this woman wasn't an Oprah? Also, are you sure that poker pros make their money mostly from recreational players who lose $100 a week? Or do they make most of it of people losing $2000 a week? I don't think that you have data to proof either proposition. But I know for sure that I would prefer to have one big loser at my table, than three-four small losers... Also, you are forgetting about rake and tips. Those costs are mostly fixed for a player, no matter if they play 15-30 or 1000-2000 (slightly higher for higher limits, but not enough volatility to really call them variable). Now, a player who loses $100 a week, probably loses $50 to the casino. Meanwhile, a player who loses $2000 a week, maybe loses $100 to the casino. Would you rather have 50% of somebody's losses stay in the poker community or 95%? stock53 on 13. Oct 2003 10:44 Angel wrote: > stock53, > > Hope you don't mind a response from someone other than the original poster but here > goes... > > The situation which you described is not the same in my opinion. This is why: If > this woman continue's to play blackjack this poorly, she shall go broke. Unless she is > also a vested member of the poker community or my wife - I could care less. If she's a > member of the poker community then I want that money to come our way and not the casino's > way - which is the only reason I would care. In the poker community however, we count on > the recreational player without whom many of us would have to look for other work. We > need to give a recreational player value for their dollar. If they have no chance of > winning then, for the vast majority of players, their losses exceed their ability to > continue playing poker as a form of regular entertainment. It is that which I have a > problem with. Let her lose $100 wk and she'll lose $5200/yr and $52,000 over the next ten > years; let her lose $2000 today and *I* lose $50,000 over the next ten years when she > doesn't come back. If the women's Oprah - then all bets are off and to heck with the > tutorial - she can't lose enough to affect her ability to play tomorrow - so I say > nothing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, Angel, 13. Oct 2003 11:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| stock, I put your words in quotes and responded underneath. "I agree with your point partially, but how do you know that this woman wasn't an Oprah?" I don't but it is part of my job to make the best decision I can make based upon the incomplete information at hand. Since there are few women within 6 zero's of Oprah's worth, I'll take that recurring sum with every woman in town and multiply it by net edge all day long. ;) "Also, are you sure that poker pros make their money mostly from recreational players who lose $100 a week? Or do they make most of it of people losing $2000 a week? I don't think that you have data to proof either proposition. But I know for sure that I would prefer to have one big loser at my table, than three-four small losers..." Poker pro's make their money off recreational gamblers to be sure. Whether it is from recreational players who lose $100/wk or $2000/wk is really dependent on the limits. I'm not sure what you would accept as proof of such a proposition but I certainly know that in my regular game there are 3 consistant winners who are making our living off the game; a handful of players that are breakeven or too close to tell and a dozen or so regulars who drop anywhere from $1000 - $4000/wk every week - year in and year out. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but that particular anecdotal evidence is in my fridge and above my head in the form of a roof. "Also, you are forgetting about rake and tips. Those costs are mostly fixed for a player, no matter if they play 15-30 or 1000-2000 (slightly higher for higher limits, but not enough volatility to really call them variable). Now, a player who loses $100 a week, probably loses $50 to the casino. Meanwhile, a player who loses $2000 a week, maybe loses $100 to the casino. Would you rather have 50% of somebody's losses stay in the poker community or 95%?" I haven't forgotten about rakes and tips - but if you make 50K a year you don't say I make 41,500 a year because of $4000 in gas for my car to get to work and $4,500 depreciation - it's the necessary price of doing business. As far as your last question, clearly I would rather have the 95% - if it was as simple as that but it is not. It goes back to the recurring sum principle. There are many, many people who lose $100/wk in a $3/$6 or $4/$8 game. Any maybe when some young aspiring pro takes a half dozen of them off for their weekly tithe he takes a $600 shot in the $20/$40 game where he dutifully pays his dues - just like those before him. And when the working and improving pro takes him off for his $600 and a half dozen just like him - he takes a shot at the $80/$160. Well, there are the businessmen and plastic surgeons and the such who play recreationally at that level and will come in and dust off a couple of racks all by their lonesome - but our $20/$40 pro is taking a shot with the collective contributions of 36 $100 players. So who's more important to the fiscal health of those who make their living at the game? They all are. My two cents anyway. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, mkpoker, 13. Oct 2003 22:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 13. Oct 2003 09:55 stock53 wrote: > While I understand your reasoning for calling the floor manager, let me propose to > you a different situation: > > You are at a blackjack table, you are a pretty good player and know how to play by > the book. A woman comes and sits next to you. You see that she probably has never > played before or doesn't understand the concept of blackjack. For example, she > would hit on 16 with dealer showing a 6. Or she would split her tens. Or she > doubles down with a 9 against 10. That's pretty awful, you agree? Just as bad as > not knowing hand rankings. What will you do? Would you try to explain to her that > her play is bad? Would you call a floor person and insist on a tutorial for her? > NO, NO, NO. Of course, you wouldn't interfere. > . Let me know if you don't agree with anything here. Respectfully, I disagree with your thinking 100 percent. The kind of play I encountered at the poker table wasn't the blackjack equivalent of splitting 10s (an admittedly foolish move), it was the equivalent of hitting 19 because you thought the object of the game was to get "21"...and you thought it was impossible to win with anything less. And if I saw a player hitting 19 repeatedly, you bet I would approach the pit boss and urge him to suggest that the player take a free class on BJ rules (or at a BJ table, I'd likely do it myself). I hate to sound like a crazy moralist, but I believe that Casinos have a responsibility to ensure that their patrons have a basic understanding of the rules of the game. Whether in poker or blackjack, taking money from someone totally incapable of defending themselves isn't just unsporting...it's plain wrong. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Hitting 19s, MozMan, 13. Oct 2003 23:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Funny story- Before my poker days, I used to head to Vegas and Laughlin any chance I got for BlackJack. At this time, BJ was not yet legal in AZ. Getting to NV was not always easy, and I discovered that my local B&M had a player's version of BJ, called Arizona 21. It was a blast. You are not playing against the house; the object is, the player(s) closest to 21 win/split the pot. If you bust, you must muck. Basically, there was one betting round, and everybody put up the same amount (if you are at a $10 table, you all put up $10 every hand), everyone gets two cards face down. If anyone has a BJ, they turn over immediately and take/split the pot. If there are none out, then the hitting begins (no double or split). There is a button like Hold-em, so that you all share position advantage once around. The game is played 7-handed, and as you might imagine, it was an absolute must to draw 20 or 21 to win, so you get really used to hitting on 19s. I've even hit on 20 when I was convinced that someone ahead of me had 21. After playing this game regularly for about six months, I took a bus to Laughlin, sat down at a $2 BJ table and tried to hit a 19. The looks on the faces of the dealer and other players were absolutely precious. It was the funniest thing I ever saw. :) -Moz "There's too much caffeine in your bloodstream, and a lack of real spice in your life." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Cardroom Ethics for True Noivces, LJH, 21. Oct 2003 08:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| MKPOKER, WHAT RIGHT DID YOU HAVE TO INTERFERE WITH HER FUN, AND THAT OF THE OTHER PLAYERS. ARE YOU HER MOTHER. BECAUSE OF YOU SHE WILL PROBABLY NEVER COME BACK. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS WELCOOME NEW PLAYERS, AND THEY WILL LEARN THE GAME BY THEMSELVES. LJH | ||
| 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 |
|