Casino-Twist

Ok, we all know that in a regular game that these hands should be raised to get people out and limit the callers.  In a loose passive game, where I am only going to eliminate half of the people at the table (leaving about 4-5 to see the flop) is a preflop raise incorrect?  Do I just want to get limpers in for odds on trips?  I heard somewhere that the worst amount of callers for JJ is 4-6.  Can somebody explain this to me please? 

Answer 1:

I think it’s sensible to rise in this situation even if they’re going to call you.  In fact, in a loose-passive game, I think it’s correct to raise every hand preflop.  (The exception is where the rake would make your raise a negative expectation bet). A lot of people will disagree with my reasons, but the theory remains:

1.  You may take control of the game
2.  If you don’t take control, you may convert it into a loose-aggressive game instead (more profitable)
3.  You disguise your hand if you’re the one doing the betting.
4.  You’re probably getting the best of it over people with garbage hands.
5.  You’re building up the pot so that hands like bottom pair will be enticed to stay in against your set.

Because the value of a hand like JJ lies in two places.  Firstly, the chance that it will stand up at the end by itself.  If you’re playing heads up against almost any two cards, JJ is likely to be some way in front all the way to the end.  So it’s a self-made hand. But in a 7-way pot, if a K, Q, or A comes down, you are probably sunk. It is highly likely that out of 5 cards, one of them will kill your ‘big pair’.  So the value of JJ then lies in flopping a set, whereupon your hand is kind of protected against people with weaker hands.

Answer 2:

“Getting people out” is a pleasant side effect of raising preflop. It is not the reason for raising. Getting money into the pot is reason No. 1! With a big hand one figures to win more than one’s fair share of pots (i.e. more than 25% in a 4-way pot). Hence big hands should build the pot.

The argument for calling with JJ against 4 or so opponents comes from the S&M Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players. The reasons for this are explained mootly and the advice is wrong, according to Abdul’s Turbo sims (and Fekali logic). JJ plays best with a raise
in nearly all types of games.

Answer 3:

In this type of game I rise with AA KK and call with QQ, JJ.  If they are going to call anyway, might as well see if an A or K hits the flop and save some money on your QQ or JJ.

Does anyone know if the rule that a hand asked to be shown by the up-until-the-asking winner is exempt from the “pixie dust kill” of being tapped upon the muck by the dealer is codified anywhere. I have always understood that anyone involved in a showdown hand can ask to see all remaining hands and that such hands were ineligible to win *unless the asker was the winner*, in which case he becomes the loser if a no-longer-killed hand beats him. Any documented rules about this?

Answer 1:

Often the dealer taps the muck to kill a hand before turning it over. I think this is a bad rule. My thinking is that if a hand is turned over at all, it should win if it contains the best cards and was eligible at the showdown. This is similar to the “retrievable hand” rule, which I have long advocated, and which appears in some of my rulebooks. It says that if the cards are clearly identifiable, they are not dead, even if they accidently touched a portion of the muck. Whether the potential winning hand asked for the cards to be turned over or someone else asked, once the cards are seen — and there’s no chance that they are the wrong cards — the best hand should take the pot. Telling a novice, who is probably already embarrassed for having misread his hand, that he cannot have the pot is not — in my opinion — in the best interests of poker. However, I can see the other side of it, too. And you could argue that the experience of losing the pot will make players more careful in the future.

Answer 2:

Yes….and probably not. If the “winner” asks to see an as-yet-unrevealed hand, which hand can potentially win the pot. Is it documented anywhere? Doubt it.

Answer 3:

Taking a pot from a novice because somebody asked to see a folded hand is not in the best interest of poker.  Such a rule would lead to endless angle shooting.  Creeps constantly asking to see hands when a table “enemy” is involved in a hand. If this is true, then your position is all hands should always be turned over on the river.  I see no need for altering the basic way the game is played because sometimes we all muck the winner by mistake. Somebody folds, their hand is dead.  End of story.  No pixie dust.  You toss your hand away, you lose.  You want to show it, and then show it.  This way, IMO, is the only sane way to go as more and more casinos employ incompetent dealers who do not muck discarded hands instantly.

1) Buying at Paradise Poker for $100-500
2) Steadily build up to about double that, playing low limits
3) Cash out my original investment
4) Lose the rest immediately, by taking beat after beat, no matter which game I play, or which style of play I use

I think it would be absurd to say that Paradise Poker cold decks you after a partial cash-out, to force you to re-buy quicker. That said, this pattern has repeated about 5 times in the last 2 months. Anyone have any idea what’s going on? Maybe I should completely cash-out double my investment, then rebuy, to steer around this obligatory beating.

Answer 1:

It’s the big swings that seem to be normal there (or at least more visible because of the number of hands per hour) – I started keeping more cash in the account to accommodate the swings and haven’t had to rebuy since.

Answer 2:

I have been a vocal defender of paradise here on RGP.  That said, I’ve noticed the same thing.  Every time I’ve cashed out (normally after a huge win), I go stone cold, taking bad beat after bad beat after bad beat.  I know it would be totally stupid (not to mention extremely difficult to implement) for paradise to cold-deck players after they cash out, but the motive is there – to get you to rebuy – and I’ve seen so many different people complain of this that I’m beginning to wonder whether it is just a coincidence. The only possible explanation I can think of (aside from paradise cheating its players) is that people cash out too much of their bankroll, leaving themselves with a way too little for the limits they’re playing, so it’s actually *likely* that they go broke fast, and not just a coincidence.  However, this does not explain the horrible run of bad beats.

Answer 3:

I’ve played 79.02 hours so far on Paradise and had 2 cash-outs of the value of my original buy-in. My current bankroll is nearly 5 times my original buy-in and although I’ve had ups and downs I’ve never experienced the problems complained about. I have had similar problems playing pot-limit competitions at my local casino when after a big win or two my results have been awful for weeks to months. The reason, simply, is the wins have caused me to overestimate my abilities and I’ve over-played hands and shaded my values in the mistaken belief I’m invincible and will win as of right. The “winning after re-buying” scenario could also be explained by the inevitable tightening up of play that comes with parting with hard earned cash and the knowledge that the money has got to last to “earn back” the credit card charge.

I play over at Viejas Casino in San Diego, and I think they have quite an interesting tournament structure.  Let me know if this is normal at all.  $15 buying, about 120 entrants or so…everything’s normal up until the final 8 (prize money goes 8 deep.)  Then, once 4 people are knocked out, and there’s only 4 left, the tournament is over, and 1st through 4th place is determined by chip count.  I hated this, because I went into the final table as the slight chip leader, and in literally 10 minutes, (probably about 7 hands) 4 people had gotten knocked out, and the tournament was over.  I ended up with 2nd, and i had played ZERO hands!  i got 7 unplayable hands in a row, which is totally normal, but because of the structure, i couldn’t even compete for first, because the guy who went into the final table in 2nd got himself a wheel.  Great guy and all, plenty deserving, but it just didn’t seem right.  I think it was just to save time, as the whole thing only lasted 2 hours. So, is this a common tournament structure?  Also, advice on how to play in a final table where it’s set up like this?  Am i stuck making a move on absolute rags?

Answer 1:

The daily tourneys at Casino San Pablo do this also, at 3 places.  I hate it, but they do have a $1,000 guarantee, and usually have to give the overlay. Who would have guessed it possible that waiting is sustainable, a place with its own harvests. Or that in time’s fullness the diamonds of patience couldn’t be distinguished from the genuine in brilliance or hardness.

Answer 2:

Yeah, a deal definitely would have been made, after there were 10 people left, a deal must have been proposed 5 times, and each time I was the only one to turn it down, because i was the chip leader, because i really wanted to win, and because i had no idea that deals were that common/prevalent.  i think it’s really a cheap way out.  But i suppose, given the horrendous structure, it probably is the best way to go.

Answer 3:

A marvelous structure. As long as one wants to promote randomness, incentive for deals, and high incentive for collusion. First as the poster notes, only 7 hands got rid of 4 players because the limits were so high. He was chip leader and had no playable hands. Thus logical players may well want to deal. But the collusive incentive is worse. IMO my son and I are among the more honorable poker players. But both of us well understand game theory. 5 players left with chips and we are the 2 blinds. Chips are split reasonably even: 24%-23%-21%-16%-16% with us the lowest two at 16%. No matter what our hands, we could bet all our chips assuming normal 1st 2nd 3rd 4th payout structures as we will then, in all probability, move from last places in chips to one of us jumping to first while the other ends the tourney by reducing the field to 4.

And I am not even sure that this is dishonorable collusion. I might consider the same strategy against a player whom I do not know. A  50:50 or even 35:65 shot at first is well worth the risk of busting out.

You are just playing the game as the stupid rules dictate if you wish to optimize your chance to win. It’s like in Price is Right when bidding $1 over the bid of the sweet little old lady next to you.

I have go to AC all the time but I have never gotten in on poker there. Some one please explain to me how the casino makes money?  Are you playing against the dealer, or other players?  Do you have to pay to get into the room or can you just walk in and sit down? What are the average table limits and what should I expect to bring with me money wise to play with? I have played hold’em in poker games and I’m pretty good, but I want to know if I need to bring $200 $500 or what. Any other help would be a big help.

Answer 1:

The casino makes money by either taking a small amount from each
pot, or, as is the case in the UK, charging a “sit-down” fee– you buy your seat in the game.

Answer 2:

You only play against other players. At low limits, the house takes a cut of each pot, and at higher limits they charge a set amount per hour for your seat. There is no charge to get into the room in any casino in the United States. Some European casinos charge you just to enter. When you walk into the room, they’ll have a board listing the available games and limits. You sign up on the waiting lists for the limits you want to play, and when there’s an open seat, they call you. Waits can be fairly long in Atlantic City, especially if you play holdem.

If you are open to playing other games, such as seven-card stud, or to a few different limits, you shouldn’t have trouble finding some game quickly. The lowest holdem limit is 2-4. Next largest is 3-6, then 5-10, then 10-20. Holdem is spread only at the Taj Mahal and the Trop to my knowledge. $100 is more than enough for a session of 2-4. If you are a winning home game player, you should be able to handle 5-10. The problem with 2-4 is that the stakes are so low and the house cut of the pot is so large that it’s hard to make any real money even when the opponents are really bad (which
they are).

Answer 3:

In games below $10/20 the casino takes a “rake” of 10% of the pot, up to $4 max. In games above, the casino charges for time. This amount varies by casino & limit. Usually, no more than $10/hr. There is no charge to get into the poker room. You only pay while you play. To get into a game, you go to the poker desk and see what games are available. If there is a seat open in the game/limit you want – you’ll be directed to someone who will seat you in that game. If there is a waiting list, add your name to the list & they will call you when a seat is open. Fri/Sat nights are busy and there is almost always a waiting list. It helps to put your name on more than one list. For example, I’ll wait for the $10/20, $5/10 and $3/6 games. Ideally, I want the $10/20. However, I’ll play in the others if they are “good” games, while waiting for a call for $10/20. Holdem is usually spread: $2/4, $3/6, $5/10, $10/20, $20/40, $30/60, etc. Sometimes you’ll find a $15/30 or $4/8 – they are pretty rare, however. Stud looks like: $1/3, $1/5, $5/10…..similar to holdem, but the betting varies depending on if the board is paired – and on which “street”.

To play holdem, I’d suggest the following buy in $$$’s: $2/4 – $100, with another $50 in reserve (don’t play $2/4 – it’s not worth the time); for $3/6 – $150/$100; for $5/10 – $200/$150; for $10/20 – $400/$200, etc…. Sounds like on your $500 you’d be looking at $3/6 or $5/10. You’d be a little short stacked at $10/20 and we’d try to squeeze you. That and the game is a little tougher than $5/10, less players see the flop and much more raising. Short stacks usually can’t handle the variance.