The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Casinos & Gambling (or paying homage to 'Gamblor')
Posts
oh, well if you have that much money don't play for a day, fly me out, and I'll pay for your trip at the bellagio
Just play 2-5 at the bellagio, buy in for like $350 a few times and maybe try the Wynn (I haven't played the Wynn but I've done some railbirding before hitting up the Ferrari dealership).
its really a preference thing and it depends on the casino. where i play, those large stacks will for the most part bully and i'd rather not deal with that if im just looking to sit and play cards for 2 hours.
well for instance in the last one i was talking about, 700 bucks meant that to get more money you would have to finish 3rd or better. and in the small tournaments im talking about, the blinds are usually astronomical by the time the final table starts where you are trying to survive with 5xBB as a chip count. since no one can garuntee in that setting that they will place at least 3rd, its better to chop. it does depend on the tournament payout.
That sentence is wrong though, or at least the reasoning behind it. Of course there are no guarantees in poker, otherwise the game wouldn't be as interesting or popular. The question isn't whether you're sure to get more than the $700 you would in a chop, it is whether your expected value is higher or lower than $700 if you play out the rest. If it's lower, then you take the chop and hope the other guys are afraid of variance. If it's higher, then you don't chop and let chips fall where they may. With your case and retarded blinds it's definitely possible that your EV was better taking the chop, especially if you were in the 5xBB range, but it isn't automatically true just because the structure sucks. The most common scenario is when one or two guys are really, really short - wait til they bust or get back to average before considering including them in a deal.
the final table in those cases are just too much based on cards.
It's a lot for me to spend on poker - 900 bucks was what I cleared last year playing about 170 hours of mostly 1-2 holdem or 2-5 PLO - but I'm getting a good deal on the trip and I've haven't been on any sort of "vacation" longer than a weekend for probably 10 years. Also, I'm not anticipating getting totally skined, honestly. It's not like I'm going to Reno.
I host a podcast about movies.
I think you missed his point here - when you're playing with a reasonable sized stack (say, a low normal buyin) against larger stacks, you don't have to worry so much about being bullied and having your blind stolen. Just play super tight super aggressive pre-flop with your AA, KK hands, with the occassional blind limp or multiway limp with suited connectors. When you've got multiple people with big stacks, you almost always have great implied odds on pushing.
As long as the table is sensible and not absolutely batshit crazy, you can have fun for a long time and come out ahead by just reading people's betting habits and facing down the guys who like to play hands more often than you.
The danger in limit poker is the batshit groups of fuckers who simply don't care, have money to blow, and are willing to buy into every hand no matter their cards. If you see two or more of these guys at the table, just stand up and leave. They will suck out against you every time with ridiculously bad flushes, straits, and full houses.
That having been said...getting whipsawed by players who are implicitly colluding can be a real danger when you're dealing with multiple aggressive players who clearly play together often.
One thing that can be beneficial is to qualify the shooter. See if he's making his points or if he's rolling a lot craps (2, 3, and 12) or sevening-out.
My strategy is usually this: Bet the minimum on the pass when the point is Off. For this example, let's say the minimum is $10. If the point is established as a 6 or an 8, take full odds. It's usually 5x, so that would be $50. Then reduce your odds for each outward point respectively. (I.e. $25 for a 5 or a 9, $10 for a 4 or a 10) Then bet the come and play it the same way. Every once in a while I'll throw out a two-way Yo or Hard way just to keep the dealers happy.
This seems to be the least risky, most fun way for me without burning a lot of money really fast.
Do you pay to even sit?
I think that in every hand that passes a certain dollar amount and gets to the flop, they take a small percentage of the pot up to an amount. Usually it's like one big blind.
its losing, not loosing. But yes, that's how it works.
<= spelling wizzaard.
Most low limit games are paid for by a rake. Generally they will take 5% or 10% of the pot (up a certain amount, usually $3 or $4 for low limit). Usually there is no rake taken if there is no flop. Some places also take a jackpot drop (which is returned to the players via bad beat jackpots and other contests, minus an "administrative" fee of course) and the rules for when they take that money varies wildly.
Higher limit games are usually paid for by a time charge. Every half hour they will collect a set amount from the players (or sometimes take a lump sum out of the next "Time pot"). If you're the new guy you generally don't have to pay anything (other than probably posting a blind bet on your first hand) until the next half hour.
Rake games benefit tight players (since you play less pots, you win less pots and pay less rake) while time charges independent of play style.