[MSchu]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Exactly my point...

I see no difference between hold'em and mathematical story problems. Since I do not find "two trains 178 miles apart traveling at speeds of 106 mph and 84 mph respectively are on a collision course -- how long before they crash" problems enjoyable, I do not find poker enjoyable.

this is NLH poker...

Two trains 178 miles apart... one train is traveling at 106mph, the other is traveling at an unknown mph.

How long will it take before the two trains meet and which train will push the other off the track if one train is hauling a load of coal and the other train is hauling a photograph of coal?

that's No Limit Hold'em poker.

Stud and Limit is more like your equation above.

[jtjtjtjt]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

But let's tackle this angle of the thread -- why on earth would you want to urinate away your hard-earned money (I'm assuming it's hard-earned) gambling after years of being productive?

A couple of reasons. First, some of the slot machines are fun and entertaining. The first slot machine in that category was the Austin Powers machine. I remember definitely being amused by that one (I wonder where it went? Did they not pay the proper royalties on it and had to retire it?). Current examples of fun machines would be The Hangover and Family Guy.

Many people don't understand why anyone would spend hours everyday playing XBox or Playstation games. Or why some people like to play Sudoku. But millions of people are hard core gamers. Some of us play computer games but also like the added thrill of winning money while doing it (or conversely, losing money while gaming).

Next, I don't like to lose but I also like to win. It is a big thrill to leave a machine, a table, a hotel, or even an entire trip as a winner. And occasionally, like LV2ndHome, you can get an advantage on a game or a table and be a winner and get that big thrill.

Currently, I have one particular slot machine that always lets me win. The casino or venue does not matter, when I see that machine I'm on it.

[BBMW]

One of the reasons I play poker is that I'm playing against other players, not the house.

[jtjtjtjt]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

If a casino offered cribbage for money, I'd be tempted. Cribbage is a skill game. In a single game, a weaker player can get lucky and beat a stronger player. But over time, the stronger player is going to win out. That's the only kind of card game that interests me. I'd even be OK with gambling on backgammon, which has more luck involved than cribbage, but is still basically a skill game. And that's exactly the kind of game that casinos don't want. Similarly, you're not going to see money chess (or any other pure skill game) available at the Bellagio any time soon.

I'd play chess for a few bucks. I'm actually ahead in my lifetime playing chess for money (1 game for $5 against my best friend in high school and I had to play him blindfolded. He was not very good, lol. But that was when I had a young brain and could think and remember instead of being the senile old geezer that I am now.)

There was a Hearts tournament in Vegas with cash entry fees and cash prizes (I think the winner won $5000). I found out that the winner was a guy that I had been playing online against and holding my own against. So if I'm in Vegas and they ever hold another Hearts tournament, I'm in.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by jtjtjtjt

Next, I don't like to lose but I also like to win. It is a big thrill to leave a machine, a table, a hotel, or even an entire trip as a winner. And occasionally, like LV2ndHome, you can get an advantage on a game or a table and be a winner and get that big thrill.

Currently, I have one particular slot machine that always lets me win. The casino or venue does not matter, when I see that machine I'm on it.

Unfortunately, I don't get any thrills from any of that. We have a family friend who I have mentioned many times who owns one of those Strip condo-hotels that cost way too much money. We don't talk finances, but I'm guessing his net worth is in the solid eight-figure range. He gambles practically every day, baccarat. Baccarat is, without a doubt, my least favorite game of all. There's simply nothing to it except chance. I don't think there's even a way to advantage play it.

He has probably let several million slip through his fingers in the years since he moved here. The casinos give him anything he wants and he uses their limos as a taxi service. As long as a trip to the casino is involved, they will take him grocery shopping, to doctor's visits, anything he wants. They give him free meals, free rooms, free shows -- any time he wants them. But he pays out the wazoo for the privilege.

I cannot wrap my head around that kind of mindset at all. Why amass a fortune only to squander it? He could easily trade his gambling habit (I think in his case "addiction" is more like it) for a private jet and a pilot's annual salary for the rest of his life and globe trot.

[cowherjaw]

Originally Posted by BBMW

It's the house's job to protect the game. If they're being weak, I'd have no problem taking advantage of it, especially how the entire casino enterprise is set up to exploit the weaknesses of many of the players. What comes around goes around.

I see this on an individual basis in poker. It's very well known and well established that it's the players job to protect their hand, yet I often see people flashing their cards.

Originally Posted by BBMW

One of the reasons I play poker is that I'm playing against other players, not the house.

It is the house's job to protect their games, but you have to stop with this evil empire thought process that it's about exploiting the weaknesses of players. All the games and rules and house play decisions are set. They cannot adjust their strategy to exploit anything. They offer entertainment that comes at the price of the theoretical house edge. They don't hide that they have an advantage built into their games.

It is also true that it is the player's responsibility to protect his hand at all times, but the house will often tell a player to protect his cards if he doesn't realize he's flashing the person next to him. It makes for a fair game, and if I see anyone at my table peeking at someone else's cards, I'm putting a stop to it. Instead of getting an advantage against the house, you are now getting an advantage against the other players. How people rationalize that this isn't unfair advantage astounds me. What are your feelings on chip dumping in tournaments and/or team play at a cash table? Is it ok to gain unfair advantage of you're acting alone, but not ok as part of team? Again, I don't judge, but I like to hear different perspectives especially on grey concepts like that. I don't quote Scoop on his thoughts because he doesn't really get poker, and I know you do.

Originally Posted by LV2ndHome

Not at all unless that knowledge is gained in an illegal manner (spooking, using a device, etc). It's the casino's responsible to set procedure, structure the games, adequately train employees, and supervise them. The casinos know these legal plays exist, have the ability to prevent it, and opt not to make the effort. Scummy is not making the effort to do so and then blaming others for the loss instead of accepting that your own lack of effort is the root cause. The American way... blame someone else instead of accepting responsibility yourself.

They do make the effort, and they don't blame someone else. You'll not see sloppy dealers at high stakes games where making that mistakes can cost them real money. And you won't see them for long at a lower stakes table if you're betting high amounts. Anytime anything substantial is wagered on the table, you know that person is watched. At first from the pit through that dealer calling the pit over for the high bet and then from upstairs as people follow the actions leading up to the bet. If someone gets away it for any length of time at a table, then the amount made/lost is trivial to the casino, at least in the modern era.

Originally Posted by MSchu

not entirely true...

online the player pool is limited, that is the main issue right now. until ROW (rest of world) players can be played against, it's really a somewhat limiting in that you are seeing the same players over and over... and those players are less exploitable. it would be like looking for a meal in a pool filled with sharks. at the very least, we need interstate gaming to increase the player pool... which is coming.

While everything you said is correct, most people I know are still making a higher rate online than in person. The player pool does still suck on most legal sites, but on some of them the quality of player is still every bit as bad as the touristy live player and you still get many more hands in.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by cowherjaw

I don't quote Scoop on his thoughts because he doesn't really get poker, and I know you do.

I'm pretty sure I get it. It just doesn't hold any interest for me. If I'm playing a game, and I can see the opposing player's cards (or whatever advantage), I will use it. I MIGHT tell the opposing player that they are making a mistake in the way that they play the game -- for a friendly game. But if I was playing for real money that mattered to me, I wouldn't. If they make amateur-hour mistakes, they shouldn't be sitting at a high-value game in the first place.

That's either their fault for not learning how to play properly, or in the case of "player vs. the house" the house's fault for not training their dealers properly. This isn't some Arthurian legend and I'm not Galahad. If I come to play, I also come to win. I'm not going to dumb down my game or ignore an advantage. No quarter expected. None given. My opponent deserves my best game -- anything less is insulting.

[MSchu]

how about a rock paper scissors competition for $100 a game?

[Raiderman]

Originally Posted by MSchu

how about a rock paper scissors competition for $100 a game?

Better odds at Casino War for $100 a hand. That, and the $1 bet on Money Wheel. When I used to deal, I would have guys lose $100 at the BJ table, come over, put $100 on $1 and get their money back to extend their play at BlackJack. Odds are slightly worse than Red/Black on the roulette table. As long as you don't "go to war" at the War table, it is pretty much 50/50 just like a coin toss.

[MSchu]

going to war would be -EV for sure. you would need at least a win rate of 2/1 before that even approaches break even and you can not get close to that win rate.

funny, I have never seen this in a casino but I have read a little about it. Where do they still play it?

war initial odds are definitely MUCH BETTER than R/B-O/E in roulette based on the house advantage because of the ought/oughts.