Sergeant Rock: Poker Philosophy

Poker Philosophy (February, 2004)

(This is a reprint of an essay I posted to the rec.gambling.poker usenet newsgroup, before I had my own blog.)

I make no claim to be a poker strategist or theoretician. Neither am I a poker expert, nor a poker authority. And anyone who has played with me will tell you that I sure as hell am NOT much of a poker PLAYER, at least not in the way that guys like, for example, Jesus and Ivey and Lederer are PLAYERS.

All I am, really, is a wannabe player, a wannabe writer, a certified WCBSA (World-Class Bullshit Artist) and...

The World's Foremost Poker PHILOSOPHER (self-proclaimed).

There, I said it; I'm finally out of the closet with this. All these years posting essays and reports I always kept the ego in check; never claimed any title, until now. Last couple times I made a big post, my pal Izmet and my girlfriend Angelina both told me the same thing: "You really must write a book!"

I replied that I *am* writing a book, one chapter at a time, here on RGP. The project is coming along just fine, thanks, albeit slowly. This report is the next chapter, and contains mostly Poker Philosophy, plus some description of the 20/40 thru 50/100 limit Hold 'Em games here in Seattle.

In deference to all the newbies on RGP, it is also a "back to basics" kind of post. You veterans of poker who already know everything may find little of interest here, and might want to just move on to the next flame war, ALL CAPS babble, paranoid conspiracy rant, egomaniacal boast, or celebrity put-down.

The Player Orientation Triad

Most poker players, probably to include you and me, approach the game with a focus on one or more of three key factors. While we discuss two of these factors &#151 Results & Luck &#151 perhaps you'd like to ask yourself what the third and *really* important factor is.

Results. This is probably the most "popular" orientation. Most players take a results-oriented approach to the game, meaning that RESULTS are what they focus on, and are pretty much all they care about. Doesn't it seem reasonable to think that winning pots and winning sessions equate directly to poker success? Players who think this way will typically:

Want to book a win TODAY!
Quit early if winning (for the day.)
Play longer if "stuck" (for the day.)
Become upset if the hand they folded "Gets there and would have won."
Become upset upon seeing that they were bluffed off of the best hand.
Focus on winning the pot more than on making good decisions.
Become "tiltable" after suffering bad beats.

There's more to say later about Results-oriented thinking, but right now I just can't wait to talk some about that *other* player orientation, forever my perverse favorite, the always-popular but fallacious demagogue of gambling in general, and poker in particular:

Luck. I have posted before that I know everything there is to know about Luck. This is not a frivolous claim, and is no exaggeration. Indeed, it is this fortunate omniscience that empowers me to claim my title as The World's Foremost Poker Philosopher (self-proclaimed) and it is with complete confidence and authority that I instruct you on this topic. Accept, trust and embrace all the wisdom that I share, my children, and believe it truly, and you too shall be cast free from the bonds of superstition, released from the shackels of pagan ignorance,

and rescued from the daemons of bad beats and bad runnings.

Wow. Sorry if that went a little over the top. This Luck stuff really gets my juices flowing.

The Luck-oriented approach is popular with so many players that you can't help but marvel at the pervasiveness of such stupidity. There even seem to be different levels of "Luck" players, and I think of them as "hardcore" (conscious) and "softcore" (subconscious) luck-orientation.

The hardcore luck-oriented player does things like:

Demand deck changes when "running bad."
Want to take the "lucky seat" in which another player made a nice score.
Sit out when the dealer who previously "beat them up" comes into the box.
Play (raise with?) their "favorite" trash hands, no matter what.

Most players are smart enough to recognize how silly those concepts are, yet many are still "softcore" luck-oriented, and will adjust their play or otherwise make decisions based on whether they are "running good" or "running bad" at that moment.

Apart from the psychological impact that "running good/bad" might have on your table image, or on your own psyche, the whole concept of "how am I running?" is, well, stupid.

My life is filled with mysteries, and one of the most enigmatic is this: Why do so many people (especially gamblers!) think that a random event will be influenced or effected by the outcome(s) of other, recent previous random event(s)?

The average player exhibits quite a poor understanding of the meaning of that word: RANDOM, and instead appears to believe that some mysterious force, some intangible and indescribable magic principle, is somehow going to influence the outcome of a RANDOM event. Some examples:

* This craps table hasn't rolled boxcars for an hour, so:
- No way it's gonna roll now, or;
- 12 is "overdue"; bet on it.

* I haven't flopped a set with my last 29 pocket pairs, so:

- There is NO WAY I'm gonna flop one this time, or;

- It's almost a sure thing that these deuces will flop 222.

Random (adj, 1565): Relating to, having, or being elements or events with a definite probability of occurrence.

Meriam-Webster gives several definitions, but this is the one I like best, the one that really makes sense in a gambling context. Rolling boxcars and flopping a set in the examples above are both "events with definite probability of occurrence," and unless someone is manipulating the cards or dice, that "definite probability" is always the same, without regard for the outcome of previous trials.

One Vegas pro I know makes fun of people who, as he puts it, "try to make reason out of randomness." These players take note if lots of sixes, or maybe clubs, have shown up on the last few flops. They think that significant, and they have, they believe, discovered some meaningful trend. There is no reason in the randomness they observe, but they imagine that there is, and may act upon their false conclusion.

The Luck-oriented gambler seeks to catch and ride a streak much in the same way that a surfer will catch and ride a wave. If you've ever talked to (or been?) a "serious" craps player, you will know that this is the strategy they embrace: Bet big when you're "on a roll."

OK, fine, whatever. These folks are deluding themselves. Here's the truth:

In the course of Random events, streaks happen.

But as you "drive down the highway of random events,"

you can't see those streaks through the windshield;

you can only see them in the rear view mirror.

Gamblers often believe that streaks tend to perpetuate themselves. This seemingly reasonable extrapolation of logic is probably the most widely embraced, and costly (for players, though profitable for casinos) misconception in all of "gaming." I've always believed that it might have some value for Sports betting, where, yeah, "momentum" really can be meaningful to athletes. But then a ballgame or a race is hardly a random event.

Don't Use The Gerund

A gerund is the "...ing" form of a verb. You know, like running,

suckling, crying, cheating, winning, losing, etc. When we say that we are "running good" or "running bad" in a poker context, that describes A CONDITION in the present tense-- "right now"-- as though we were "in love" or "running a fever" or "sleeping."

Now please, repeat after me: BAD CONCEPT. BAD, BAD, BAD.

If you point at a guy who is snoring in his chair and say "He's

sleeping," you have used a gerund, and it makes sense. He was asleep before you said it, when you said it, and will probably still be asleep after you're done saying it.

If I'm in a poker game and say that "I'm running bad," that does NOT make sense. Maybe I have suffered bad luck over the last hour, day, week, or month, but that in itself is no reason to expect my present or future luck, from the deal in progress onwards, to be particularly bad or good or anything. Future random events are NOT influenced by past random events, so how could I ever be "running bad?"

Actually, in the history of the universe to date, no player has ever BEEN "running good" or "running bad." Not ever. Certainly we have all run good or run bad (past tense) at times, and to be sure, we will ride those waves again. If I say "I ran terrible yesterday" or "I hope I run better tomorrow," that might make sense. Just don't use the gerund.

Do you wonder why I'm making such a big deal about a trivial nuance of speech? Well, it is the MINDSET associated with the concept of "running good/bad," as expressed by those words, that becomes very meaningful in the game.

Even though no player has ever really been "running good/bad," in every game every day there are times that a player and/or his opponents PERCEIVE that he is "running good/bad," and the

psychological implications are significant indeed.

If I and/or my opponents perceive that I am "running bad," can they run over me more easily?

If they perceive that I'm "running good," might I be able to run over them a little?

If I (wrongfully) think that I'm "running good," might that induce me to get overconfident and burn some chips?

---

Seattle Poker (2004)

We never did get to Bellagio last Xmas/New Years. For weeks we agonized over whether or not to make the trip, and in the end decided to just wait for WSOP to do Vegas. Probably the biggest thing to help us decide is that limit Hold 'Em games here in Seattle these days are so good that, hey, there's no good reason to go elsewhere. Anything bigger than $10/20 is "Class III" in Washington, and the only such public game in Seattle is at the Muckleshoots Indian Casino in Auburn, 14 freeway miles south of our house. For the last few years the Mucks Poker Room only had one Class III table, and for the last few months it has onsistently been $20/40 with $30/60 overs. Now, thanks

no doubt to the crowd growth generated by WPT et. al., they have a second Class III table that is sometimes a second (must-move) 20 game, but sometimes- at least a couple times per week- is a $50/100 Hold 'Em game. That's good, huh?

In starting the 50/100, a handful of players "agreed" to each buy-in at least $2,500, so in their minds, that was the required buy-in for anyone wanting to join "their game." The house rule, however, is that a buy-in is ten times the small bet, e.g., $200 for a $20/40. By that formula, a $50/100 buy-in should only be $500.

Well I heard about this game, and naturally I was interested. VERY interested. I also heard about the $2,500 buy-in and that really put me off. Although I would want to buy $2000 or more to play $50/100, I just HATE to think about the wanna-play guys in the room who might like to come into this game with, say $500 - $1000 or so, but who can't or won't buy $2,500.

So I asked a floorman about this big buy-in, and he started to tell me what "the players agreed to..." I reminded him that it's a public cardroom and that making rules is his job, and not the players'. He explained that he "can't stop" anyone from buying-in for $500, per the house rules, but that the players had made it clear that if anyone bought less than $2,500, they will immediately quit the game en masse!

Sounded like bullshit to me, but when I played it for the first time (bought $3000...) the flooorman came over during the game and said he had a player who wanted to come in with $2100- all he had- and did anyone object?

I objected to any wannabe player being pressured to buy so much, and to limiting the field to guys with deep pockets, but for once I kept my mouth shut. Yeah, I know, that IS hard to believe.

The players wanted to know who it was; that would help them decide if they would "allow" this guy to play! Can you believe this shit?

I have a problem when a clique of players wants to treat the public cardroom game as though it were a private game. I mean, if they want to act like this, they should just go play at Fred's house. But they did "let" this guy play. Away from the table I let the shift bosses know as politely but firmly as I could how ridiculous the $2,500 buy-in was. Seems to have worked, because a week later they dropped the 50/100 buy-in to $1,000. I personally think $800 might have sounded more attractive and "seemed" more manageable.

When the $50/100 game doesn't go, the $20/40 with overs is still a rockin' game, and the second game cranks up quite often. There are a few dozen regular players, in a WIDE range of talent and skill levels. :-) Lots of new faces, lots of "TV Players," God Bless America, Amen.

Weekends they get up to three $10/20 games. Mrs. Rock has been parking it in the $20/40 five days a week, and working hard at her chosen profession. Last month or so we've been playing the $50/100 and/or $20/40 a few days a week, and playing on Paradise, Stars and Party some too, but gee, what a game this Seattle $50/100 is. More on that later.

The Real Deal

We talked about the Orientation Triad, and the Results and Luck

orientations, and you were going to think about the third factor. Did you decide the same thing I did?

Performance. This is the third factor in the triad, and is the one that *really* matters. It describes how well (or badly) you play, in terms of skill level, decision making and execution, plus mental and emotional discipline. The best players are neither Results nor Luck oriented, but rather are Performance oriented.

If you accept these hypotheses thus far, you might wonder about the relationship between the three factors. How do they effect one another? Surprisingly, it turns out that the relationship between Performance, Luck and Results is so easily understood that it can be expressed by this simple philosophical equation:

Result = Performance ± Luck

That's it? Well, yeah. Satisfaction gar-ron-teed, or TRIPLE your money back. Some of you who read this may scoff that everything said here is quite obvious, that there's nothing even slightly profound in any of it, you already knew all this stuff, and Sarge is just a pedantic simpleton. If so, well, you're probably right on all counts. But here's the thing: Even though *everyone* who is not blatantly stupid (this may even include a few of the players in your game) already knows these things, don't the vast majority of players behave in a manner quite oblivious to the logic or reason given above?

Sometimes to just a small degree, but more often to a large extent, MOST players I observe are more Results or Luck than Performance oriented. Someone posted here recently that Roy Cooke claimed a 3 big bets per hour win rate in the Mirage 20/40 salad days (pre-Bellagio.) I played some with him then, and don't doubt that claim a tiny bit. He is the most Performance-oriented and least Results-oriented guy I know, and in

fact I learned (stole) the term "Results-oriented" from him.

Why Coping with Luck is Part of Performance

The more times we repeat a random event, the more likely it becomes that the cumulative outcome will approach the expected result. But along the way, the short term results will fluctuate, will deviate, and in the gambling context, we call this Luck. I posted at length before about how the theoretical long run net effect of Luck should be zero, but why it often is NOT zero in the psychological poker venue. Rather than

repeat all that here, may I please refer you to:

[link coming soon]

Back already? OK, here's the point. The best player and the worst player in your game both have winning days and losing days. In the short term, that ± Luck stuff can easily prevail, and can (often does) reward pathetic Performance with a big win, or punish superb and inspired Performance with a crushing loss. Hand after hand, day after day, your dollar results are going to take a roller coaster ride, period. If you are "Results Oriented"-- if you make an emotional investment in your "Result" for individual pots or sessions-- then your emotions will take that roller coaster ride as well. That's not good. Your Result will ALWAYS fluctuate, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so any value or focus you put on that is wasted and

misdirected energy, or worse.

If you are "Performance Oriented," and focus your attention on your performance, then you've got the feline by the coccyx. Performance is the one thing that you CAN control. It's the one thing that CAN be rock steady, no flux, no variance, day after day. It's up too you. As you play on towards that dim, distant and barely visible light at the end of the tunnel (the long run) remember this: Performance can and should become Result, without regard for Luck.

My old essay (link above) explains how the normal swings of good and bad Luck can destroy your bankroll if you react inappropriately to those fluctuations. Avoiding that- maintaining mental discipline and maybe exploiting luck but never being its victim- is part of Performance. If you perform well in this area, then the net effect of Luck IS zero. Then, the equation becomes simply:

Result = Performance

Variations on a Theme

Games like Poker, Blackjack and Video Poker differ from most other casino games, because they provide opportunities to Perform. After the initial bet, you still make decisions, like check/bet/raise/fold/call or hit/stand/split/double. That's Performance.

Games like baccarat, craps, roulette, keno, slots, etc., provide no such opportunity. You make your bet, then you await the outcome. Easy game, no decisions, no Performance. These games still have an Expectation, though, like, you know, -1.41% and -5.26% for passline craps or double zero roulette red/black bets, respectively. For these games, the

equation:

Result = Performance ± Luck ...becomes instead:

Result = Expectation ± Luck

...and here again that ± Luck stuff will often produce short term

Results that are quite different from the Expectation. Since there is no Performance component, however, the long run net effect of luck is zero. I mean, how do you "go on tilt" in a craps or roulette game, where every bet you can make already has a built-in irrevocable, irrefutable and irreversible negative expectation? Eventually, then, Result = Expectation in these games, and Luck is no more than a transient factor.

SWM vs. Mr. Bizarro

Another guy been showing up some in the Seattle 50 game is an SWM

(Superfish Wealthy Maniac) who will raise before looking at his cards 20 deals in a row, no kidding. He's boisterous, cocky, arrogant, loud, knows little about poker, chugs the booze-- in short, everything you love to see in an opponent, but disdain in most other walks of life.

First time I faced him he ran a $1,000 buy-in up to about $8,000, then back to the carpet, then was building it back up again when I took an EO after only 8 hours. One time I made the nut flush against him on the river and capped it (4 bet cap in this mickey-mouse room...) with Ad Td, but he had a straight flush with 5d 8d. Ouch.

Anyway, on New Years Day there was a new guy, whom I will call Mr. Bizarro, just to SWM's left. Check this hand, will ya? 6 players dealt in; 4 fold. SWM open-raises from the SB, and Biz calls in the BB. Heads-up.

Board comes: A K K, K, J

SWM bets the flop; Biz thinks for 15 seconds, and calls.

SWM bets the turn; Biz thinks for 30 seconds, and calls.

SWM bets the river; Biz thinks for 45 seconds (these guys been watching way too much TV), and calls.

Pot = 14 sm. bets = $700, less $3 drop.

SWM says "You got me." Biz shows T8. SWM mucks. No, I am not kidding.

---

Later that day we hit the $29K+ bad beat jackpot in the 50 game, when Biz' TT beat AA, after a flop of ATT. AA took the beat and the big end of nearly $15K, and toked the dealer $25. I got a table share of $1050 and change. Ni han. I still dislike the jackpot, and would prefer the extra buck in each pot I win, but I'm pretty OK with the jackpot lovers that it brings into the game.

Exculpatory Evidence

Would you believe I learned that word last year watching Law & Order reruns on cable? Now that I've made my strong case for being Performance-oriented and against being Results-oriented, I have to reveal to you some compelling empirical evidence that I've recorded in a long-term case study, and that belies and contradicts my assertions.

Mrs. Rock. This woman is by nature Results-oriented, and so she does ride those emotional waves when her dollar results bounce up and down. Although her Performance is consistently (read ALMOST always) very strong, she has the same swings of Luck we all do, and while not particularly "vulnerable," neither is she impervious to the psychological damage those swings can do. Ah, but then who is? You? Me? Probably not. But we should try to be.

So anyway, here I am, the tight assed no emotion logical philosophical Performance-oriented grammatically-correct obsessive-compulsive teacher, while she, my student, is emotional, wants results TODAY, and always wants to know if we are up or down for TODAY. And now that I've used however many thousand words to explain why my approach is good and hers bad, I also need to tell you again that her bottom line dollar Result

STILL beats mine by several hundred percent, year after year after year.

[ Editor's Note, 2013: When written in 2004, that last part was true. Ain't true no mo. :-) ]

Sex Sells

Whoever said that "men are pigs" was probably mostly right.

Whoever said that a typical man thinks about sex once every 45 seconds was probably just charitably underestimating the frequency. If I thought I could get away with it, or could possibly fool anyone, I would unhesitatingly shave my legs and put on a makeup, nylons, a wig and a skirt to go play poker.

Here's my last variation on the equation for Poker:

Result = Performance ± Luck [+ Gender]

Yes, I AM saying that just "being female" can be an advantage in a poker game against typical men. And all the better if she is attractive and appealing, dresses provocatively, maybe even flirts a little. This is not to say that the flirtatious centerfold who plays for shit will still win; she probably won't. But a woman who knows how to play and also knows how to exploit a man's sexist biases? Are you kidding me? I'd give my left nut to sit behind that stack.

Unfortunately, it turns out you have to give both nuts, and then some, to make that transition and *really* assume a female persona. Plus, I'd still be ugly. OK, never mind. Put that scalpel away, will ya? I won't be fading THAT bet anytime soon. :-)

But I will be thinking about, and trying hard to better understand, and to quantify, just what it is about the dynamic between men and women that creates this potential advantage. Could it be that the average man playing against a woman might tend to--

* Pay her off more than he would a male opponent?

* "Take it easy on her" ?

* Bluff too much? Not bluff enough?

* Checkraise less?

* Refuse to believe or accept that she can play, and underestimate the threat she poses?

* Try to run over her more than is prudent?

* Just plain *want* to give her chips?

Some of those bullets seem to contradict one another, don't they? Well, ya know what? I think that it happens in various ways at different times, and that sometimes it's chivalry, sometimes it's misogyny, and sometimes it's somewhere in between. It may at times also be paternalistic, filial, sororal, predatory, or an attempt to dominate, or to surrender, to impress, to seduce, or just plain get lucky in a completely non-gaming sense. Whatever it is, I just wish I could bottle and sell it.

The female player may have other advantages, besides that potential opportunity to exploit men's biases. I don't know much about that left-brain/right-brain stuff, nor do I know what science may know about psychological, intellectual, or other non-physical differences between genders.

After 33 [now 42] consecutive years of marriage, all to an actual woman, you might reasonably expect that I would have some small clue about women, and could explain all those mysteries to you.

Well think again, because I don't, and I can't. All I know for sure is this: In addition to the obvious and delightful physical differences, women also differ from men in their analytical, subjective reasoning, intuitive, deceptive, and creative abilities. In some situations those differences might put a lady at a disadvantage, but my inferior male intuition tells me that, in a poker game, her gender-based abilities have tremendous potential for doing a jujitsu number on a man's ego.

My only remaining non-surgical out seems to be cyberspace, where one CAN *become* whomever or whatever they like. And you can bet your ass that my ONLINE poker persona is very much of the distaff persuasion.

Hey, remember the guy who had the surgery and wore breast implants for a year+ to win a $100K bet? How much would you have to jack up those stakes, and what kind of genuine wacko would you have to find, to get a guy to undergo a sex-change operation and otherwise "become a woman," just to boost his (her) poker win rate? I wonder about things like that, don't you?

No, you probably just wonder how a nice lady like Mrs. Rock could ever have hooked up with a sicko pervert like me. Well get in line, because so do I, so does she, and so does everyone else who knows us wonder the same thing.

The Muckleshoots' Dayshift Flasher

Most dealers hold the deck low and horizontal, or sometimes tilt the front edge down just a bit. This guy holds the deck higher than most, and tilts the front edge UP just a little.

Result: As cards come off the deck to be pitched, an observant player, especially in the neighborhood of seat 3, can sometimes catch an oblique glimpse of a card's face.

Over the last year I've told three shift bosses all about this dealer's weakness, hoping they might offer him some remedial instruction. Well, he might be holding the deck a tiny bit lower now, but the upward tilt persists, so I don't *think* they bothered to talk to him about it.

Now, when this guy deals I watch the other players to make sure they're not watching closely enough to see the cards dealt to me! So far I've never seen anyone else paying much attention.

I Can't Afford to Play Low Limit

I have a friend who is a Hold 'Em player with just over one year of experience in live games, after learning with computer simulations. He came to me recently, asking for help, after playing $4/$8 throughout 2003, keeping copious records, performing well- he felt- and booking a $7,400 loss for the year.

"What kind of hours do you play?" I asked him.

"I'm *really* into the game now," he replied, "and over the year I averaged 25 hours a week." This guy is single, and has a flexible job. :-)

"OK," I told him, "Let's say 50 weeks at 25 hours per, or 1250 hours for the year. Now let's estimate how much, on average, you spend on rake and tokes per hour." So we did. Then we multiplied that by 1250.

Since that day he went away and recorded these things (drop and tokes) in his game for a solid week, and we used those counts to revise the estimate (upwards...) and do the math again. Based this data, which he says is quite representative, he wins, on average, 3.1 raked pots per hour, where the pot is raked (including jackpot drop) $2.90, and he tokes $0.85. So:

2.90 rake + .85 toke = 3.75 "cost per pot." Then,

3.75 cost/pot x 3.1 pots/hr x 1250 hrs/yr = $14,531 total "cost."

"So," I told him, "You didn't lose, you won. You beat the guys you played against out of some $7,100 last year. But then the COST OF PLAYING, drop and tokes, turned your gross win into a net loss. Had you played all those same hands and same pots against those same guys in a player-dealt home game, with no drop, you could have that win in your pocket. Feel better now?"

He didn't seem to. No, he just same there dumbfounded for a couple minutes, wearing a pained expression. "How do you overcome this?" he finally asked.

"Me?"

"Well, yeah, you have the same costs, don't you?"

"Maybe more," I told him, "because in the $20/40 game we reach the $3 max rake with a $60 pot size more often, like pretty much whenever there's a flop. But you have to think about the rake in proportion to the bet size.

"We're playing identical bet structures, you and I: 4 chips small bet, 8 chips big bet. It's just that you're playing with $1 white chips and I'm playing with $5 red chips. In your game they rake up to three white chips, and another white for the jackpot.

"That's one small bet. Imagine if they raked three redbirds in the $20/40 game and another for the bad beat. Do you think I would play in a $20/40 game that dropped $20 every hand? No freakin' way! But proportionally, that's what you and every other $4/8 player is doing.

"Since we measure expectation as bets per hour, we should also measure drop in terms of bets, not dollars. If the typical drop is $3+1, then in the $4/8 game that's one small bet; in the $10/20 game it's 0.4 small bets, and in the $20/40 game it's 0.2 small bets. In other words, the $4/8 game is FIVE TIMES more "expensive to play" than the $20/40 game!

"If you thought the exercise to estimate your cost of playing $4/8 was interesting, try this one: Look at your $4/8 data for 2003, then estimate where you'd be if everything were the same, except that you and all those same guys had been playing $20/40, where the pot would be raked 0.2 rather than 1.0 small bets. How's your year now?"

Turned out he couldn't do the math, so I helped him again. This is kinda funny, because I'm barely a high school graduate, and he's an MBA, but says he "never was very good at word problems." Go figure. Anyway:

1. "Give back" all the drop to his $4/8 results:

14,531 - 7,400 = 7,131 actual $4/8 gross win

2. Jack it up from $4/8 to $20/40:

7,131 x 5 = 35,655 theoretical $20/40 gross win

3. Rake that 20/40 gross win (now at full $3 rake + $1 jackpot + $1 toke per raked pot):

35,655 - ( $5 cost/pot x 3.1 pots/hr x 1250 hrs/yr ) = $16,280 theoretical $20/40 net win

Of course the theoretical win assumes that he'd fare the same at $20/40 as he did at $4/8, and I repeatedly told him in the strongest terms that this is a VERY dangerous assumption.

The upside to this whole story is that after weighing Sarge's counsel and advice, my friend decided to step-up to the $20/40 game anyway, where Mrs. Rock has been kicking his ass unmercifully. No problem; he can afford it. You wouldn't believe how many semi-retired Microsoft millionaire stock-option kiddies there are here in Seattle. :-)

Meanwhile, I can't afford to play low limits. Can you?

Horseshoe Memories

We never set foot in Las Vegas until 1991, so I don't have any *really old* Shoe tales to tell. Our pal Fich dragged me in there around '92 to feast at the wonderful sportsbook deli, and Mrs. Rock and I played single deck BJ there now and then. Of course we all got our pictures taken with the million bucks every chance we got.

One time Fich and I briefly played 21 perhaps too aggressively there, like splitting tens in a sky-high count, and when we walked out two pit bosses followed us down the street!

I posted before about how my first-ever $20/40 Hold 'Em was at the Shoe, and after that we played and stayed there a few times. Once we stayed a week over on the old Shoe side, in a dumpy tiny second floor room above the gift shop, and Fich carefully explained how the room had originally been larger, but that countless coats of paint over the years had brought all the walls closer together.

One unique thing about the Shoe in those days was their machines. Every other casino you see has the slots set to loudly go DING, DING, DING. Not the Shoe. Their machines just politely and quietly went click, click, click, and I really appreciated the reduced noise pollution.

Their gift shop was also unique; it was the only one in town that didn't price gouge you on every damn thing, and I really appreciated that too.

Couple times after a weekend just playing $20/40 Hold Em, we asked for a limo to take us to the airport. No problem. We wound up toking $20 for what could have been a $15 cab ride, but it was worth it.

And of course the Shoe is where I got (stole) most of the dozen wood racks in my collection.

Peppermill Lake

This is kind of off topic- blackjack rather than poker- and goes back ten years, but it's a funny story, and I want to share it with you. In 1993, Mrs. Rock and I flew to the Stardust to play $3/6 Hold 'Em nearly every weekend. Guess I hadn't yet read that article about the high cost of low limit. :-)

That Summer we had a nice angle going with America West Airline.

Whenever possible, we flew home Sundays on their 7:30pm flight, Vegas to Seattle, but with a 30 minute stop in Reno. First time we rode it, I sought out and introduced myself to the America West Reno station chief. Just told him what we were about, no bullshit, and made my pitch. We were elite-level frequent fliers back then, and showing him our America West "Chairman's Club" cards didn't hurt. He laughed, said sure, why not, and gave me his phone number in the "back office."

Then, whenever we rode that flight, I would phone him before it even left Vegas, let him know we're coming through, and, hey, please put us #1 and #2 on the Denied Boarding List. In other words, if you're overbooked with Sunday night Reno boarders (doh) then we volunteer to be bumped. This worked as often as not, and so half a dozen times or more we and our carry-ons "unexpectedly" deplaned in Reno, and made a blackjack side-trip to the Peppermill. Then we went on home the next day, or maybe a couple days later.

This was a good deal for him too, because anyone else he bumped usually needed hotel and meal vouchers in addition to the Silver Liner (free flight next time) passes. We had comped room and meals, and he knew we only wanted the Silver Liners.

Peppermill was just awesome in those days. All single deck with Vegas strip rules, all foxy and friendly female dealers, best damn coffeeshop this side of anyplace, Tommy Bell and his great funky blues band live in the main room. It was hog heaven, and we just loved it. I played the "high roller" BJ table at the corner of the pit. It was $25 minimum, fine by me, and I just spread green 1:3, flirted with the dealers, grooved to the great band, joked around with the bosses, and had way more fun than I am usually permitted to have.

Then one time we showed up and it was some kind of big weekend, so my favorite table was $100 minimum. Gulp. OK, I had the BR, and played it anyway. All day and night, actually, and with, as I recall, vaguely neutral results.

Throughout that day there was a 50-something guy named Gary D. over at first base. Real quiet guy, average player, nicely dressed, but with a rough and weathered look, and calloused hands. I don't recall seeing him drink any alcohol.

After dinner Gary moves over to third base, and around 11:00pm I'm sitting right next to him in seat 5, pushed back from the table some, kinda spread out, stretching and relaxing. Long day.

I glance down at the floor beneath the table, and near the back corner I notice some beer spilling onto the carpet. I'm thinking there must be a bottle overturned on the tabletop near the discard tray, and so I look up, intending to reach out and set it upright.

But there is no beer bottle on the tabletop. Then I look back down, and Oh My God. Gary has $300 in the betting circle, and is holding two cards with his right hand, but has his left hand under the table. He has dared to Free Willy, and is calmly urinating onto the floor, just beside the dealer's right foot. I mean, on the lookback I inadvertently and accidentally (tragically!) got such a good view that I can tell you

with reasonable certainty that Gary is not Jewish.

Never before or since have I ever been rendered so completely

speechless. Nearly paralyzed, I lost the count, and could barely manage to act on my hand. I had to remind myself to breathe, and when I did, I began to notice a foul odor. Then a couple others at the table began to wrinkle their noses and mumble about "What's that smell?"

Around this time Gary stands up, adjusts his trousers, picks up his few remaining chips, politely says "Goodnight," and walks away!

As soon as he's out of earshot, the dealer, with a stricken look on her face, quietly asks "Did what I think just happened really just happen?"

"Uh, yes," I tell her. She looks down at the carpet, groans, grimaces with disbelief, sidesteps away from the small lake, calls the floorman, and whispers in his ear. Housekeeping is summoned, and they repeatedly put down, then vacuum back up, some absorbent powder stuff.

Soon we're all laughing about it, and the jokes went on for some time. Next day I'm back at the same table when Gary returns and buys back in! Nobody says a word, but the boss, dealer and I exchange knowing looks.

I felt particularly vulnerable in my Birkenstock sandals, but he kept it in his pants this time. I kept my feet off of the floor and up on the rungs of my stool anyway, just in case.

That weekend and for a long time afterwards, I always figured that Gary just *really* had to go, but was too caught up in the game to leave his seat for even a moment, and so he had- probably reluctantly- just cut loose right there. How naive can I be?

Now I understand that Gary was making a statement, no reluctance. He got beat up in that game all day long, and before leaving he just wanted to say "piss on you."

And that's pretty much what Peppermill told ME a couple months later. In spite of heroic efforts to kiss-up to the bosses as best I could, I didn't cover my counting well enough, and they gave me the permanent back-off. More naivete. Now I understand that advantage play in a game like that needs to, among many other things, go south with about two
times hourly expectation just to survive scrutiny from the spreadsheets.

Next Up (Coming attractions - available soon at newsreaders everywhere.)

I've started work on the next report, which *tries* to be a serious Mini-FAQ kind of a response to this "Generic Composite RGP Post" :

Dear RGP- I've been playing [$0.50/$1.00][$3/6][$10/20] for something like [a year][six weeks][twenty minutes] now.

At first I did extremely well, and so naturally I was planning to [quit my job][drop out of school][leave my wife and kids][be granted parole], move to Vegas, and turn Pro.

Now I'm not so sure. I've been on a losing streak for the past [six months][two weeks][twenty minutes] and have lost [eight

dollars][thousands][my entire net worth, plus everything I could borrow or steal from neighbors, friends, and family].

What I need to know is this:

1. How long can a losing streak last?

2. How long will my losing streak last?

3. When will I reach "the long run?"

4. How much bankroll do I need to be a Vegas poker Pro?

5. When will I start to win 2 big bets per hour?

Please Help.

(signed) Waldo Q. Wannabe - dead_money@chapter11.com - Poker Pro

In-Training (on the rail)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This should be fun.

---

To close, I want to restate the disclaimer I made a couple years ago about how there is little original thought in my posts. Apart from those "philosophical equations," most of the concepts I offer originated before my time, and are already described in various books and articles. Sometimes they were hidden in incomprehensible syntax and sometimes they were painfully presented with bad grammar, but other writers were there first, no doubt. All I do is observe, research, reflect, and report. No charge. All I ask is some comments or responses now and then.

Sergeant Rock

Poker Philosophy