![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipitfish![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nick_marden made a post
about last night's game at Greg's, which we both attended. In
addition to the standard post-mortem hand analyses, Nick made some
interesting comments that were also the central topics that he and I
discussed for about half an hour before I got out of the car when he dropped
me off after the game. (I just woke up a little while ago, as I am not as
resilient as Nick with no sleep, and he dropped me off at 05:00).
I thought a lot about those topics last night after I got back and since I woke up, and I have a lot I'd like to say about it.
I should start with a description of my expectations of Greg's game, which may very well be unreasonable expectations, and thus are the cause my angst (that I think Nick is feeling too) about the situation. I don't go to Greg's game for the same reasons I play online poker or go to casinos. I go to Greg's to meet interesting locals who have the same interest that I do. It's about socializing; after all, what else would home games be about? Is a home game actually just a convenient way to take people's money right in your own hometown?
Nick and I have both been regulars at Greg's game since the IPO (the tongue-in-cheek way I describe the first time Greg invited the public via homepokergames.com), although Nick took a hiatus when his non-poker life got busy. I have met my three best friends in the poker world through that game (Nick and Shabbir at the game, and Katie, who Shabbir introduced me to). I really see it somewhat as a social club, but sometimes I think (a) I might be the only person viewing it that way and (b) that I am socializing with people who would rather I just didn't socialize with them.
The thoughts on this matter start with Jon, who is a fussy fish that believes deeply in luck and gets upset at the strangest things. Last night, Nick and I were discussing what the most statistically unfavored hand against AA is preflop in Hold'em. Another person chimed into the discussion, and we narrowed the likely candidates down to A6o and A9o (as it turns out, A9o, with the suit of the 9 matching one of your opponents aces, appears to be the worst). Nick was checking his email on Greg's laptop, so I asked Nick to run the numbers with pokersource. Jon freaked out, saying: "Get that laptop away from the table." Nick tried to explain that he wasn't going to use it during a hand, and he was just going to check something about a hypothetical situation. Jon got more angry, and finally Nick gave up.
Now, there were a dozen things I wanted to say. I wanted to tell Jon to stop being stupid. I wanted to ask what he has against a little intellectual discussion about poker when players aren't actively in hands. But I didn't. I didn't because there wasn't a point, because I know what likely bothers Jon is that he's a horrible player and feels threatened by the fact that we're all better players than he. Also, I have this churning feeling in my gut that I don't want to piss off Jon because he's one of the few people in the game I know I'm a favorite to.
But that's just a silly way to think. Why should I be so afraid to lose a fish in a home game like this? When did my edge become more important in this game to having fun with some people who enjoy the finer points of poker?
I suppose that early event tempered the way I viewed the rest of the night. I looked around the table and started to think -- really think hard -- about why various people were there. I watched Josh and Frank, two players whom I respect and who are usually polite, trash-talk about how bad everyone else was playing. How conceited and self-absorbed do you have to be to sit and whisper to you neighbor about how you "know" what some player, whom you see as stupid and predictable, is going to do next? (Of course, I am keenly aware because it was mostly Nick and me that they were talking about this way). Neither Nick nor I are total fish and they know it. I know what they are talking about and I understand their criticisms; I would even appreciate and welcome their criticisms if they were presented in a reasonable way. I believe that they are both better players than Nick and I, but why not tell someone to their face that they suck, or -- if your edge is so important to you -- keep your damn mouth shut and make use of what you see? When did a poker table become a middle-school play-ground? Are they going to start passing notes that say: "Bradley and Nick are sooo stupid! Write back if you agree."?
I truly had a hard time looking around that table and feeling like there was any sense of community or even shared enthusiasm about the game. At one point, I mentioned I was willing to stay and re-buy if the game was going to run for a while longer and Frank said with true surprise: "You really love poker, don't you?" I quickly responded: "Of course, why else would one play?", and this answer seemed to baffle him. Have we reached a time in poker when people are so obsessed with the easy money that they don't think about why it is worth playing otherwise? Does everything you say to a poker player or they say to you have to be part of the psychological warfare? Somehow, I am comfortable with this arrangement at a casino or online, but is this what home games should be?
My ideal of what a home game (or home casino, if that's what Greg's place has become) is what Anthony Holden describes in Big Deal. He describes the "Tuesday game" (in London, I suppose) where he and Alvarez are regulars. These are a group of serious amateurs who get together to share there real love for the game, and to play their best and enjoy each other's company. There are times at Greg's when I felt that, but it just doesn't seem that way most of the time. I feel deeply sometimes that most of them are there to grind it out and make cash. It seems that everyone could care less to get to know people, make friends and share a love for friendly competition.
Yes, I've read Sklansky. Yes, I'm primarily an positive-EV-focused player. No, I'm not going to play hands because I "feel it coming" or because I'm bored with folding or because I crave action. I want to play my best game, and there are times when I want to improve my game by playing against opponents who are smart students of the game and have something to teach and learn. Poker is a hobby to me, and as such, I'd like to meet others thought that shared interest and build friendships.
So, why play against such people if they don't seem to be there for those reasons? If their goal is to get an edge against me, and on top of that they're going to chastise me or make fun of me for every conversation I start (as happened to Nick and me with no less than three different conversations we started last night), why bother? Are people totally focused on trying to take other's money ever really going to be your friends? Is the whole poker world, even the recreational world, just about "edge" and never about building friendships? If that's true, how do you explain Negreanu and Harman, or Brunson and Cloutier? Somehow, I refuse to believe that the poker world is no more than an Ayn Rand wet dream, but maybe it is just that shallow. As Nick said as I got out of his car last night: "maybe it's time for us to find a new regular home game". Is any other home game going to be that different, though?
I should probably spend some time on the non-meta-issues and talk about the hands I played badly at Greg's game last night. I might do that later today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Become Still
Date: 2005-01-01 18:30 (UTC)I have not played no-limit with you, but I have seen you do the talking-to-get an edge thing at the limit game. Chatting up some of the weaker players and so on.
It becomes much more enjoyable and peaceful to play if you think about things not in terms of EV. For instance, worrying about upsetting Jon because he is a fish and might leave the game. You are partly there. Forget EV-- just worry about upsetting Jon because Jon is a human and you should try to not upset anyone. If Jon doesn't want the laptop at the table, then simply respect his wishes and leave the laptop away. It does not have to be a problem. You and Nick should not discuss how a hand was played afterwards not because it is -EV to give information away, but because it is not polite. You should not rub salt into the wounds of others not because it is -EV, but because it is nasty to do that.
To play poker properly your goal is to make correct decisions. If you clear your mind of all of this distracting stuff you will make better decisions. If you try to make yourself impervious to all of this you will play better.
If you will notice, when I play almost nobody even talks to me. Sometimes people will talk at me. Or talk about me. But very rarely does someone try to fuck with me. Partly because I treat everybody at the game with respect and they do the same to me and partly because there is no point in trying to needle me, I am just going to sit there. If my skin is thin that day, I just go home. Either way, it is useless.
Re: Become Still
Date: 2005-01-01 22:37 (UTC)Rory, I appreciate your comments. I think the ultimate problem I have in Greg's game is not whether or not I'm thinking about EV. It's that specifically I am looking for something else from a home game experience than most people are. I get the feeling that many people treat a home game as a "chance to make money from fish in your own hometown". I have never felt home games should be that; I feel they should either be purely social events, or, if they are "serious poker," it should be an opportunity to play with good players and learn from each other (ala Holden's Tuesday Game). I have often treated Greg's game as a latter, but I may be deluding myself that it could be that.
The whole point is I don't think about home games solely in terms of making the correct poker decisions. I realize that I give up some of my edge by trying to make home games an enjoyable social experience, and am willing to give that up for the social experience. I believe Nick feels the same way about home games, too. However, if everyone else in the game is looking for an edge, and is using the social aspects we're bringing to the game as an opportunity for edge, then the whole social experience is at least, in part, defeated.
As a side note, I tried once to get a in-person poker discussion group going, and offered to host it and invited a few people, and no one was really interested. I thought that might be a better way to bring a social side to poker (i.e., don't play while trying to socialize).
Perhaps the fundamental mistake I'm making is believing that there can be a fun social side to poker. Perhaps it's naive to think that when money is involved, people will treat the game as anything but dog-eat-dog. As I said, sitting a casino, all the psychological manipulation that bugs me at Greg's, I can totally transcend. But at Greg's, I want it to be as much a social club as it is a poker game.
my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-02 20:20 (UTC)here and on nick's blog. in particular, i won't comment on calling people
"dicks," "conceited," or "self-absorbed." that's your opinion.
i do want to make three points:
1) you state this goal of having fun without going to great lengths to
extract small extra edges -- in particular psychological edges. but much
of poker is about that edge, as much as it is about the math and stats.
so, within the game of poker, is it improper to seek fun, not EV, by
exploring that very important aspect of the game?
at a home game, is it okay to:
- show a huge bluff?
- show a huge laydown indicating a tremendous read?
- lie about what cards you held?
- tell a person that you "knew" what they were going to do?
i.e. "i knew if i bet that much you'd just have to fold."
- try to put somebody on tilt by dealing them a bad beat?
surely trash talking cannot be without bounds, but isn't some allowed?
shouldn't you just learn to see such tactics as part of the game that you
love and zone them out, as rory suggests?
2) on several occasions you have mislabeled actions as rude attempts to
gain an edge, when i truly believe they were nothing of the sort.
when steven asked nick why he was upset about losing that pot after steven
spiked a 3 outer, i don't think he was trying to gain an edge. afterall,
steven had been outplayed. i've seen chip reese, phil ivey, howard
lederer, etc all get hit with *tremendous* beats when the stakes were
*much* higher, and they barely bat an eyelash. they stood up, shook
people's hands, and walked over to the bar with a comment of "that's
poker." shit, a week ago that ken feller, who is quite a fish, got all
his money with top set against bradley's AA. bradley rivered an A (*two*
outer), and ken rebought (without throwing his phone first).
i think steven's question was a sign of respect. he wouldn't ask some
luck-chasing loser that question -- he'd just assume that player didn't
understand EV and let it go. i suspect that steven sensed exactly what
nick stated -- that nick explicitly wanted to take down a pot from steven
and was pissed when lady luck took that golden chance away (heck, i like
to beat steven in pots too! i've won and lost many multiple hundred
dollar pots with steven -- many decided by river cards.)
another mislabeled edge-gaining attempt is people asking for a new topic
of discussion, or asking somebody to "just be quiet," or more rudely,
teling somebody to "shut up." (blame bill oreilly). this leads to my
third point:
... the first two points.
Date: 2005-01-03 06:05 (UTC)I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily. Indeed, I showed this in a my clarification comment to Steven. When I said the word "taunt", I didn't hold any qualifications or judgments with it; it was part of the game. The tactic worked, to further reap benefits for Steven with his semi-bluff and make his play more mysterious to me. If I hadn't been clear before, I want to be now: that sort of stuff is to be applauded as good poker play.
As for the more recent event, I am honestly unsure how to read Steven and Nick's argument; I do think the "... and I rivered you" comment could easily have been taken as a slow roll and an over-the-top insult, and I think it was reasonable for Nick to take it that way. Meanwhile, I also don't believe Steven truly wanted it to work out that way. What ensued was escalation that was definitely bad and blame goes to both sides, I think.
What bugs me most happened earlier in the evening: the silly whispering, which became prevalent about 3/4ths the way through the game. I listened to it, since I thought it might be good for my game to hear it but I didn't let it impact my play (at least, I can't find any impact in my analysis of my results), and I do think Rory's advice here is right.
What bugs me here is people failing to confront other and face up to the situation. If you want to needle someone as part of the game, then come out and do it. Indeed, I think Steven's showing that bluff to me is a great example of how to do it perfectly. However, whispering to your neighbor about "how stupid they all are" is just silly and immature. I don't care if they do it, and if it were a casino, it wouldn't even matter to me. My whole point of the initial post was this: I prefer to avoid treating your game as a casino, and these incidents make me want to treat it more like a casino, and that's something I'm pretty sad about, because it was my only regular "home game" at the moment. But, I can adapt, and if you're game's a casino, it's a casino, no longer a home game (at least what I view as a home game). And, adapting in that way is probably what I'll do.
Greg wrote:
I really was thinking more about other events, not this one, when I made the comments I did.
Re: ... the first two points.
Date: 2005-01-03 08:10 (UTC)i certainly don't think steven slow-rolled. any slowness that occured was just due to him nearly mucking his cards and then having to stop himself after he realized he spiked a miracle card. i'm sure in his head he was as convinced that he had lost as nick was convinced that he had won. but steven will have to defend himself (if that's his wish).
i'm not sure what to say about any "silly whispering." i'm not guilty of it, and i don't think i've heard all the things you've heard. i don't doubt that it's happened though -- i guess that's just the nature of a group where not everybody gets along perfectly.
i've never fully understood your differentiation between a homegame and a casino game. i play pretty much the same at home as i do at the casino -- i just sit there and play my best poker and try to take everybody's money. to me, that's the point. that's poker.
but this discussion has made me see one potential key difference between a classic home game and a casino. a classic home game forms when a rather small group of friends gather to play poker. typically these people know each other from relationships that exist outside of the poker game. they're old friends, business associates, or relatives. typically the group is small, is difficult to organize regularly, and plays for small stakes (it's hard to be really laid back about EV and edges with friends for serious money).
on the other hand, riverstreet is a larger group, organized by me, of people who otherwise don't know each other. they come to socialize and play poker. but since they aren't otherwise friends, i think it's hard to avoid some of the conflicts that you're pointing out. i think the only primary solutions are: 1) put on some thick skin, and 2) treat it more like a 'casino," if that's what it takes.
but i don't want to get into the business of defending rude whispers or explaining how adults should interact. i personally think i treat everybody with respect, so i'm not sure what i can do beyond that.
casino mindset
Date: 2005-01-04 02:44 (UTC)Greg wrote:
It's probably difficult to understand, at least in part, because I am putting a bit value (for non-computer geeks: that's a yes/no value) against something that's actually a spectrum. Your characterization of a "pure home game" is pretty accurate, in my view. The PL home game I've told you about (run by the person I call "Andrew" in my journal) is much more what is a typical home game: dealer's choice, goofy games, for stakes that don't matter too much to the people who attend.As we've talked about in email before, I think it's hard to move around on that spectrum (i.e., moving a home game to more of a casino-style game with higher stakes). As I've told you of in email long ago, I've seen home games die and people quit playing over escalating limits and peer pressure to play higher. You managed that well, and evolved your goofy $1/$2 home game into a nice casino-style game. I probably didn't adapt as much as I should have over the year and a half. It's hard to see how much things have really changed when one shows up nearly every week for more than a year. As you pointed out, I'm the top attender according to the RSVP data, so I, more than anyone, have missed the changes as they've evolved over time.
Greg added:
The thick skin I have, after all, I play at Foxwoods and other (sometimes-)unfriendly casino environments! I agree with your solutions, and think that I'll probably implement them. I'll be headed in this week in a casino mindset. It means, for me, being a bit less myself and more formal (like I would show up for a business meeting; that's typically the mindset I have when I play very serious poker). But, I think it's the right thing to do. I should bite the bullet and admit that you're game is more casino than home game these days, and, like one should in all poker situations -- adjust.Re: my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-03 07:15 (UTC)Did I get personal when I chucked my phone (with precise aim and greatly constrained velocity, I might add) at an empty sofa cushion in order to blow off steam about a terrible beat? No. Does it matter if Phil Ivey can do better? No. (I'm not trying to be Phil Ivey.) One thing you can say about my behavior at that game is that I never, *ever* do anything to personally insult anyone. Anyone who says otherwise is going out of their way to misinterpret my actions.
Re: my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-03 08:22 (UTC)yes, i maintain that steven meant no malice. just because he sensed that you were gunning for him doesn't mean he was sure of it. he was looking at a smart, mild-mannered, EV-understanding player get really pissed about a bad beat. frankly, i found it confusing -- i've certainly never seen you get pissed like that about a bad beat. maybe he thought the same thing and was genuinely curious about why you reacted that way -- i don't know -- i haven't talked to him because he left town.
i don't think he tried to personally insult you, and i don't think you've ever done anything to personally insult another player to their face during the game (although you have said some harsh words about jon l and steven recently -- those could be taken as personal insults). throwing the phone wasn't totally wacky, given the beat, but it's only the second time something has been thrown at the game. the first was mike throwing his shoes against the wall after being rivered by josh.
Re: my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-03 17:38 (UTC)The appropriate thing to do would have been to say, "Sorry, man, that's a bad beat" and leave it at that. Steven doesn't need to explain to me why it's a bad beat, or act incredulous as if I don't understand why it's a bad beat. He hit a three-outer. Bad beat. End of story.
I owe everyone at the game an apology for throwing my phone at the couch. It seemed perfectly harmless, and appropriate, given the size of my bad beat. But I don't want to be the one who pushes the game toward physical reactions to the outcomes of play. My bad. (I hope history will at least record that I was looking to smash a TV screen or even throw my heavy-soled shoes at anything. I picked a small object and a soft, harmless target. Pure energy release - nothing more, nothing less.)
Likewise, I think Steven should not apologize to me for the beat (that's poker), but he probably should be sensitive to not rubbing it someone's face, or even doing anything that might be perceived as rubbing it in someone's face.
Re: my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-03 19:50 (UTC)well, i also agree that steven would probably have been better off not saying anything. but that's my policy in general. when luck hits somebody in the head in poker, i generally say nothing to the person. i even think the awkward "i'm sorry" isn't worth it. most of the time it sparks a "what are you sorry about? you won the pot!" rejoiner. then you're forced to say, "yeah.. well.. you're right. but.. i'm sorry anyway??"
when no comment is made, the game just keeps rollin on and the bad beat memories fade away.
perhaps one acceptible comment to make is just a more factual one, such as "wow, i got lucky."
and on a related note, i think it's kinda ironic how when the cards are coming down the person who is drawing (maybe looking to spike their lower pocket pair, for example) will call out for their few outs to hit. "give me a five. hit me. come on -- five!!" then, if they spike it, they'll say, "oh, i'm sorry man." but if they were really sorry, why would they root so hard to deliver a beat??
all this talk of beats reminds me of the TREMENDOUS beat that i laid on scott when i went all in with AQ from the big blind and he called with KK from the straddle. bradley had folded AQ and another dude folded an A. i spiked the one remaining A on the river. wow. that one really, truly, blew my mind.
p.s. neither my couch or the joystick pillow were harmed during these events.
Re: my three points (first two)
Date: 2005-01-04 02:57 (UTC)Greg wrote:
I've been working on not saying "sorry". I agree with Greg; I believe that "sorry" doesn't make much sense in poker. I've actually been working hard to keep my comments during an all-in draw situation to a minimum; I used to say far too much. I noticed how rude it is when people say certain things to me, and have been working to say less so I don't accidentally say something rude to them. (Although Joe claims not to remember it, he once said to me: "Let me suck out on somebody" in such a situation, which I thought was one of the rudest things I'd heard, since it was so impersonal -- like I was playing him online and not physically present in the room. I exacerbated the situation by saying: "Thanks, Joe.", when he failed to catch. That was an a stupid anger response, but there was no point in answering rudeness with rudeness even when angry.
Well, a one outer doesn't come that often. I was terrified one was going to come that one time I was all in with top set against middle set for about $650 against that fellow named Cue. I wonder if I'd have handled that beat well; I like to think I would have, although I'm sure I would have had to leave for the night.my three points (last one)
Date: 2005-01-02 20:21 (UTC)3) several players appear to be expressing a displeasure in the level of
poker discussion at the game. and we'll ignore anybody with a "don't tap
on the glass" attitude. poker is such a complex game that i think that
adage is useless. by analogy, you couldn't walk up and tap on the glass
to some sucker playing chess in harvard square. the game's too tough for
any quick tips to make much of a difference.
i think some of the players at the game are expressing two feelings.
first, they don't appreciate every aspect of the game being analyzed while
the game is playing. there's something to be said for separating game
time from study time. some people dislike questions about their play or
the rationale behind it. furthermore, some players see it as exactly the
type of psychological edge-gaining that you claim to despise. you might
not agree, but many players see your learned discussion and analysis as
attempts to point out their deficiencies and hence gain an edge. they ask
themselves, "why can't bradley just have fun and stop trying to push that
edge on me?"
second, some people just find the topic plain boring. they're bored to
death by recounting of old poker hands, discussion of hypothetical hands,
calculations of odds, etc. now, you are certainly free to discuss
whatever you want at a poker game, be it poker, politics, sports, or sex.
but as with any social situation, it's always best to keep the radar up to
see if the listener is interested. if you notice that only one or two
other people are interested in the topic, then sometimes you should either
change the subject or reduce your volume so only those interested
participants need to tune in. an attitude of "it's a poker game, what the
heck else are we supposed to talk about!?" just won't fly.
but that gets back to the personality clash issues, which i'm not going to
discuss.
on the last point.
Date: 2005-01-03 06:36 (UTC)That's understandable. Indeed, as you suggest, I worked hard to change the conversation to be about other things, and found that was unwelcome as well. I talk about poker a lot there because it appears to be the only shared interest of the whole group. Perhaps people just aren't as interested in poker there as I thought. You're right, it's not an academic poker group, and I certainly learned my lesson about trying to make it one. I lament that I haven't been able to get interest going for one, which is why, particularly when Nick's there, that the poker talk gets so intense, since I have failed in attempts to build another outlet. My bad, of course. I have obviously learned my lesson the hard way that it isn't the right venue.
Greg added:
Well, I'm not sure I have good input on other interests that overlap with the interests of people there. Nick's and my attempts to start conversations last week only further angered people, including two discussions: one about computers and one about literature. I was surprised at people's annoyance, since I don't see how those conversation were as offensive as the homophobic remarks that were made at another point in the night, but different people react different ways to things. My feeling has evolved over the past few days that it might be better to approach this social situation like I do those at casinos. In those situations, I rarely say anything (something I learned by watchingRe: on the last point.
Date: 2005-01-03 08:30 (UTC)i can't suggest specific topics of conversation because i'm only one person in a large group. it's unfortunate that the poker discussion group hasn't materialized, but that is something separate from the poker game that i host.
i agree that the game has evolved from the days when we played $1/$2. but i should point out that even back then we had personality conflicts. i recall comments like, "why are you asking me why i did X -- it's $2/$4!!!" and i remember people emailing me to say they would never return to the game after being milked out of $100 in a single night. even back then people who did not know each other were meeting up to play a game involving money, and some of the people did not get along.
Topical post to Nick's journal
Date: 2005-01-03 20:09 (UTC)Tilt Barb, part 1/3 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nick_marden/630.html?thread=3190#t3190)
Tilt Barb, part 2/3 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nick_marden/630.html?thread=3446#t3446)
Tilt Barb, part 3/3 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nick_marden/630.html?thread=3702#t3702)
I don't plan on posting further comments to that thread or this one. Maybe cuz I'm a pussy fearful of vigorous debate, but more likely because I have strong aversion to drama.
And, yes, at Greg mentioned, I definitely wouldn't have said what I said to Nick if I didn't think he was a "good" player.
-steven
Re: Topical post to Nick's journal
Date: 2005-01-04 03:07 (UTC)Thanks, Steven, for the comments. I think they are good, and I think they close out this discussion well. I don't think you are a "pussy" (a word choice I'm not fond of) for not wanting to beat this dead horse. I am certainly not mad at you; in fact, I'm not really upset at anyone individually. I just think the situation as a whole is too complex to really assess. I am unable to figure what it is I expected from Greg's game, and why specifically it's not meeting those expectations. It's clear that while maybe for you and Joe, the game is a true "home game" thing, it isn't that way for other players (specifically me and Nick), and that the context is complicated. This discussion has convinced me that I'm probably best off treating it like a casino experience and seeing how that plays out. Given that I've just reviewed my 2004 results for the game, and I am definitely a losing player at Greg's game (but not, it seems, in any other games I regularly play in), it probably is, if nothing else, good for my bankroll to take that approach. Who knows? Maybe that will cause me to enjoy it in the same manner I enjoy Foxwoods.