Fool Me Once, Shame On … Shame On — What I'm Saying Is I Won't Get Fooled Again

[shipitfish]

I have talked a lot about the NL game at Foxwoods. I have gone back and forth about whether or not their NL games are run well enough to be worth playing. I once claimed that I would never play in the $1/$2 NL game again. Although I can't seem to find the post in my archives (perhaps it was said in a comment), I have also seen bizarre rebuy rules enforced at the $2/$5 game, where a floor person told me I could not top off to a $500 (maximum buy-in) stack until I was below the $200 minimum. I've since gotten around the rule by being a bit more sly about it, but as far as I know, it's still in place.

I went yesterday with two NYC Players (Dawn of I Had Outs) and Alceste) to Foxwoods. I warned them about everything I knew and felt about the NL HE games at Foxwoods, but they wanted to see the place for themselves, and I looked forward to showing what was once my home poker room to some fellow NY players.

I mostly played limit for the day, but I spent a good amount of time taking breaks and looking at what was going on at the NL HE tables. I kept a close eye on the $2/$5 tables and didn't really see any particular reason that I should be jumping to them. Sure, the games seemed generally beatable, but I didn't see anything to indicate that a good score could be made. Most of the players seemed somewhat tight, so I could imagine a strategy of trying to run over the table would be profitable, but not greatly so.

Based on my limited observations, what I believe has happened in the $2/$5 NL game is that it has become much like the $10/$20 limit games at Foxwoods. All the Foxwoods limit regulars have known for years that the $10/$20 limit HE game is the toughest game at Foxwoods. Sure, it's beatable, but it's where you run into the best players. This is because there is little reason for the small stakes gambler to jump up from the $5/$10, because with the kill it plays almost as $10/$20 in an action game. Meanwhile, the bigger gamblers go for $20/$40, because it has the draw of being the biggest regularly running limit HE game. Everyone I know who plays serious limit HE (such as roryk, reddogace, and good old F.D. who started at the $2/$4 tables with me, play almost exclusively that game when at Foxwoods).

What I see at $2/$5 is the people who have learned some things about NL HE but haven't built their bankroll up for the $5/$10 or $10/$20 game. I'm about in that category, so I'm likely to find settling in at $2/$5 players about at my skill level. So, with a huge time charge, I'm going to rate to lose in that game because I'm sitting with relatively evenly matched players; the low stakes gamblers will prefer to make ten rebuys and goof off at $1/$2 and the serious ones are going to try the $5/$10 or $10/20 blind game.

I was actually one of the first six people who were dealt the first hand ever of the $1/$2 NL game at Foxwoods, which was on Saturday 1 May 2004, as I sat in the game the first time they called (with the goal of learning more NL). Foxwoods realized the popularity of this game quickly and it grew. Their goal, however, has always been not to design a game that the regulars would like, but rather build one that would draw the maximum number of people from other parts of the casino. In other words, their goal (not surprisingly) is to maximize the number of people in the casino they could get to pay exorbitant time charges.

Now, I realized and posted a long time ago that the math of the NL game doesn't work out well. An entire buy-in leaves the table every hour, so you have to move chips early to build a stack that can be used to get people's chips before they are lost to the house. One of the tools you can use is the $40/$100 rebuy trick, whereby you pay a blind from a minimum $40 buy-in, and then rebuy to make your stack $138. This helps a little, as long as you can double up quickly.

The other system I use in this (and all capped buy-in games) is to always pay the time charge and dealer gratuities out of my pocket. This is very important, because if you waste your stack of a limited buy-in with time charges, that $10 in the first hour you pay is actually $20 of from your stack, because you can't use it for a double up. Over a few hours, you've paid $30 or $40 in time charges, and imagine how much double-up and redouble-up money you've lost! Thus, I have tipped and payed time out of chips in my pocket for years at the Foxwoods NL HE games. At times, some people at the table asked if this was allowed, and the floor people always said it was no problem.

However, sometime in the last six months, they have made yet another bad rule change. In addition to not being able to rebuy in an NL game until you are below the minimum buy-in, players at Foxwoods NL HE games can no longer pay time out of their pocket. I spoke with a floor person at length about this, and he was completely unable to come up with a good argument. At first he said they didn't want the confusion of people taking chips in and out of pockets, making it more difficult to watch if money was taken south. But, I asked him, are you still allowed to tip dealers from your pocket?, and he said yes. I therefore maintained that his argument was flawed, because if one can take a chip from the pocket to the table in that case, how is taking time the same way any different?

His next piece of sophistry was even more bizarre. He claimed that since some players might not have adequate bankroll to take time from their pocket (i.e., their case money is on the table), that players taking time payments from their pockets was a violation of table stakes rules, because the player that pays time from his pocket is gaining the advantage of keeping that amount of money in his stack. Of course, this is patently silly. The idea that one can take incidental expenses from the pocket or from the stack has been a long-standing rule in poker, and the time charge should be treated no different than any other incidental expense. In addition, how is this any different from my ability to buy into a game for the maximum while someone else can buy in only for the minimum? That gives me an advantage, of course, but that's just poker.

Both his arguments twist a long-standing permission for players and turn it strangely into a requirement. It's always been the case that if some players choose to pay their incidental expenses (time charges and gratuities) from their stack, that's a prerogative that they are granted by the “incidental expenses during a poker game may leave the table” rule. Making that prerogative into mandate is completely silly.

Foxwoods could make a consistent argument here, saying that the confusion of people going into pockets for chips is too likely to allow people to hide that they've “gone south” (a poker slang term for taking money that is in play in a game from the table). If they wished to make this argument, they would have to mandate that a player may not be possession of any Foxwoods chips except those that are on the table, and that they may not pull gratuities from their pocket under any circumstances. Even more, they could remove the (already annoying) “cash plays as chips” rule of Foxwoods, and they could even say that you can tip in cash but not chips.

But, the truth is that Foxwoods has no interest in making the rules consistent. Indeed, they have no interest in making rules that help regular players. They have no interest in making it so someone can take full advantage in a NL HE game. The truth is, they are a limit club, and they know their regulars are only going to play limit anyway. If they keep the limit players happy, they will have their regular daily client base. Meanwhile, they know that the tourists will want to find NL HE games that don't scare them. At each stakes level, they don't want the tourist intimidated by the big stack. They tolerate the players who stay and build a stack, but that's not really the clientele they want or care about. They want the games to play small to keep people buying in one-buy-in-at-a-time and losing it, all the while throwing their time right from that stack into Foxwoods coffers. They want them lose a moderate amount on the trip, and come back six months later and do it again.

In other words, they don't care about the poker community, or running games that serve that community. What they care about is their own internal competition with the blackjack pits, the craps pits, and the roulette wheels. It's well-known that the Foxwoods poker room has long been treated with contempt by dealers and floor people from other parts of the casino. They don't make as much money, and because of the requirement that all dealers throughout the casino pool all tips, everyone feels that the poker room free-rides on the huge tips received at the high-limit gambling games elsewhere in the facility.

Foxwoods is just a poorly run poker room. They are the poker monopoly of New England, and therefore have no reason to change their terrible policies. I still enjoy the place, because it has special meaning to me. My weekly bus trips there taught me how to win at poker beyond pennies on a dining room table. But, tradition can only hold one for so long when a place is run so poorly.

It's not to say that the games aren't beatable. It's not to say they aren't relaxing. I enjoy going there for the limit games from time to time, because the resort as a whole is nice and when going with a group who aren't poker players, there are opportunities for everyone to do something they enjoy. But, I think my Foxwoods days are done beyond that. I'm going to write a letter to the poker room manager and explain my reasoning, and perhaps there might be some hope of getting a reasonable response.

Anyway, thanks, Foxwoods, for helping me build my bankroll so I'm well beyond the $2/$4 limit games where I started, but I think you don't have much to offer a poker player anymore. Especially if your goal is to make up silly rules that help you only in the short run. I gave you more chances to improve than I really should have. Shame on me for actually thinking you were trying to make the place better.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

You may or may not remember me but I played with you a fair amount at River St. for about half a year before that game stopped running. I thought I saw you cashing out at Foxwoods on Friday (I was at the 5/10 NL game right by the cage) but wasn't sure if it was you.

Anyway, I just wanted to echo your sentiments about the 2/5 game. While it is fairly easily beatable by anybody beating 1/2 or 2/4 NL online (provided they don't have any of the major live game leaks some internet players have-- impatience causing them to play too many hands, giving off too many physical tells, etc.), it generally is not that good a game. The 5/10 just above it and the 1/2 just below it are almost always much better. I've thought about it a bit in the past few months and came to the same conclusions you have.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Foxwoods' (mis)management as well but as they're the only game in town, I grin and bear it. I don't go as often as I used to (so I'm voting with my feet in a small way) but live play is still so much more fun than internet play that I suck it up every couple months or so.

--Derek

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I think roryk's point is valid that the $2/$5 can be pretty good. I think this is a question of relative comparisons between various games available to me. From my point of view, Foxwoods and AC are equidistant, so if I'm going to travel, which one is better to pick? Foxwoods' comparatively poor job and not-as-lucrative games make it an easy choice.

NL games at FW

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I spent some time there recently and the $2/5 game seemed fine to me. I think $2/5 is big enough to get the people who have money and want to gamble to sit down. Yeah, you don't get as many people being totally clueless like the $1/2 game going all in PF with J8o but it seemed to me that stacking someone for 100 BB when they had top pair was not tough to do in the $2/5 game.

I can't imagine the $10/20 games are worse than the $20/40 games at Foxwoods-- the $20/40 games yeah you get some people who want to gamble and whatever but even the regulars do not play very well in that game. If someone is playing $10/20 it is because they haven't been able to beat those regulars, and I think just a good HE player vs. a lineup of only the regulars would be a winner.

Why worry about the rules so much? Who cares? Pull the time out of your pocket and pay with that. Don't ask. Keep the time in a pocket of your jacket or something and get it ready when you are asked to pay time. Not to be sneaky or anything because you aren't doing anything wrong, just so that it is less likely anyone says anything-- just pay your time out of your pocket without fumbling around, smoothly like you are supposed to do it that way. Dealer asks for the time charge and bing it comes out smoothly and you are all set. If the dealer complains or someone starts bitching then you can say, "Oh, I have to pay my time out of my stack?", take your money back and pay out of your stack.

Foxwoods cares about one thing: money. Having chips come out of your stack and pockets and people going is this okay is that okay and whatever costs them money because less hands are being played. They want a simple rule with no exceptions and anything like that, especially for the $1/2 game. So their rule is time out of the stack no bitching no hassle, next hand please.

FWIW, when I played the $2/5 game I rebought out of my pocket too any time I wanted to and I was below my initial buy-in. Nobody said anything to me-- I got eyes from a few people when I would do it, but I kept my chips arranged such that it was very easy to see I had less than the maximum so they had no reason to argue.

You know when felt is in front of you nobody says anything when you rebuy. That would be my funny rebuke if someone else was telling this story.

Re: NL games at FW

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I have seen that $2/$5 NL good at times, no question. But, I don't think it is consistently as good as the games above and below, at least in my limited observation. It's also undoubtedly nowhere near as good as (the few remaining) NL games here in NYC and those in AC.

It's all relative, of course. I feel like the $2/$5 NL game is not much better than most of the games online. If I'm not with a group of people I like to be around, I'm only going to pick a live game over online play because the game is substantially better. Live play costs a heck of a lot more, and it has to really be worth it from an EV standpoint.

I do find the Foxwoods limit games to be higher EV than online limit games. Plus, the people are often amusing to watch; the Foxwoods NL games don't have as many goofy characters. So, there is the win-win of entertainment and easy money in the limit games, but not so much in the $2/$5 game.

As for the time charges, I was pulling it out smoothly most of the time; then I accidentally grabbed a green from my pocket that I'd forgotten was in there and had to go back for the red. The big stack noticed and questioned my right to do so, and we got two conflicting floor answers before it was decided. In the baby game, the time charge from your stack hurts your EV so much that it is a major issue. It's less of an issue in $2/$5.

I did the same rebuy trick you did the last time I played $2/$5 and no one questioned. It was the time before the the dealer stopped me and called floor when I protested, and I was told I had to be below the minimum to add chips. Odd thing to argue, given that I could put myself back on the list, and get a new seat and rebuy the maximum, no?

Anyway, as I said, it's all relative. Foxwoods runs a NL game poorly, and there are more profitable places to play NL. I might have a different view if I were still in Boston, but with AC and Foxwoods equidistant (and being a year away from having a high-speed train to AC), I think I'm sure that I'm done with Foxwoods until either the AC/NYC games get really bad.

As I said in my journal before, it's tough for me to even bother to play live unless the game is amazing. Most poker players aren't worth spending time with, so the social aspect is non-existent. People generally play slightly better online for the limits they are at, but there is so much loose money that it takes a really juicy live game to make me want to stay in the presence of intolerable people.

Oh, and as for your comments on $10/$20 limit, I'm interested to hear your view. I could have sworn you were one of the many people who said $20/$40 was better than $10/$20, but I must have been mistaken. I have heard it from a lot of people, though. I have had some really bad losing sessions in $10/$20, and won a few times, but honestly haven't spent enough time to know for sure whether or not it is consistently a good game. The $5/$10 game plays like $10/$20 when the table is good, so until I'm ready to try $20/$40 (I was tempted again this last trip but decided not to), I'll probably skip $10/$20. Of course, I'm unlikely to spend much time at Foxwoods anymore regardless.

Re: NL games at FW

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I don't really play NL very much so my opinion about the quality of the games is probably not as accurate as your opinion, but that's just what I thought.

I definitely was one of the people saying the $20/40 game was better than the $10/20 game-- I guess that is still probably true. I think in general the highest game in the room or on the site winds up being better than the games in the middle, up to a point of course. I guess what I meant is I just can't imagine going down there and playing $10/20 and being against a super tough lineup, since the people who have graduated from that lineup are now playing $20/40 and those players do not play very well. Most of the regulars regularly make terrible laydowns and miss value bets like mad.

Re: NL games at FW

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I watched a bunch of $20/$40 hands. I saw a guy lay down a set of aces when the board four flushed on the river, and there were about 15 big bets in the pot. I hadn't seen many hands at that particular $20/$40 table, so I don't know the player much who bet into him, but the strange thing was he showed the laydown. This seemed like a huge mistake to let people know they can bluff you off a hand like that with 15 big bets in the pot. If you have a good read that they guy must have a flush, then great, muck it like you only had middle pair the whole way. But what's the point in showing off what a great laydown you made, just to tell people to bluff you at the river?

[mmaariammaaria.livejournal.com]

you can be easily fool at all gambling games. i play only online casino games (http://www.gowildcasino.com/), because i don't trust the stuff from casinos. they are experts in fooling people. i know a guy that had lost everything there, and from what i saw he is good at poker or texas holden. be careful!