I am going to deviate from my promised posts about my week in Dallas poker to bring up another issue. For years, I have ignored something I shouldn't have: the Poker Fora on 2+2 Publishing Website.

For many years, I lurked on RGP (rec.gambling.poker). And, in a way that's part of the problem. Usenet died. I mean, it's still there, but it's effectively dead. SPAM problems made it nearly unbearable in the 1990s, and then people who were serious just gave up on it. I spent years on Usenet, and being used to complicated and sophisticated tools to follow the discussions.

I grew up on an Internet that predated web fora, browser interfaces, and the like. I used strn and other tools to read news, and had controllable threading, scored threads, whitelist, blacklists, kill files, and all these things that we in the Free Software world invented over a course of two decades to handle large volume discussions.

Those tools still exist, but the data is locked up in an annoying web form. It feels like being told you have to read a book while someone shakes it in front of you. You have no control of the medium and ability to use the tools at your disposal to filter it.

It's an interesting net.accident that web fora took the place of Usenet. In a way, it got out the rabble, because it became so difficult to participate, you had to really care enough to bother. But, it's tough from my point of view to use knives and bearskins to get a job done.

I think ultimately I'm going to have to write a screen scraper to grok the threads into a mail reader, write some scripts that will auto-post back using WWW::Mechanize in Perl when I “answer” a message, and hope they never change the interface and break my stuff. I've googled around for UBB.Threads hacks, and come up empty.

But, before I dive, I suppose I should ask, particularly of the geek/poker crossover people who read my journal: how the hell do you put up with 2+2's crappy software?

Tuesday was a full day at my conference in Dallas, but I kept going back and forth in email with Steve (aka swolfe; poker journal at swolfe_poker) planning our poker night. I was able to get away relatively early because the full contingent of conference attendees hadn't yet arrived, and I got some key negotiations done during a lunch meeting, so by 15:05, I was sure that I could get away by 17:15. This worked well, because Steve had a tournament all lined up.

Steve plays twice a week as a sort of prop player in a tournament at one of the more fledgling clubs in Dallas. He didn't want to miss it, and nor did I want him to on my account. I went with him still unsure if I wanted to buy into the thing. I don't regularly play $100 tournaments, simply because my tournament game is quite weak and I find that variance is actually greater in tournaments because you have to play so many to make a score. I usual play tournaments to relax and avoid the constant grind of the cash games, and it's usually baby-stakes buy-ins of a $30+3 or $50+5 online tournament. This $100+20 was thus roughly twice my usually tournament stakes. I decided at the worst I'd not play and sweat Steve while learning a thing or two about playing small buy-in tourneys to improve my game, so I was ready to go.

We arrived at an yet another amazing, beautiful and spacious apartment building. Granted, you can't hop on a subway car and get out three blocks from a poker club, but the idea of a 15 minute drive to a nice, comfortable, spacious place to play is enough to make one question whether NYC really is the capital of all known activities in the world as our local hype maintains. The Mayfair club is long gone, folks, and Dallas has some things on us.

In truth, this club was a bit of a fledgling one. Like most fledgling clubs, they use a tournament to draw in players so they can make the real rake and tip money in the cash games that follow. We arrived before anyone, save the dealers and few seemingly retired folks. A Chinese poker game was going, as Steve had mentioned in email earlier that day.

I was prepared to be a 100% Chinese poker fish to learn the game, as Steve said at the stakes they usually play, $20 would be a big loss even for 100% donkey play. But, we strangely agreed to make a Chinese poker game around play money only. And, boy, was this good for me. I quickly confused the rules and fouled three hands.

Before I explain that, I should explain what Chinese poker is, since I know some of my readers don't know how to play it. There are a number of variations, but generally you get 13-15 cards and set three poker hands, of escalating value, and try to beat your opponents on each of three hands (sometimes the top hand is less than five cards, forbidding straights and flushes). Opponents must pay you a certain amount if they beat you on each level, and you get a bonus for scooping. You can also chose not to set hands, instead folding and paying a fixed amount less than what getting beat down by everyone would cost you. It's a cute game; but much different from what we all know of as “poker”. My gut feeling about it is that it plays more like gin rummy or other round-based card games.

Now, the classic beginner mistake of Chinese poker is fouling your hand. You are required by the rules to have the hands escalate in value (unless you are playing some variation where you put the lowest hand in the middle, or something like that). No less than three times did I excitedly get two full houses, but put the biggest one in the middle. I went broke from my preassigned play chips, and given that I was totally confused and there were really only two other players interested, the game broke. I felt bad for making the game basically unplayable due to my utter cluelessness and inability to learn it quickly enough, but it was getting time to get the club moving for the evening, and one of our Chinese poker players was also a dealer.

I wandered into the huge kitchen (which was adjacent to a second living room with a television and a second bathroom), and found a Boston Market food spread. Being a vegetarian, there wasn't much to choose, but the mashed potatoes weren't bad, the corn was edible, and the macaroni and cheese was pretty good. I had my free dinner, and wouldn't be billing it to my employer, which made me feel better for ducking out for poker while on a business trip.

As I ate, the club owner asked me again if I'd play the tourney. He said he felt there would be a full two tables, and I decided that such a prize pool, given that rebuys for the first three blind levels were permitted, was probably worth the equity. Steve had watched the players arrive and indicated to me that despite my weak tourney skills, I had a huge edge over the field. I bought in and took my seat.

I was somewhat amazed to find my table to be primarily tight-weak. I guess I'm just so used to NYC tournaments, where the childish hyper-aggression requires that you make pretty good reads and reraise a good amount lest you get eaten alive by blinds that go up way too fast. Here, a bunch of middle-aged players more interested in the football game than the poker game were planning to fold their way to the bubble. I tried my best to disappoint them, and won enough blinds for an hour to get a shot at the money. I took only one hand (QQ, as an overpair) to the river, and my opponent fortunately missed his somewhat obvious straight draw and didn't pay off the river. Mostly, I was trying to take blinds, and usually continuation betting when I didn't succeed. I kept pace this way with those winning big pots, and had a medium-to-small stack when the tables combined.

I decided at that point that I wanted to make the money more than I wanted to win. I don't play enough tournaments at this level to make risk-taking for a high showing a good goal, since such strategy increases your cashing variance a great deal. Still, I didn't have enough chips to fold my way to the money, and the blinds escalated quickly enough that all but the monster stacks were playing preflop poker.

Of course, I wasn't going to move in with the 7- and 8-high hands I was getting, because everyone seemed ready to gamble with hands as a weak as queen high if it was for less than 25% of their stack. It seemed no all-in had fold equity unless I waited a bit, and I might as well wait for a hand. I moved in with an Ace high three rounds after the tables consolidated and picked up two limps and the blinds. I waited another three rounds, and got folded to with J9s with three non-blind players behind me, and decided not to push. Results-wise, I should have, because a weak Ace-high behind me got it in with a King-high in the blinds and the board contained a winning J9. Still, I probably made the right decision despite the fact that I was down to only five times the big blind.

I moved in a few hands later with K5s, got called and lost to A4o in the big blind. I still feel these quick-blind single-evening tournaments are ultimately a waste of time because it doesn't feel like poker; it feels more of a card-catching contest. However, my view may simply be over influenced by my weak tournament skills.

A cash game was going, and I sat in it while I waited for Steve. I was worried when they said it was $5/$5, and I walked over thinking I'd see players sitting on $1,000 each or more, but the big stack was a mere $500 and most had $200. This, too, was a preflop game, but I was fortunate to see a flop with TT for $20 against AK with $250 behind. I thus won my buy-in back quickly by check-raising his continuation bet all-in. I had hoped he played his cash games like tournaments, because I expected a pot sized continuation bet based on playing him in the tournament, and figured the stacks were short enough he'd call on the T23 board with any overpair if I made it look like a heart-draw semi-bluff. He showed AK and folded, though, so I probably won the maximum, although I might have gambled against a possible flush draw and tried to get more bluff money in on the turn and/or let him catch up to a pair. Anyway, I was happy to be net-even for this club.

Steve eventually made the money in the tournament and cut a deal, and we were off for the next club of the night. Actually, I had already heard a few things about the next place, as a few hours before, everyone in the tournament simultaneous got an SMS message ad from the club we were headed to. This next club wouldn't be the best game, but it would be the most unique of the Dallas scene. That story will appear in my next entry.

Last week, I was fortunate to end up on a business trip to Dallas, Texas. For most people, this isn't a major destination. But, I fortunately have been reading the poker journal of swolfe (which is kept at swolfe_poker these days) for about six months. There are not many strong poker players who keep online journals. It's sort of a tendency of strong players that they tend to keep journals early in their play, and taper off as they become particularly strong. However, Steve has kept his journal up quite a bit even as he's become, frankly, an extremely excellent player.

It was a rather funny thing to meet Steve in person. It was actually my first “Internet meetup” — a situation where I had met someone solely online and was going to meet them in person. I have to admit that I had some trepidation about this, but once I jumped into Steve's car in the parking lot of my hotel, and our conversation turned to poker, I was quite comfortable and not worried. He wasn't going to drive me to a ditch and kill me. :)

As we drove, Steve gave me the run-down of the Dallas poker scene. As it stands, they basically have more clubs than NYC, they just don't run every night, and are often one or two table affairs. In one case, two clubs are run by the same person, a fellow named F.J., and he has different clubs going on different nights.

Steve's primary game is $2/$5 NL HE, and the games usually have no maximum buy-in. I primarily play $1/$2, because the games are so easily beaten, but I occasionally take shots at $2/$5. Plus, given that the games Steve knew best were $2/$5, I was happy to take a shot with a somewhat short stack in a game that was a bit big for me.

So, less than an hour from pulling up in the Super Shuttle to my hotel (Steve ended up pulling into the parking lot right behind it), I was walking into the smaller of F.J.'s clubs.

The first thing that struck me was how large apartments are in Dallas. Most of the games are run out of upscale apartment space — but these places are so spacious and well-equipped, they would go easily for at least $10,000/month here in NYC. They've got full, open kitchens, with spacious living rooms and bedrooms and giant bathrooms. It may be cliché that things are bigger in Texas, but when it comes to apartments rented for the purpose of hosting underground poker clubs, there's some truth to it.

I had actually been preparing myself for something that it turns out I need not have worried about — I figured that all the clubs were very smokey. This is an annoyance that you just have to deal with as a non-smoking poker player; a lot of poker players smoke and clubs tend to have an indoor smoking room far too close to the tables. I actually had assumed that there was smoking at the tables in Dallas based on some of Steve's old posts, so I was delightfully surprised to find that there was no smoking anywhere near the table. Indeed, everyone was kind enough to go outside, and, not a club I visited in Dallas was any smokier than any of the NYC clubs I've been to.

So, I stood at our first stop, somewhat shocked when I saw the beautiful apartment and friendly people. In fact, that's what I'll never forget about Dallas poker — the people are so friendly, polite, and respectful. Sure, there was an occasional coffee-houser and table-chatterer, but there was a noticeable difference in demeanor when comparing the NYC players (actually, east coast players in general) to Dallas ones. I have never seen a table full of people take bad beats better, and the camaraderie and goodwill at the table was palpable. I go to NYC games and can't wait to get away from those jerks and take a shower. For example, I was a table the week before I left for Dallas and someone shouted at a dealer: You ass-ramming faggot, why did you put that queen up on the turn?. I couldn't even imagine any Dallas player I met during my week there acting this way toward a dealer or another player. Dallas poker is, in a phrase, classy all the way.

As for the games, they were amazing. I hope to make a post about each night's games, so for this post, I'll focus on the Monday game. This was at F.J.'s smaller club, which had only one table. We arrived at nearly 22:30, and the game was already in full swing with a few very large (over than $1,500) stacks.

I was somewhat nervous; flashing through my mind was the rule of thumb that you should actually always player lower than your regular stakes when you travel. I decided to buy in for $400 (after almost accidentally buying in for $500) and try to get doubled up. Steve had this look on his face worrying that he was leading me to my poker demise.

As it turned out, I was actually somewhat happy with the bad cards I got dealt — a constant series of 92, Q3, 83, and the like. The game was primarily loose-passive, and usually three or six players saw a flop, even for a small raise. I didn't see any point in playing these cards at stakes I was barely comfortable with against players I didn't know well. I got a chance to sit, relax, and see what Dallas NL HE is like.

While I did, I sat in awe of Steve's ability to drag every chip on the table his way. Now, Steve is an amazing player, but he did also get amazingly lucky this evening. I can't remember the count, but I actually believe he flopped six sets that night, and stacked someone on nearly every one! Part of this, I gather, was Steve cashing in on a very aggressive historical table image, but he was assisted in that nearly everyone the game thought any two pair holding was worth the backing their whole stack. Also, most of the players rarely folded top pair with some sort of reasonable kicker, unless the board got particularly complicated.

Every few rounds, there'd be some crazy three-way all-in where someone would decided to take a stand on a medium stack with some suited ace or middle pair and another two would come along for the ride. I kept hoping I'd get some sort of hand at these moments, but when I saw 94 for the sixth time, I figured I should toss it and wait for a better spot.

I played only one serious hand that night, where I flopped a nut flush draw with A 6 from the unraised big blind on Q 3 5. I semi-bluffed two streets, hoping to cash in on my tight image and get a pot. Sadly, C.S., a loose-passive regular, decided to call me down on both streets for pot-sized bets and I decided he either had a flush draw I had beat or he wasn't giving up some queen. (He wasn't really the type to bluff at the river when he missed, but would call if he made any pair most of the time, I figured I'd check and hope I was good in that case.) He showed Q 2 and I realized maybe I should have fired the last barrel when I missed the river, but I am not sure I could have gotten him off it.

We finally headed out around 02:00 and, as the valet brought his car, I asked Steve, wide-eyed, are the games always that loose? and he answered in his matter-of-fact way, Sure. I had work email to answer ,and then I was going to get only four hours of sleep before I had to go to a conference meeting the next day, but I was already figuring out a way I could get out again on Tuesday night to see some more clubs.

Oh, and of course I chuckled to myself a dozen times realizing that I had, for the first time in my life, played Texas Hold'em in the actual, real life Texas. Sure it's cheezy, but it's still darn cool. Maybe the next night, I would mess a bit with Texas. :)

It's going to be tough to relate this to poker, but I'm going to try. I usually don't make any political statements because this is supposed to be a poker journal. But, in this case, I can't help myself, so I will try to relate it to poker.

I am right now sitting at DFW airport, and I've just got a “special screening” because when asked if I had any liquids on my person, I answered: yes, my body is made of mostly of water. Since liquids aren't allowed on planes anymore, is it safe for me to board?. For this offense, I was sprayed with some sort of air device in a giant Borg-like alcove, during which process I could not see my bags (in other words, TSA forced me to violate their own rule that I should not let my bags out of my sight).

I have poker stories abound to tell from my trip to Dallas (and Oklahoma, as it turned out), and they'll be coming. But, I tell this story to point out something that relates to both life and poker. Too often, people simply accept things that are told them and don't question them. The status quo is considered reasonable only because it is the status quo, and for no other reasons. Are liquids really dangerous? Well, not really. There are dozens of ways for the suicide bomber to figure a way onto a plane with something dangerous. Indeed, W.D. recently missed his flight, and yet they did not remove his checked luggage from the flight he missed. Isn't that a huge safety rule we've always been told about? Shouldn't they have taken his bags off the plane if he wasn't on it?

The point is, TSA focuses on the wrong things to give safety in appearance only. I wonder if the other passengers who saw me screened because I was made of water felt safer. I asked the TSA employee if his machine determined I wasn't made of water, but he didn't answer. I suppose that I still am, as a ST:TNG script once put it, an ugly bag of mostly water.

There are no real ways to get true security, yet people believe somehow boarding a plane dehydrated because they took your water from you makes you safe. In poker, we see this sort of thing in the way people play — making the same mistakes over and over because they refuse to consider that they could do something a better way.

Even if we have to live in a anti-liquid, anti-privacy, anti-freedom regime that tells us we're safer if people act like sheep, at least we can benefit from the fact that the sheep, or rather, donkeys, at the tables will continue to give us money because they refuse to think for themselves. I suppose the $600 in my bag, that my hydrophobic TSA friend was kind enough not to steal, is nice evidence of that.

Date:: Sunday 15 October 2006
In attendance:: Contraphonic, Dawn of ihadouts, highonpoker, princessmaigrey (aka maigrey), SamTheDealer, W.D.
Mix:: Limit O/8, NL Crazy Pineapple, Razz, PLO, TD2-7 (was Limit HE first round), NL HE, Limit Stud/8, PL Draw-High

My report is below:

The mix negotiation started with some complaining that Stud and some other games suck as PL (inspiring me to later clarify this issue in the rules), and some demand that we pick more limit games. We threw in a lot of Omahas, which I really liked, and limit HE was added. At first, NL HE wasn't in the mix, but into the first round, many complained we had too much Omaha, and we replaced PLO/8 with NL HE, and then later realized that put two HEs against each other and we replaced the limit HE with TD2-7.

PL Draw-High was insisted on by HighOnPoker, since he won so much in the last game and had since become a PL Draw specialist. Since it was fast, he argued, it would be the palate cleaner — the sorbet of our mix. I'd have much rather taken NL 2-7 Single Draw for this, but maybe next time.

The games played relatively tight, most going heads up early. But, as split pot games are wont to do, O/8 induced a fair bit of action, and Stud/8 was, well, insane. Early on in Stud/8, I pushed a lot of chips in with kings up, like a fool, and HighOnPoker rivered the high by pairing his ace. I thought I was stuck in the same situation when I later made queens and treys on fourth (!) but fortunately filled, and then made quad 3s. W.D. thankfully had no low but a weaker full house instead (which he exposed on sixth thinking we were done, causing me to miss what probably would have been a three bet on the river, I think — see, the mistake saved you money, W.D.!).

Dawn showed her undying love, as always, for Stud/8 by playing almost every last pot that was dealt. Can we talk her out of it? I am not sure, but I keep trying. (Hint to Dawn: Read T. Brunson's chapter, twice, before next week!) Anyway, Stud/8 seems to be the crowd pleaser of the game because (a) Dawn loves dealing it, (b) Dawn (and sometimes HighOnPoker) seem incapable of folding in it, and, AFAICT, maigrey is some sort of Stud/8 specialist — or at least prefers the game.

Well, I like all the games. Of course, I'd love to get some PL stud games in, notwithstanding maigrey's undying hatred of the very idea (hey, the British are our allies, so why not play poker like they do sometimes? In other news, I'm calling the next straight I get a “sequence”). I am sure we could get Dawn real interested in PL Stud/8, I mean, hey, Dawn, you can go all-in and get all those cards! It's like NL HE and Stud/8 at the same time!

The dealing went very well on the new table. I was, if nothing else, right about round being a good choice. There were fewer dealer errors, although we all have to learn that Crazy Pineapple is crazy for a reason — you've got to wait for the discards before dealing the turn! I asked the field to try and wait for the first spill until game 0x02, but we did get a few droplets on it. I noticed that the felt depressed rather easily, as elbows on the table quickly left noticable indentations on the felt. I believe it's 2-to-1 against them coming back to normal, but even if they don't, the table is still excellent.

Despite the tough hit when I held big-full-then-quads against W.D.'s small full, I think W.D. (a NL HE specialist) adjusted to mix games well. You see, playing tight when you don't know the game is a strategy that really can't go too wrong. Sure, you might miss some positive-EV situations, but you don't get yourself into major negative-EV when you tighten up.

The big winner for the night was SamTheDealer, who seemed to be able to scoop constantly in O/8, even if he does call two bets cold on the river in a three way pot with third-nut/sixth-nut. :)

Other than that, there isn't much to report by way of big crazy hands. It's mostly the mundane pots that got heads-up or three handed by the later betting rounds and someone (usually SamTheDealer :) outdrew someone else (usually maigrey :) and money shipped around. It was poker; it was fun; but you probably had to be there.

As for snacks, I clearly moved from too much to too little. Late in the session, W.D. said to me, in his litigator sort of way, are these all the snacks that are available? I suppose I'll buy more next time; I'd forgotten the cookies really did go well, since I bought four whole bags, and only one and a half were left after Game 0x00. Sure, I had left overs, but nearly three out of four bags gotten eaten! And, for the record, Twix appear to be slightly more popular with mixed game poker players than Kit Kat.

We did, however, order Chinese food which worked well. I'd forgotten that my local places do lunch specials, even on weekends, and half the table enjoyed some pretty good delivery. We can hit the good pizza places too.

I don't want to jinx it, but I feel like this game is likely to go regularly. My wife and I are ready to do it weekly semi-permanently, so long as we don't go beyond the end time. Although, another idea that she and I came up with is to play a marathon game (say, 12:30PM-midnight) every other week. I don't think I'd want to make this the norm, but maybe once every few months, I'll declare a “marathon game”. My real worry here is that people would come and go too much, so I'd only want to do it if a core group wanted to seriously play for 10-12 hours straight. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Finally, in Bill Mahr style. New Rule: People with the Caro-classic “lean back” tell are prohibited from sitting in the white kitchen chairs in my apartment. Those chairs don't lean back, so if you get the nuts, it might collapse.

I cleared the PokerStars bonus last night. They have allowed me to request a by-SNAIL cashout via check. It's submitted for processing, so I'll see if it they do it. I sure hope so, because the only options they gave my account on cashout was that and Netteller.

I appreciate and am glad that PokerStars is one of the site that has maintained that online poker is legal, but the FirePay games they are playing really have turned me off from their site. I'll stick to Doyle's Room, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker (and maybe UltimateBet), which all have made statements they they will keep going and are honoring FirePay cashouts until the end.

Since my Epassporte account isn't set up yet, I'm heavily playing through remaining bonuses this Saturday (tomorrow is my home game), to try and get to the point where I can cash out with bonus before FirePay closes.

FirePay changed their fees with no notice to $10/cashout (up from $0/cashout). I can't blame them that much, I'd rather they do that then refuse to let people cashout.

PokerStars decided unilaterally to screw all of its customers who use FirePay. I encourage all of you to write to <support@pokerstars.com> and their Poker Room Manager, Lee Jones <jonesleeh@aol.com> to complain about this. Even if you are not a FirePay user, such policies are bad for you, because it decreases the pool of bad players you can play against at particularly turbulent time for online poker.

FirePay gives us ten days after signing to cashout, which now looks like is Monday 23 October 2006. Why is PokerStars deciding not to give us those ten days?

Meanwhile, FirePay is now charging $10 to cashout, when it used to be free. Pretty egregious gouging, huh? But, of course to be expected.

To: SIF@SOMEWHERE
From: "Support at PokerStars" <support@pokerstars.com>
Subject: Using FirePay at PokerStars
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT)

Dear PokerStars Player,

We regret to inform you that PokerStars is no longer accepting deposits from FirePay or processing cashouts back to FirePay accounts.

To continue depositing at PokerStars, we would recommend that you use an alternative payment option such as NETeller (www.neteller.com) which is a fast, safe and convenient way to transfer money to your account.

[More marketing crap about the glories of the great and powerful NETeller that will probably shutdown itself in 50 days or so deleted.]

Here's what I wrote back:

To: Support at PokerStars <support@pokerstars.com>
Cc: <jonesleeh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Using FirePay at PokerStars
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:01:13 -0400

[ Cc'ed to your Poker Room Manager, Lee Jones. ]

Support at PokerStars wrote:

We regret to inform you that PokerStars is no longer accepting deposits from FirePay or processing cashouts back to FirePay accounts.

FirePay contacted all its customers and indicated that it would allow cashouts for ten days after the signing of the bill. Please explain why you have decided to screw all of your customers by a unilateral announcement without warning that you will not process cashouts that FirePay will permit for ten more days.

I am deeply surprised that you've decided to screw all your FirePay customers in this way. Do you simply not care because you figure you'll eventually lose your US poker base anyway, so why treat your loyal customers who have chosen FirePay well?

Signing up for Netteller is not an option for me at this time, and I planned to cash out in the final few days before FirePay goes away, giving you that much more of my action during that period. I would think you'd want that.

-- Bradley

Because I read my blog RSS feeds before I read my email this morning, F-Train was the first to tell me that I had this lovely message waiting for me.

I have been scrambling to figure out what payment service I should open to replace my Firepay account. I can only guess that others will close, so it may be a pointless endeavor. Online poker is dead. It's so pointless.

Update: After a little bit of research, I am thinking that perhaps EPassporte is the best option to weather the 170 days to come after the bill is signed. Full Tilt lists it as one of its options explicitly, but as near as I can tell, it just gives you a Visa number that is not restricted (presumably a non-US issued one). I'm going to give it a try for the 170 days to see how it goes. They use Paypal-style verification with tiny deposits to your account.

The letter from Firepay follows:

To: "" <info@firepay.com>
From: "info@firepay.com" <info@firepay.com>
Subject: New FirePay policy for US account holders
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:31:50 -0400

On September 30, 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay (www.firepay.com) will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.

Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.

All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.
Click here for the latest news and opportunities for FirePay account holders.

** Please note:

This new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States

For any questions regarding these deadlines or policy, please email info@firepay.com

Sincerely,
FirePay
info@firepay.com

Some suggested that it isn't a good idea to play in mixed games, arguing that Mixed games are to give each player a chance to play a game (s)he is good at. I want to play a game I am good and and not games other people are good at. Thereby increasing my EV. I think this argument is ultimately flawed, and I think most of the players in the Big Game would disagree. I am not completely sure what their arguments against it would be, but I have a few arguments against it that are likely more like to be applicable to the small-time, recreational-but-profitable player.

Fundamentally, I believe this argument that you get maximum EV only by playing your best game relies on two flawed assumptions: (a) the relative popularity and competition of specific forms of poker don't change over time, and (b) that poker games are so different that EV from one doesn't transfer to the other. Were (a) and (b) both true, one would usually be correct to select only games in which one is an expert. You'd usually reach maximum EV in such a case.

In thinking about (a), I immediately remembered a two or three page section of Jesse May's book, Shut Up and Deal. I read this pre-boom book many years ago, and it frankly is a lackluster tale of high stakes limit HE. But this one section really stood out, and it has probably influenced my desire to be good at all forms of poker as much as my history of beginning my poker career in mixed games did. (I am retelling it from memory as I don't have the book handy; forgive errors, but the gist is right.)

In a brief first person description, May describes the difference between him and the local casino's high stakes limit HE “specialist”. May points out that this fellow sits in his $50/$100 limit HE game and holds court. This fellow points out the nuances of every play, and has opponents who are just a notch or two below him on the skill pecking order. That specialist wins, most of the time, but fights to eek it out while he continues to watch his competition catch up.

The hero of the story, on the other hand, isn't afraid to go sit in the $20/$40 stud game. Sure, HE is his best game, and he's only a mediocre stud player. But, the difference between his mediocre skills and the abysmal skills of the opponents in that game makes sure he can win more than the other fellow ever could against that tough lineup in the $50/$100 HE game. Sure, they are both winning players, but who is winning more? Our hero, despite the lower stakes. Who is the better poker player? It's not even close — our hero.

Poker is not just about micro-edges. It's not just about whether or not you can bet the right amount on the river to get a value bet paid off by middle pair. Sure, you have to know how to do that to win in poker. But, that's just a small part of the picture. The macro-edges are where it matters, and the biggest macro-edge is game selection. Indeed, I'd argue that the key macro-edge is long term game selection ability.

What game the fish want to play changes over time. Do you want to be the best HE player against eight people who are only make one mistake every hour, or do you want to be an above average Stud/8 player against eight opponents who each make two mistakes every other hand? What's your best EV? The point is that if you plan to maximize your EV for your poker lifespan, you have to be able to play every single game well. You don't know — none of us do — what form of poker will sweep the world next. We've seen, maybe not in our lifetimes, but certainly in Doyle Brunson's and T.J. Cloutier's, NL HE go from being the most popular game in the world, to only played in tournaments, to the most popular game. That 30 year cycle can happen again, easily.

Think of the history of poker. At the moment, NL HE is by far the most popular game. Just four years ago, limit HE tables filled every poker room and NL HE was basically dead, except in tournaments on occasion. Go back a decade, and, especially on the east coast, Stud and Stud/8 were the games most commonly spread. Stretch back two or three decades, it was again NL HE. Two or three decades before that, it was mixed five card stud and seven card stud. Once you stretch back back to 1880, you find prominently five card draw with only a little bit of Stud. Pick any 60 year span, and you're going to find at least four different games that you'll need to be prepared to play.

Indeed, even since I started playing for serious stakes back in 2002, the poker world has changed in this regard. The books that I had to buy back then were Lee Jones followed by HEFAP. Limit HE was where the money was then. I've watched the world shift around me. Should I have never ventured and plopped down some cash — with negative EV, mind you — in that early River Street NL HE nuttiness to earn my chops in that game? If I hadn't, I surely would be walking around like the rest of the limit HE specialists desperate for a good game, fighting tight edges, and generally not finding the games as lucrative as they once were. Instead, I can make steady money with less variance because I play the much weaker competition floating around the NL HE games.

Meanwhile, the last few weeks I've been hitting that sweet O/8 game on Monday nights here in NYC — better EV than any NL HE game I could find in the same geographical area. In other words, the poker world shifts, and the money dumps happen in different places. You get the best EV when you are poised to catch it no matter where it falls.

This leads to the next point, and the refutation of (b) above. Poker skill is transferable. Read Theory of Poker. There are general principles that can be extrapolated from one game to the next. At times, you even don't see how a concept works in one game until you switch to another and see it applied there. What you learn in one game expands your mind and teaches you how to think differently about another game.

A simple example: How many HE-only players really understand the concept of a true freeroll and how dangerous it can be? This is a simple concept for the PLO, O/8 and Stud/8 player, but many HE players can't get it. But, I have, a few times folded a second-nut straight precisely because I knew that my opponent most likely held the same straight, but could very well have a freeroll against me. Sure enough, when I've seen the hands shown down due to other player's all-ins, I've seen people holding the same straight plus a gutshot or the same straight with a flush draw. This situation happens extremely rarely in HE, but if you have some PLO, O/8 or Stud/8 experience, you can learn how to detect it and avoid it.

A more complex example: I spent years playing limit HE, and got very used to the difficulty of the turn and the rising pot odds. Many people take flops and turns in limit HE, and they often hit strange two pair holdings and even sets. You often have to be prepared to fold top pair or an overpair when you've taken a turn in a big multiway pot and someone (min)-raises you and just can't be bluffing. Experienced limit HE players will recognize this situation immediately, but it's not a common one in NL/PL forms of poker.

However, I sat in NL HE games that play much like limit. Not at first, of course, because you're making a pot-sized bet. But, against extremely loose players, it doesn't matter that you are making pot-sized bets, or even larger. You get call, call, call all the way down the line. Now, when someone min-raises, you are getting these amazing pot odds, and the player who grew up on NL HE only is going to sit and think: How in the world does someone fold being offered 5-to-1?. But, the truth is, you're drawing dead or near dead (3 outs or less). So, you let it go. It is only because of my limit HE experience that I can recognize these situations and let go of hands in these spots.

Poker is about adapting to changing conditions, not only on the micro-level that we all think about daily, but also on the macro-level over a period of years. If you don't expand your poker mind, and become a bit of a Renaissance player, that EV in your “best game” can easily disappear.

The best players in the world are mixed games players. I meet a lot of poker players who are much worse than me and a lot who are much better than me. Generally, the ones who are much better play more than just one game, even if it's just two. Almost every very strong player out there has spent some time playing lots of different games. Even the amazing limit HE specialists I know like roryk who have resisted going to NL HE are usually branching out into other forms of limit poker at the very least.

I have many times offered up my home game as a learning game. I want to keep that feel to it. Everyone there is in constant search of good EV, they wouldn't be good poker players otherwise. Yes, it's probably not the best game to maximize your EV over the six hour period in question. However, I assure you that playing mixed games at reasonable but not high stakes against reasonably good players will be a windfall for your long term EV. And, that's what poker is about, isn't it, focusing on long term EV rather than short term results?

Lou Krieger is doing a pretty good job of keeping a running list of what online sites are leaving, staying and unsure. The market is still shaking things out. I'm going to put in a few online poker hours today to see what things look like.

Date:: Saturday 7 October 2006
In attendence:: Dawn of ihadouts (Dawn's post about this game), highonpoker (HighOnPoker's post about this game), mary423, princessmaigrey (aka maigrey), SoxLover, SethTheOtherLawyer, tmttr.
Mix:: NL HE, TD2-7, PLO, Stud/8, PL 5-Card-Draw, and O/8

My report is below:

I believe the first instance of SIF@HOME was successful, especially given that I had to practically throw five poker players out of my apartment, whom I believe would have actually stayed until midnight and finally ordered food as I kept suggesting we might want to do.

The game started seven handed, went to eight handed, then nine handed (requiring people to sit out for TD2-7), then fell again to eight and then seven, and for the last two hour or so, six.

I think the stakes level worked out ok for some. Dawn Summers, who insisted that she was attending only the inaugural game, is likely to come back as she seemed to amass chips unbelievably well as people seemed to go all the way to the river with her over and over again in Stud/8 while they missed draws, and she somehow kept scooping with one pair. She also did well in the PLO rounds.

I pushed her out of one of the PLO pots with an all-in coup holding merely a semi-wrap (10 out or so) straight draw and weak flush against HighOnPoker, who was $11 short of an all-in in a large pot and held a better flush draw. I was glad to be holding blockers, but the flush got there. (Dawn folded two pair, quite correctly, because against our likely holdings and combined outs, she was a bit of a underdog.)

Much of the day was rather straightforward poker, but enjoyable because it was a good group enjoying the game. I think PL Draw High isn't that good of a game, because it doesn't generate much action and fails to generate much interest unless huge hands are against each other. Some argued that made the game more about reads, which perhaps it is, but who is really going to practice enough PL Draw to get good reads on opponents?

Regarding organizational issues, it's clearer now than ever that the round table (should be here this week!) was a good choice. Dawn's table is very nice, but being oval, it still makes it difficult for people on the far ends to deal. The only true misdeals we had were dealt by people on the ends. Plus, it's really hard to see everyone clearly.

I know some who were here yesterday felt the stakes were a bit high, so I hope that everyone ended up comfortable with what we had. I scared the heck out of myself when I thought I'd mis-cashed out an earlier departure, and was so worried I threw extra money of my own in the kitty just to make sure, and it turns out when we got to the end, everything was just fine. I suppose that was the only part about the stakes that bothered me a little bit — I've never been the “cage” for more than $40 before. :)

I cannot finish a post about yesterday without pointing out that Greg was ultimately right in the results of his failed experiement: you just can't pull off the powers of two chip denomination thing unless the entire game is made up of computer scientists. I finally realized toward the end of day that it was about biology more than anything else: people are born with five fingers, and I'm not going change a couple of million years of evolution simply by explaining how binary is really cool. Frankly, as W.K.'s new ThinkGeek t-shirt says: There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't. How many of you get that joke? Yeah, that's what I figured. :-/

Anyway, as maigrey said, Whatever justification it is you need to have standard chip values, you go ahead and believe it. So, after just one game, I'll abandon the great CS geekiness of my game. I was unable to convince anyone in the game to do away with opposable thumbs, nor chop off a pinky, and besides, they'd have to go back in time and grow up in a non-decimal culture for it to work. Freaking decimal-oriented, five-fingered freaks!

I'm going to keep the $2 chip, because it's a tribute to my years at Foxwoods in the 2/4 and 4/8 games, and that chip value does make playing 4/8 limit easier. However, I'll go for $1, $2, $5, $25 now. Does that make you all happy — killing my inner nerd? :)

I will probably mix up what days the home game occurs for the next few weeks, and see how the attendance pans out. The level of effort for the game is a bit higher than I thought, so I may need to move to a twice a month frequency after an initial flurry of test days.

Those of you on the list, watch for an invite soon to next week's game.

Oh, BTW, my wife says I need to serve better food than just junk food. My argument is that the donations received didn't cover the food I bought, which is no big deal — it wasn't mandatory — but I'm unlikely to up the expense of running the game further. I did suggest a few times that we could order food, and no one was too interested. I am going to leave the menus out for my local places for people to look at to perhaps inspire people to order next time.

Ok, so another post about how excited I am about this game. I got a call earlier today from a player, who had some concerns about some of the details of the rules I posted for the SIF@HOME games. They were excellent suggestions and I've incorporated them into the rules sheet.

I have a really good feeling about all this. I am trying not to set my expectations too high, because it may not go perfectly, but I am excited that we have nine (!) players confirmed as Definites and there is one player interested to get in if there is a no-show.

So, despite the fact that my new table has yet to arrive and therefore have to wake up poor Dawn so early in the freaking morning to borrow hers, that I have my old clunky chip set to use, and the Pharoh back KEM decks I have are little too subtly different that we might cross-shuffle the decks if we aren't careful, I am really really excited about SIF@HOME.

I have more improvements to make to the rule page, because I have this urge to make sure they are complete in at least my mind before the game starts. But, regardless, it's really something to look forward to. My wife will probably be regretting the idea that she said Once a week? Oh, that's fine my book club might meet here once a week, too. A house full of poker players is a bit crazier than a book club, but I can't wait for it to happen. See the nine of you tomorrow! To the rest, I'll try to get a write-up here by Sunday morning.

I am having trouble containing my excitement. As I mentioned in previous posts, tomorrow I will host my first home game since about ten years and two months ago. I have very fond memories of my wonderful college games, and then my post-college games when I lived for two years afterwards nearby all my old college poker regulars. I never got a game going in Cincinnati, and in Boston I played River Street, which was a Greg's home-game-turned-club, but because of that never saw the need to start my own game when just about everyone in the local Boston poker scene played at Greg's game.

I love hosting. I like making the onion dip, which I hope will be the same hit it was with my old Baltimore crowd. More than that, I love the idea of playing the game with people in a social setting where it's a little bit about competition, but also about being friendly and enjoying our beloved game together.

I am even more excited now that, even though I need to borrow a table as a backup plan, that my table's delivery is scheduled for the day of the game. [Update: they just called to reschedule delivery because it didn't arrive at the depot on time. Oh well, we'll have it next week.] Logistically, it's not totally optimal, but it will be somewhat cool to have the delivery men arrive and set up a brand spanking new table for us to switch to. Of course, if I get really lucky, the table will arrive at the beginning of the delivery window, before the players arrive. If that happens, I won't even mind that tonight I will have had to lug the loaner table (graciously provided by the wonderful Dawn Summers of ihadouts) across NYC in a cab.

For those who want a sneak peak at the new table, you can find it here, although I ordered green, not the burgundy shown.

I have to admit, if my home game excitement wasn't so strong, I'd be pretty downtrodden about the state of poker. I've gotten email after email from the affiliate managers or from the sites saying that they plan to stop accepting players in the USA. It seems that of the large sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt are holding on tight to staying open. But, although perhaps it's a bit alarmist, I am worried that the games may never be the same.

I logged onto Full Tilt for a couple of hours last night, and was very concerned by what I saw. More games than usual for a Thursday night (Eastern US time) were going, and a few seemed like good tables. But, when I got seats in some $1/$2 and $2/$4 NL HE games, I saw something that really concerned me. Namely, the shark-to-fish ratio is way off balance.

Usually, when you come on a site, if you see a username you've never seen before (which, as recently as a few weeks ago, was more the norm than the exception), the player is typically not that good. This time, I saw a whole host of new usernames, but the players were strong. I'm not saying they were particularly good, but they were solid. They were playing reasonable starting hands, and they weren't getting trapped paying off with one pair after the flop when beat. Sure, these players had some weaknesses, but I could see clearly that they wouldn't be easy to exploit.

I'm hoping it was a bad night. I'm hoping it was a fluke. But, it could very well be that the confusion of which poker rooms are still open, and the general media coverage that isn't being too clear about what the bill actually says may easily be scaring away the casual player already, even on sites that continue to accept US action.

When I mix this with the dangers of robberies around the NYC clubs, I am beginning to return to first principles. I used to be only a home game player; maybe I should be again. As far as playing with any regularity, that may be the only option for the car-less New Yorker who doesn't like Greyhound.

Anyway, I'll put all these thoughts aside and focus on the excitement of SIF@HOME!

SIF@HOME: Bradley's Home Game Rules

[Changes to this document are tracked by a single comment thread below.]

I have written up these rather extensive rules and procedures for my home game. Even early in the draft, they reached a rather pedantic level of detail that probably makes me look about as neurotic as I am. But, I've thought it through and I have good reasons to be so detailed.

I run a tight ship of a home game. The goal is to make sure that the rules are very clear, with no confusions, so that if something goes wrong when there is some cash on the line, everyone knows what to expect. Also, understanding the type of games that will get played, who gets invited, and how they will be selected helps the game get started smoothly, and helps keep from feelings being hurt if someone isn't invited.

In Baltimore, I ran home games regularly all through college and two years post-college. When I lived in Boston, I was a regular at many home games, one of which is the (in)famous River Street, which (albeit temporarily) grew from a home game into a small for-profit poker club. I've seen friendships destroyed and angry fights at many a home game that made me quite sad. I'm sure we'll have our share of drama at SIF@HOME, but by making the rules and procedures clear, I hope to keep it to a minimum. I guess I ask everyone to bear with me and trust a little bit that having well-defined structure is good for the game.

That said, I am very open to the idea of changing the rules and procedures based on input from everyone. I'd like this to be a community, and, as such, it should have input from all its members. So, if you are a member of the game (or, even if you are just an avid reader of my blog) please use comments on this blog page as a way to submit ideas and changes.

Mixed Games - Selection
Players, Invitations, RSVP, and Critical Mass
The Stakes
Rules and Rulings
Game Duration
100% Non-Smoking Game
Food and Drinks

Mixed Games - Selection

SIF@HOME is always mixed games. Each game will consist of either six or eight total games. Half of the games are always limit poker and half are always NL/PL. The mix will be decided by negotiation of the first arriving players who are present at the game start time; so, be prompt if you want to give input on the mix. If full and complete consensus cannot be reached on at least three limit varieties and three NL/PL varieties, majority vote will be used to fill out the games to make a full six games. If players arrive while negotiation is still ongoing, the newcomer will get a full say in the mix selection; those arriving after the mix consensus has been reached and written down have no input for that session.

The PL/NL choices are: PLO/8, PLO, NL HE, PL Stud/8, PL Stud, PL London Lowball, NL 2-7 Single-Draw Lowball, PL 5-Card-Draw-High, PL Double-Board HE, PL 5 Card Stud, NL Crazy Pineapple.

The limit choices are: Razz, Stud, O/8, HE, Stud/8, 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball, Badugi, Stud High/Low (Chip Declare), Crazy-Pineapple/8.

The list of game choices is subject to change, by notice will be on this page when the game is announced.

The game changes ever round. Some have asked for it to change less frequently, but mixed games are all about handling the changes, so it will continue to change every round.

Some have asked for limit-only mixed games, or for there to be more limit variations than NL/PL in the mix. The goal of this home game is to mix up PL/NL and limit into a great, exciting mix. If that's not something that interests you, then this isn't your home game. The Brits play and enjoy PL Stud and other variations; we can too. I've decreased the ante levels for PL ante games to make sure they don't play too big.

Players, Invitations, RSVP, and Critical Mass

This section covers issues of getting enough players to make a game happen, and the procedures I'll use to try to make a game happen.

Required Number and Short-Handed Rules

Since we are playing mixed games, the game will be considered to have enough players if at least six players are in attendance. The goal is to have eight players attend, but the game will go with a minimum of six and maximum of nine.

I will take great effort to make sure that arriving players don't show up only to find that a game will be short-handed (i.e., five or less). However, I of course cannot guarantee that unforeseen events cause otherwise “Definite” players to become no-shows. I am always happy to run a game short-handed, but by the same token, no one who does show should feel obligated to play with less than six players. The same rule applies if there are unexpected early departures, but I will try to schedule as best I can to avoid those as well.

Announcement, RSVP, and Critical Mass

Usually, this game run once each month. A poll is usually sent to regular players for date selection. After a date is selected, a “save the date” message is sent a few weeks before the game.

At least five days before each game, I will send out an announcement to the entire invite list of a proposed date and time for the next game. People have until noon two days before the game date to reply if they would like to join the critical mass for the game; each responder should declare herself a Definite or a Maybe for that game. Please only declare yourself a Definite if you can be present for four hours of the game, and indicate in your reply what time you expect to arrive and need to leave.

I will not run the game unless I feel assured that six people have identified as Definite for the entire game time. I will not book more than nine Definites for any four hour period.

Around 6PM, two days before the game, I will send an email either confirming the game, or announcing that the game has not reached critical mass, and will not occur. Therefore, if you wish the game to go, please be sure to reply as a Definite by noon two days before the game date. If the game has critical mass, all Definites will receive an email confirming their status as Definites, and all Maybes will receive an email asking if they want to stay on the Maybe list, or perhaps convert to a Definite. If you are in receipt of a message that names you a “Definite”, I expect you'll arrive and you don't have to reply unless you need to cancel.

I will generally take two Maybes for every seat not claimed by a Definite. Maybes can convert to Definites on a first-come-first-serve basis up until 10PM on the day before the game. After that, seats are given in a first-come-first-serve basis to the Maybes if they show for the game, but a Maybe must give up his seat if a Definite arrives, even if the Definite arrives late. If you are in receipt of a message that names you as a “Maybe”, it is really better if you get in touch and confirm as a Definite to lock up your seat.

In general, the goal here is to give a strong incentive for people to commit as a Definite.

I have not yet established a rule for what to do when Definites become no-shows. I hope it won't happen. If you need to cancel, please try to do so before I've declared critical mass, or, if something else comes up, try to give me 24 hours notice so I can call off the game before people are committed to arriving.

New Players

This game is for people that I know in Real Life, those who already know my close friends in Real Life, or for friends of people I know in Real Life. However, if you'd like to bring a friend, you must arrange with me ahead of time.

I have purposefully made the stakes reasonable but still non-trivial, so there has to be some consideration that we make sure people who come are comfortable with the stakes and are a good fit for the group. Poker can be an emotional game, and it sometimes takes a while to be sure that everyone's temperament is a match. This is a big concern in home games, because we don't have the infrastructure of a casino to make it possible for strangers to play against strangers.

Generally, I use a “vouch” system for deciding who to invite. If a friend that I know really well can indicate to me that they feel comfortable bringing in a particular new person, that's fine with me. But, if you're a new player who has just been brought in, please understand that you may not be able to bring friends right away. Just talk to me about it, and I'll be frank about whether I think it's time to expand the circle. Generally, I want to do so, but like all things in life, it takes time for everyone to get to know each other and get comfortable. It's real money on the table, and we all have to have some sense that no one is going to be dishonorable with anyone else. It takes time to build that trust.

As for rail-birds, I'm generally against it. My apartment is large enough to host the game itself, but I don't want to have a full-blown cocktail party atmosphere. Eight people traipsing through your place one a month is often enough to bring you to the point of frustration, so I don't want to start turning my apartment into a casino once a month. I'm willing to make exceptions to this if there's a friend of a friend who would really like to learn the games with the long term goal of becoming a regular player in the game. Certainly talk to me about that possibility, but I'll need some tough convincing. Generally, the people who come should be players, not watchers (except for my wife, who lives here but doesn't play poker, so you darn well better make her feel welcome. :)

The Stakes

Minimum Buy-in:: The minimum buy-in is $1. This is so small so that people can goof off on short stacks on occasion when they have lost a buy-in and want to limit their losses for the day. While it won't be illegal, it will be considered bad etiquette to repeatedly rebuy for amounts less than $20. Exercise the short-rebuy prerogative sparingly, and ask the other players if they mind if you are unsure if you are being rude.
Maximum Buy-in:: The maximum buy-in is $200, or half the largest stack if someone at the table has more than $400. The goal of this rule is to keep the game from getting too deep-stacked, but to also keep a very large stack from dominating the table during PL/NL rounds. The idea is that at any time, even the biggest stack could lose that honor to someone else in one pot, and leave the victor with the same sized big-stack that loser once had.
NL/PL blind games:: Blinds will be $1/$1 for the NL/PL blind-based games. Note that the small blind and big blind are the same amount, as in European card rooms. Both blinds have options to raise before the next betting round. The goal here is to keep the game a bit smaller than a $1/$2 game, and encourage more play beyond the first betting round.
PL Ante games:: PL ante games will play with an “effective” $0.10 ante. The button will ante for everyone, rounding to the nearest dollar (to keep away chips worth less than a $1). With 3-4 players, there is no ante; with 5-9, the ante is $1. The bring-in will be $1.
Limit blind games:: Blinds will be $2/$4 and games will play as $4/$8 limit, using standard rules for when the bet goes from small to big.
Limit Ante games:: Limit ante games will play with an “effective” $0.25 ante. The button will ante for everyone, rounding to the nearest dollar (to keep away chips worth less than a $1). With 3-5 players, the ante is $1; with 6-9, the ante is $2. The bring-in will be $2. Any player may double-bet on fourth street in Stud-high (but not Stud high/low) when a pair shows.
Straddling in Blind Games:: In both NL/PL and limit blind games, straddling will be permitted. A player in the position to the immediate left of all blind bets may straddle for double the previous blind bet. That straddle will become a blind bet. Players may thus restraddle an existing straddle bet, which doubles the previous straddle to its right. This can continue all around the table, such that the small blind becomes the first to act on the first round. (Note: this differs from Robert's rules, which allows for only one straddle. This rule allows for N-2 straddles, where N is the number of players dealt into the hand.)
Capped Betting in Limit Games:: The third raise makes a cap (meaning there can be more than four bets in a straddled pot). Heads-up unlimited raising is permitted, if the pot is heads-up when the second raise for that betting round goes into the pot.

Here it is, my first thanks, but no thanks from a poker site that has decided that the religious-right-pandering USA market is not worth their time. The first of many, no doubt. Lou Krieger had a good and clear summary of what all the sites have said. Here we go. Strangely, I have been busy at work and haven't had time to log onto a site since Saturday. I wonder if they will be there when I have time.

From: "Adam [SunPoker]" <adam@sunpoker.com>
To: <PLAYER@EXAMPLE.COM>
Subject: IMPORTANT: Your SunPoker.com account

Bradley,

I'm not sure if you're aware of the recent developments in US online gaming industry. In short, the US government has passed a law that would prohibit banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions from processing gambling funds. This controversial act was attached to a popular and completely unrelated bill regarding Port Security (HR4954) early Saturday morning. In this way, the act was passed because representatives were more concerned with the major bill being made law and knew only in the final minutes of the attachment.

It does NOT make it illegal for US citizens to play online, however drastically affects your ability to enjoy your favorite poker and casino games by making it difficult to send and receive your deposits and winnings.

In light of these events, our software and ECash provider for SunPoker.com, CryptoLogic and ECashDirect, have made the decision to no longer service US registered accounts.

Consequently, all accounts with US based addresses will no longer be able to play in the casino or poker room as of 12PM EST today October 3rd.

Your account will however be available for you to log into and request a withdrawal of your available balance.

All other accounts with non US based addresses will remain unaffected.

Currently it is unclear as to the longer term ramifications of these events at CryptoLogic and should the position change, we will notify you.

In the meantime, we are hoping to make provisions so that you are able to continue to enjoy playing and enjoy the same levels of service and bonuses you've come to expect from us. We will keep you updated.

Thanks for your time, and we do sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Regards

Adam
Poker Room Manager
http://www.sunpoker.com

PS: We continue to maintain that it is your individual right to be allowed to play online responsibly in another form you see fit. We therefore invite you to contact your Congressman (or woman) to express your dismay as to not only the bill itself, but as to the underhanded way in which it was passed.

Online poker is more or less done for a long time if there isn't a repeal before the 270 days are up. The casual player just won't use it, and that's where the money is. I always sort of figured that when the poker boom crashed, it would be casino poker games — where former casual blackjack and Caribbean Stud players have switched Hold'Em because it's more fun and you meet more people — that stayed good while everything else left.

I guess if this weren't coming up after the NYC games getting busted over and over, and then robbed a few times, it wouldn't feel like my favorite leisure-time activity was being ripped from me forcibly. But it is. I won't get on a Greyhound, so I guess I'll just wait for the high speed train to be built.

I am actually surprised to see that online poker sites are so quickly jumping to the idea that they will ban players from the USA from the moment the bill is signed (a Google news search for “poker” will get you more and better links than I can). The bill only makes it illegal for financial institutions to move money to online gaming sites, and the banks have a full year to comply. Yet, Party Poker, Poker Stars and Pacific Poker (via their parent company 888.com) have all said that they will stop all action for USA players the moment the bill is law here. (Some stories suggest that Pacific/888 has already suspended USA activity, although W.D. has an account there and confirmed that they are letting him play.) Of those companies that spoke out, only Paradise Poker has sworn to defy the law, but that was before the others announced, so their stance may change. (Bodog made some equivocal statements that argue that they don't care, which may just be an Ayre marketing ploy.) Full Tilt is the only large site that has been noticeably quiet.

It's clear, though, that most of the bigger online sites are trying to force the hand of USA poker players. They need the business to keep the profits high. The USA market probably brings the plurality (if not the majority) of poker players to these sites. I suppose they feel that a year (or more) of uncertainty and slow attrition is worse for them in the long run. Perhaps they expect what typically happens with partially enforced and ambiguous legislation — people who really want to can get around it, but the casually interested don't bother. In other words, what happened to NYC public poker could well happen to Internet poker in the USA, and the online sites are clamouring to get ahead of that inevitability. I can speak first hand that such an outcome would be a disaster for the online poker scene.

A shrewd move — vowing to ban USA players. By jarring the players here with locked down accounts (presumably, we hope, that you can still cash out from, but that don't permit playing or depositing), they hope to spur action to seek repeal of the law. However, the company owners, mostly being citizens of countries with real representative government (unlike the USA :), probably have overestimated the people's ability in the USA to actually impact legislation, particularly to get something repealed once it's law.

I can imagine this war of attrition will go on for months, if the online poker sites hold their ground — and they now have no choice but to do so. I am flabbergasted that they put themselves in this sort of “do or die” situation in the very first news cycle. If they change their minds now or at any time before repeal or further clarification of the rules, it will be seen as a flaunting insult to the USA government; that would put them in a bad negotiating position. So, they are effectively committed to this course of action, and they committed themselves so darn early! I hope they understand the situation better than I, but I can't imagine getting a repeal of this bill easily. We're in for a long fight, and in the first 48 hours a big chunk of the online poker industry chose brinkmanship! Do they expect they can endear themselves to USA regulators this way and therefore get a better outcome?

Meanwhile, it actually hurts their standing with the players. We're left to wonder how we get money out, and they aren't making appropriate assurances to the players. Many casual players will see the news onslaught today and say well, so much for that, never giving online poker another thought. I am trying to decide if I should go home and cash out all my accounts or instead go home and play out my pending bonuses and get the last shot at all the fish that will soon be gone.

With all this, plus with NYC poker a small echo of what it once was and with no mode of easy transport to Atlantic City (I hate Greyhound and have been unable to get rides), it looks like home game poker is again the way to get a poker game without serious travel. I suddenly feel like I'm living in the 1990s again. Anyway, I hope people will take a look at my home game post; now is the time to start one, I think, and today has made me more committed than I was even last night.

Of course, the funniest part of this story is that in New York, it's legal to be a player, which is defined as a person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment. Of course, as I read the statue, setting up my home game is advancing gambling activity and therefore probably a misdemeanor. I don't care, frankly; the irony is too great. It's legal to play at the NYC clubs (but you might get a gun pointed at you and robbed), and it's legal to play online from anywhere in New York (but soon effectively impossible to carry out because it'll be illegal for your bank to make the deposit for you). To combat my options being closed, I start running a home game because there is so little poker to chose from, and that act makes me an actual criminal even though I don't charge a rake or time charges, because it's advancing gamblingGreat, the NYPD can come get me. The fact that I'm running a home game has already been announced publicly, so hopefully this qualifies as civil disobedience. Not the most important thing to do civil disobedience over by any stretch, but we are about the pursuit of happiness around here, aren't we?

[ UPDATE: the lawyers say in the comments that I misread the statue and I defer to their judgement. Apparently, my home game is 100% legal, until I start that hefty rake I'm planning (kidding). It looks like even if I charge for food and the like, I am probably ok, at least in part because I am an equal participant with my guests in the gambling. ]

I've always been a law abiding citizen. Even though I'm opposed to the stupid drug laws, I don't personally break those laws (due to lack of interest in that activity), as many people I know do. So, my hobby coming in direct conflict with the law is really my first experience with pointless laws about my personal behavior. I must admit: I'm with the libertarians on this one.

Update:This guy on livejournal bothered to email every site he had accounts on and collected their responses in a series of comments on this post.

This past August marked the date. It had been exactly ten years since I last ran a home game; my last one was sometime in August 1996 in my apartment in Baltimore. Back when I hosted those games, we played penny-ante, no-limit mixed games, although we didn't call it that in those days. (We weren't connected to the actual poker scene and didn't know the proper terminology). It was $10 buy-in, and you could easily lose $40 in a night if you were really bad, and usually the good players would win about $10 each.

I obviously don't have much interest in running a game at those stakes anymore. We were all just out of college and poor in those days, so those amounts of money were still meaningful to us and interesting to play for.

I've spent a lot of time in the past three weeks thinking about running a home game. I've posted how I'm sick of NL HE at the moment, and the continuing dangers of playing at NYC clubs. I also realized that, for the first time since my post-college days, I actually have an apartment that is big enough to host a game. Now might be the time to think about hosting again.

The reason I haven't jumped at this idea is that I think my choice of home game rules, mix, and stakes might not be of interest to most of the NYCers I know well enough to invite over to my place. (I won't invite anyone sight-unseen; the game would only be for people whom I already know in Real Life, or are vouched for by someone I know in Real Life). Unfortunately, most of the poker folks I know either (a) don't play mixed games or (b) would only play mixed games for extremely small stakes.

So, I've put up a poll (unfortunately, you need an LJ account to take it. If you really don't want to create an LJ account, just answer the poll questions in an anonymous comment). Below I describe precisely what my home game would look like and what the rules, stakes, and mix would be, and see if there are enough takers. Most of you who know me realize that I like a smoothly oiled machine of a poker game, with clear plans and rules set forth. (Some call this “anal”, and I get why people say that, but I think it makes for a better game if everyone knows every details of the rules up front.) So, here's what my home game, should I run it, would look like. Below that, in the poll, please answer if you are interested in the game and are in the NYC area regularly.

( Full description of the proposed weekly game and a interest poll behind this link. )

I had waited until I had double-confirmed this, since my last news of a NYC club turned out to be inaccurate, but I now have confirmation from three sources that the E. Club was robbed this week. There had been a previous rumor of robbery there as well, although that was never officially confirmed.

The E. Club is one of two remaining well-known clubs that continue to operate. All other games have gone so deep underground such that if you aren't a very high stakes or an “every night” player, these are the only two games on the more beaten paths of New York that you can find easily aside from home games. Games seem to abound further out in the boroughs, but these are the two you can stop in for a few hours on your way home from work in Manhattan.

Robberies, of course, are more problematic than a police raid. Since the legal status of the club's operation is dubious at best, they can't easily get the protection of the police, unless they buy it. If they don't do such, getting robbed can happen easily.

I am starting to believe the risk of playing public games in New York might be too great. I am sure the high stakes games have better security, but they are games well above the standard recreational poker bankroll. If you are in the “in crowd” of NYC poker, there are other opportunities, but getting into that crowd fully requires more longevity of time in the NYC poker scene or other types of connections.

Ok, I have to come clean on something. I think that, albeit temporarily, NL HE bores me. I need a long break from it. At least a month, I think.

I think there are three factors relating to my current boredom. First, NL HE is my primary poker money-maker, and I'm using poker income for some expenses now. Therefore, NL HE has warped in my mind to “work”. And, for most people, and certainly for me, there is a slight piece of passion that leaves you when something you love becomes work.

Second, it's all most people want to play. I attend a a wonderful home game regularly with great people, but the host has given up on the idea of mixed games. We tried it, but many of the guests weren't comfortable learning new games. Of course, I'm going anyway to see everyone, but I have this odd feeling akin to that feeling you get when someone has asked you to help them move. Sure, you always help your friends move when they get a new apartment, but you do it to be helpful and to be social, but not because you can hardly wait to lift up heavy boxes and carry them on and off a U-Haul truck. I'd really want to shake this feeling, but I can't.

Third, I think that I have become somewhat rigid in my thinking about winning at NL HE. I have a set of strategies that work in most of the games I encounter. I am particularly careful about game selection, so I am usually selecting games that I can approach with the few different gears that are most comfortable for me. I lately usually book big winning sessions, or small loss sessions, still plodding along at 5-7 big blinds per hour (or hundred hands). I haven't really been experiencing much wild variance, indeed, almost none at all since I quit playing limit HE for serious stakes back in December.

But, this is clearly a recipe for disaster. Complacency and boredom are the big enemies of one's poker game. I must assiduously combat this. Here are some strategies that I'm considering, some of which I've already begun to implement:

When you say, Doctor, it hurts when I stand on my head!, the doctor says Then, don't stand on your head!. Simple enough: it's boring when I play NL HE and I feel I'm getting complacent about my game, so I just shouldn't play it! However, it's tough, because I keep having this thought that somehow not playing NL HE is an affront to the poker boom. In other words, that I am failing to cash in on the free fall of funds from bad players. I think that this thinking is at least somewhat wrong-headed; I can't live my life around cashing in on the boom. Positive EV isn't just about external factors, it relates to your internal approaches to the game. Yet, I struggle.

Find ways to enjoy NL HE again. I think attending low stakes NL HE home games is probably a good way to do this. There's basically no pressure to win because the entire session variance is more or less what I'm used to in one hand. I can relax, not feel like I have to extract every penny by absolute perfect observation and situational advantage, and just play. It will help, of course, if the rest of the attendees aren't in a hyper-poker-obsessed mood, but most of the usual crowd at the home games I attend are pretty good about this.

Get really into another poker game. The past two weeks, I've played a substantial amount of Stud High, and PLO/8 (and even NL O/8 — odd game), and a little bit of tournament NL HE (the last of which with amazing and statically surprising results). I strangely find that NL HE tournament poker is actually different enough that it doesn't give me entirely the same feeling as cash games do, although there is a bit of a twinge. I've never much liked tournament poker, other than the nice return on investment it can bring, but perhaps that, or some other game, should be a place to focus. Another option is bouncing around a lot in different games, but that is what I had been doing for the last two weeks and it doesn't seem to be helping. Anyone who has suggestions on where some juicy games are of the non-NL HE variety (either online or NYC), I'd be very grateful to hear about them. There is a $15/$30 limit O/8 game in NYC that I've heard about, and I'm thinking of giving a whirl, but I probably need some additional O/8 practice for lower stakes before I do.

Find mixed games. For those who are interested, C.H.'s game is getting going again soon, which is a $4/$8 limit mixed home game. I'm going to go there if he gets enough players. (If you are in NYC and want to play, feel free to email me for an introduction.) I've also been giving serious consideration to running a mixed home game at my place, but I am a bit concerned that it'll be difficult to find a pool of players who want to play mixed games at stakes I'd want to run. I'll probably post a poll about it later this week.

I am curious to hear from others about any “ruts of disinterest” you've had in your best game. This is my first experience of this. At the time when limit HE was my preferred game, I ended up switching to NL HE because of frustration at the high variance in limit HE, not temporary disinterest. Have you ever been playing a game profitably, successfully, and enjoyably and then gotten bored with it for a while? If so, what game was it and how did you get over your boredom? (This could also go beyond poker to things like bridge, scrabble, and chess, I would think.)

roryk asked me in a comment if I had any ideas on how to get better at limit O/8. I am quite flattered he asked me. I don't really know as much as I'd like to about the game. However, roryk isn't the first to ask, as I play in a home game with group of people trying to learn some mixed games. So, I guess I'll give my best shot at helping people learn limit O/8. I should note that while O/8 is probably tied with limit HE as my fourth best game (behind NL HE, PLO and triple draw lowball), I'm not an expert by any means, and I have absolutely no idea how to beat a game full of strong, experienced players. The money I've made both in limit HE and limit O/8 have been purely from basic knowledge and good game selection.

( So, without further ado, I dive into a brief tutorial for the new limit O/8 player, geared toward someone who already knows something about some other form of poker. )

Profile

shipitfish

November 2016

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Adjustable Gradient for Bannering by branchandroot

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Monday, 2 February 2026 21:09

Bradley's Poker Journal

Recent Entries

SIF@HOME: Bradley's Home Game Rules

Table Of Contents

Required Number and Short-Handed Rules

Announcement, RSVP, and Critical Mass

New Players

Hand Sharing

Dealing and Card Shortages

“Coffee-housing” and Inducing Action

Chips

Table

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags