Subject: Sgt. Rock: Tripless in Seattle From: "Sgt. Rock" Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2002 8:41 PM Message-ID: <3C3926E6.B38EC6BB@i-call-u.com> We went to bed around 4:00am on 9/11, and I had the Labor Day trip report pretty much written-- in my head. We had been at Bellagio since September 1, and thought we were going home the next day. Instead, our world was turned upside-down by a handful of lunatics armed with boxcutters and a willingness to die. Bad beat. By the time we finally got home on 9/16, neither poker nor the TR remained on my Top Ten List of Things to Worry About, and the TR was never written. Now things have mostly settled down, and might appear to have returned to normal- whatever that means- except, of course, for the residual economic impacts. My aerospace infotech job may be hanging by a thread. Thank God I have Mrs. Rock to support me if I should lose it. This year we didn't even bother flying to Bellagio for Thanksgiving or Xmas/New Year. We're not particularly intimidated by threats of terrorism, but rather we are unwilling to suffer "the new air travel experience." It was barely tolerable before, so now . . . Instead, we anxiously await fall 2002, when I can kiss the 9-to-5 goodbye, and take early retirement. Then we'll MOVE TO Vegas, and things like air travel and Bellagio room rates become non-issues. I have the rest all figured out: As soon as I can get my losses below $500 a week, I'll turn Pro. If that doesn't produce adequate cashflow, I'll just play more hours. This plan simply can't miss. Meanwhile, *countless email inquiries about the interruption of Sgt. Rock trip reports make it clear that we cannot keep thousands of loyal readers waiting any longer. As a concession to the tragic events of 9/11, we are revising policy to better conform to RGP standards. No longer will meaningful content be a prerequisite for posting. That's right, from now on I'm gonna post even when I don't have anything to say. Take this post, for example. Please. [ * i.e., zero. ] --- Hero Worship vs. Intimidation by Reputation I started reading Card Player in 1992, two years before I ever played casino poker. Back then I kept seeing one name, again and again, in the tournament results listings: "Timothy Chang," Federal Way, Washington. I can't count how many times I saw him listed as having won $18K here, or $32K there, etc. This guy had so many big money wins that he kind of became My Hero, even though I had never met him and knew absolutely nothing else about him. I mean, someone with that kind of record deserves a top spot in anyone's book, right? Right. By '94, we were playing lots of 3-6 at the Stardust, and I continued to see My Hero in the tournament win lists. Frequently. Around that same time, Mrs. Rock was enjoying an amazing streak of Royal Flushes on quarter video poker machines. Over a 2 year period, she hit about 50 Royals, no joke. And it's not like she played a bazillion hours; she just played some here and there, between Hold 'Em games, and of course only when we were in Vegas. But she hit a Royal every time I turned around! I'd just love to know how many sigmas she was out ahead of expectation over that period. I mean, she did as well at Video Poker that year as Archie did shooting craps. Just for somewhat smaller stakes. And SHE didn't give it all back. By 1996 I had worked my way up through 3-6 and 4-8, had a very brief 10-20 career (10-20 minutes) and began playing in the 20-40 game at the Muckleshoots in Auburn (right up the road from Federal Way) Washington. One day My Hero came into the game. They just called him "Timothy," and it took me a while to realize who he was. I immediately felt humbled to be seeing him in person, while at the same time intimidated to be playing against a guy who was sure to be a real powerhouse. Well, I faced My Hero that day, and several times thereafter, and it didn't take long for my impression to do a one eighty. It turned out that Mr. Big Winner both played poker and conducted himself such that disdain soon replaced the blind respect I had once felt for him. No, wait. Not for him personally, but for his name, and especially for his reputation, at least as I had perceived it. It also turned out that his wife played and behaved a lot better than he did. Where have I heard that before? After that, I struggled to understand how my ex-hero could have achieved such a dynamite tournament record. For a long time I just shook my head in puzzled wonder whenever I thought about it. Then one day I thought about it in the context of Mrs. Rock's 2 year streak of video poker Royals, and Archie's legendary Big Run at Craps, and I had a small epiphany. Had some great skill brought them all those wins? Hell, no! They got lucky. Repeatedly. In the course of random events, streaks happen. Mystery solved. Cissy Bottoms gave me a great piece of advice a couple years ago, when she said something like: "Don't pay attention to players' reputations. It's probably bullshit anyway; consider the sources! Just carefully watch what they show you in this game, today, and forget everything else you ever heard about them." I used to feel intimidated when a guy with a big name or a tournament bracelet came into my game, and might even want to get up. No more. This is not to say that I don't fear anyone; certainly I do. But now my fear is based on observation, not reputation. If Mrs. Rock, or someone else whose opinion I respect tells me that a particular guy is fearsome (or fishy) I listen. But a guy's reputation with the general poker playing public, or in the "poker press," just may not mean much. Russian Roulette (Just Shoot Me, Please) Is there some guy in your game who seems to win over time, even though you think he plays like shit? Do you lie awake nights trying to figure out how God could let this happen? It does happen. You probably already thought of some of these possible explanations for the phenomenon: 1. You just THINK he plays bad, but he's actually using winning strategies more advanced than you ever imagined. 2. He's really a loser, but sneaks chips onto his stacks to appear a winner. 3. He's really a loser, but you only saw his good days, and missed all the times he got his ass kicked. 4. He cheats. Each of those things do happen sometimes. Some are common, and some are rare. Any one of them might explain an instance of the "bad player who wins" phenomenon, which also does happen sometimes. There is another possible explanation that you may not have considered. Maybe he really does play badly (i.e., to a negative expectation, trial after trial) but maybe he really has been winning for six months, or two years, or however long you've known him. Huh? How can that be? Imagine this: At dawn tomorrow, everyone on Earth plays Russian Roulette. Six chambers, one bullet, spin, one pull. Next dawn, everyone left standing does it again, and so on, day after day. Before long, world population gets pretty sparse. No more traffic jams, Blockbuster always has the movie you want, and whenever you actually encounter another still-living person, you know that, hey, this guy is a SURVIVOR! So far. He's gone up against some tough odds, but he's still here. So far. Just like that jerk in the poker room who plays like shit but has been running over everyone. So far. Genuinely bad players in the poker scene are in more ways than one just like the "players" in the Global Russian Roulette analogy; all are destined to eventually bite the big one. Those who bust out early or on schedule fade from memory quickly, while the few survivors stand out, and appear to be phenomena. At least until dawn tomorrow. By the way, the daily Russian Roulette scenario reduces the 6.2 billion world population to just one million in about 48 days; to one thousand in about 85 days; to one hundred in about 97 days, and makes our species extinct somewhere around day 120. Give or take, depending on who gets lucky and who doesn't. Bad players, on the other hand, well, no, they're not headed for extinction. Truly bad players will eventually lose, and unless they have other income, will go broke. But many do have other income, and these days, for every one who doesn't, and who goes broke and leaves poker, *1.414 new guys step in to take his place. That's not attrition, it's growth. [ * 3.141 in Los Angeles only ] You may wonder where I'm getting all these numbers. Don't worry, they're just statistics, and a recent study revealed that 88% of all statistics are completely made up. --- Seattle $20-40 R.I.P. We had consistent $20-40 Hold 'Em in tribal casinos here from 1995 until last year. Started at the Muckleshoots for a couple years, moved to the Emerald Queen around '97-'98, where it enjoyed a $1 max rake for 8 months and a $2 max the rest of the time, then moved back to the Muckleshoots a couple years ago. Last summer it just plain died. Wish I could explain what happened, but I'm clueless. Again. Now the Mucks has a sometimes $15-30, there's a $10-20 in a couple spots, and smaller games all over town, some in ever-struggling cardrooms. One room that never struggles is Diamond Lil's, two miles from our house. They play progressive tables of 4-8, 6-12 and 8-16, then, later, the 12-24 game goes most days. $12-24 Hold 'Em with $2 checks. Yeow. Rake 5% max $3 + $1 BBJP. I guess a really good player might hope to make a modest living in this game. Fortunately, the woman I married 31 years ago turned out some years later to be a really good player. Mrs. Rock has been playing it 3-4 nights a week, and says the late night game gets wild and crazy. "They play LA-style," she says, "and raise you on the turn with just a draw. When you have, say, top pair/best kicker, it's hard to know when to believe them." She goes on to say that this sometimes makes her unwilling to bet into her opponents on the turn, wanting instead to go to the end cheaply. Several times lately I've watched her check on the turn, where to me betting certainly seemed, well, mandatory. Check and call? That can't be right, can it? Checking the probably-best hand into your drawing opponent(s) for fear of getting raised and maybe knocked off of it just doesn't sound like winning poker, does it? Failing to value-bet, and/or giving free (or cheap) cards to a guy who's drawing has got to be a really bad play, I tell her. "First time I played $48-80 at Commerce," she responds, "I got knocked off pocket Aces on the turn. I'm squeezed between two guys, and they're both raising like crazy. Board was scary. Turned out they were BOTH drawing, neither got there, and Ace-high won. Really pissed me off." Someone said "You can't be a winner until you can accept that you will sometimes lay down the best," or words to that effect. Wasn't that Slim? I remind her of this, then try give her more reasons that passive play sounds soooooo wrong: - You're not getting value for your hand. - You're inviting them to steal. - You're giving free cards to a guy who would take bad odds and call your bet to draw. - You're giving free cards to a guy who would fold to your bet. If he has, say, bottom pair, woulda laid it down, but instead gets lucky on that next card, then YOU have to consider Russian Roulette. With ALL the chambers filled. "So," I ask her, "How can you not bet in a spot like that?" "Because I don't want to get raised!" Aaaarrrruuuugggghhhh! Impasse. At the same time, her career record always gives me pause when we disagree. Even though I'm thinking that her take on this particular topic is dead wrong, I'm also remembering that: - She has a demonstrated "natural talent" for the game that I'll never have. - Her instincts are superb, and she reads people so well that it's scary. - Pretty much everyone respects her game way more than they do mine. - She's done pretty damn well ever since we started playing. Seeking to reconcile this dichotomy of doctrines, I'm trying to see it her way before I take another shot at trying to make^h^h^h^h help her see it my way. It might be useful to categorize this "what to do on the turn?" question for varying situations, like- 1. When a player with at least half-a-clue aggressively raises you after turning a draw, he's thinking something like: "I might win this pot right now, without even having to make my hand. Or, if my raise is called, I still have outs." This semi-thoughtful opponent should then be less likely to make the move in a protected pot (where others are involved) because your folding won't necessarily give him the win. 2. The typical Diamond Lil's late night rammer-jammer doesn't quite think like that. When he raises you with his draw, he's thinking more like: "I have a draw, and it might get there and win. If so, I wanna win lottsa chips, so let's make this pot bigger!" He doesn't care if the pot is protected, or what kind of odds his bets are getting, and he doesn't much care if his raise knocks you off your hand or not. He just wants to "build a pot" and get lucky. How should her defense against this kind of possible-move raise be influenced by which of the above paradigms she thinks the raiser embraces? That's what we're looking at now, and if you thought I was gonna give some definite answer to this dilemma, well, sorry to disappoint. We're still chewing on it, and I present it here with hopes that some inspired soul might offer a fresh perspective. Opinions? Sgt. Rock http://sarge.virtualave.net mail to- rock AT sarge DOT virtualave DOT net Once again, the better jokes are stolen from 'fich' - The King of One Liners.