Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« May 2006 »
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 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Friday, 19 May 2006
Some random poker thoughts.
Topic: Poker
Bunching in Online play.

I've been playing online solidly for about three months now and am starting to miss playing live (played cash at the Vic once since the start of February). One thing I can't understand about online players is why they all bunch together when games start. What I mean is that if someone starts a new game by sitting down in seat four, there's a very strong chance that the next person joins in seat five or three. If he comes into seat three, there's a great chance that the next person comes in at two or five. And so on.

"So what?" you might ask. Well the reason I think it's silly is that you can get situations where a nine handed table has 5 players seated at seats three through to seven. If someone is scanning through the lobby looking for a game to join and sees this, they might be put off joining if they are going to have to wait for the big blind for several hands because there is no gap. They might go to a game where they can get a seat sooner. That's why if I join a new game I will sit such that there are gaps on both sides of me. I want to leave a seat open for the action junkies. There may not be many people who are so desperate to get straight into action that it will affect their choice of table. But they're the ones I want to play against!

Money Mugged.

I've been thinking some more about 'Deal or No Deal'. Having read the excellent 'Fooled by Randomness', I continue to be impressed by Noel Edmonds' ability to make comments about the process of the game when it's pure chance. Things like 'We're on a knife edge here' and 'This could be the turning point' stand out. But neither is as good as 'If you get money greedy, you could get money mugged'. The latter could make an excellent theme for one of those T-Shirts you see for sale in the back pages of Private Eye or Viz: a picture of Noel Edmonds and the message 'Don't get money mugged'. Can't do any worse than the ones of Jim Bowen and Andrew Marr.

On the subject of T-Shirts, I would love to know whether anyone's got the guts to wear one of Andy Ward's more defeatist poker T-shirts in a big event. I mean the ones with one-line messages like 'Bokked', 'Felted', and 'Rivered'. I reckon that wearing one of them while playing a $10k event is the ultimate sign of confidence. It's telling the world that you're not supersticious and fear nothing. Good on you, if you're brave enough.

Coming back to 'Deal or No Deal' though, why can't people see that there is only one skill in this game of random choices? It's manipulating the banker. If you are prepared to take a deal that's below the value of the average remaining box, then you want that offer to be as high as possible. The banker is watching the player and will take any weakness as a sign that he can get away with a low offer. Players should fight back by dismissing his offers without an apparent consideration in the early rounds. It could make a difference of twenty grand or so later on. Nail-biting could cost you a lot of money here. So why do so many people display weakness?

Saturday, 20 May 2006 - 12:39 PM BST

Name: Joe Beevers

any chance we could have our books back

Saturday, 20 May 2006 - 1:56 PM BST

Name: David Young

The rumour is true, but it's been exaggerated. In 2002 Joe approached me about doing some book reviews. He said if I wanted a poker book, he'd buy it and I could keep it if I reviewed it. I said I would chuck in a few free reviews of books I'd already bought,

He bought me a copy of Sklansky's Tournament book. I wrote a review of it and sent it to him.

I then wrote a review of my own copy of Sklansky and Malmuth's limit hold'em book. I was quite pleased with what I'd written until I discovered by chance that there was a new edition of the book on sale that I hadn't known about when I started reviewing my old 1980s edition. Ugh!

So Joe bought me the revised version, plus two other books of my choosing. They were:

Poker Essays's Three by Mason Malmuth,

and

Sklansky and Malmuth's 7-card stud limit book.


That's it.


I started making notes on the 7-card book and somehow lost the will to live. I know I still owe them three reviews, but every time I remember about it I feel a pang of guilt and then my mind wanders off. Since then other books have come on the scene that are of far more interest to the aspiring player. Everyone wants to know about No limit hold'em. Nobody's really interested in Mason Malmuth's musings any more and 7-card stud had died out completely in the UK, and is virtually dead in Vegas (it limps on in Altantic City).

Embarrassing for sure, but hardly grand theft.

DY

View Latest Entries