| |
Main
Date: 13 Dec 23:21:21
From: Nick Wool
Subject: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it was
available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7 card
stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more in
their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets are
also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely detached
from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
thousand?)
Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his opponent
did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised him,
and he reraised.
This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used to
(under-raises and string bets).
3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in relation to
the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if you are
reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash, make
sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen this
rule in action, has anyone?)
5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about poker.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 18:12:06
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
Nick Wool wrote:
> I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it was
> available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
>
> The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7 card
> stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more in
> their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets are
> also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely detached
> from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> thousand?)
>
> Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his opponent
> did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised him,
> and he reraised.
>
> This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
>
> 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
HE was in the rule books but had just arrived in home games in the
eastern U.S. and really didn't catch on.
>
> 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used to
> (under-raises and string bets).
Very common when people tried NL with no casino examples to go by. Of
course, I thought that NL and, especially, PL were more popular over
there than here.
> 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in relation to
> the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if you are
> reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
Still see idiots underbetting pots with draws out there. I think I have
discovered part of the reason for it, which I will discuss elsewhere.
> 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash, make
> sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen this
> rule in action, has anyone?)
>
I have never seen it and I have also never seen solid EVIDENCE that NL
was ever played at anything but table stakes. I am sure that there were
exceptions but it was never the standard that you could force someone
out of a hand this way. No one would play.
> 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about poker.
>
That seems to be the most important point.
Will in New Haven
--
"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends".Gandalf in <The
Lord of the Rings >
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:49:24
From: cquinn
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
Nick, why aren't you in the RGP Home game?
There is a last longer too.
Qdog223
"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1166052081$921362@recpoker.com...
> I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it
was
> available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
>
> The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7
card
> stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more
in
> their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets
are
> also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely
detached
> from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> thousand?)
>
> Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
opponent
> did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
him,
> and he reraised.
>
> This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
>
> 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
>
> 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used
to
> (under-raises and string bets).
>
> 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in
relation to
> the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if
you are
> reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
>
> 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash,
make
> sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen
this
> rule in action, has anyone?)
>
> 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about
poker.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 13 2006 11:49 PM, cquinn wrote:
> Nick, why aren't you in the RGP Home game?
> There is a last longer too.
>
> Qdog223
>
>
Too busy winning at cash tables, or at least, feeling sorry for myself after
losing big pots...
I will keep my eyes open for the next one.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:49:31
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
Nick Wool wrote:
> 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash, make
> sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen this
> rule in action, has anyone?)
Known as cowboy NL. You could bet what you could conjure up. And if
you couldn't match it, well.... Big hand for a little lady, amongst
other silly things come from it.
And yes carrying a lot of cash helped. Fairness, and cash limits were
enforced down the barrel of a gun.
Rules have changed a bit since then to avoid such silliness.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 23:48:08
From: Necron99
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
2 hrs to go......
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 13 2006 11:48 PM, Necron99 wrote:
> 2 hrs to go......
>
Keep those burnt bits of wood, who needs them? Oh, and while you are at it, you
can burn those wankers and add them to the ashes you so want to win back...
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 12:56:55
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
I've played in lots of games that allowed underbets, in fact it used to be an
important strategic option in games like 7s hi/lo split in home games in the
80's and before.
Also table stakes rules are a phenomana of card rooms. I've mentioned the old
Shipboard "payday stakes" games in the Navy. In college in the 70's I played in
games where you `could call for what you had, but if you lost you coudn't
rebuy. So you didn't have to call a bet for more than what you had, you could
go allin, but doing so meant you couldn't play any more that night if you lost
the hand. Basically those where rules that allowed you to go in your pocket to
call a bet, but didn't give you an option of selectively going in your pocket.
Such a rule works fine in a home game, but wouldn't work in a public room.
Hold'em didn't really start getting popular until the mid 80's. I played for a
living for a few years before I learned holdem (draw, loball, and stud).
On Dec 13 2006 5:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it was
> available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
>
> The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7 card
> stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more in
> their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets are
> also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely detached
> from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> thousand?)
>
> Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> opponent
> did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised him,
> and he reraised.
>
> This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
>
> 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
>
> 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used to
> (under-raises and string bets).
>
> 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in relation to
> the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if you
> are
> reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
>
> 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash, make
> sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen this
> rule in action, has anyone?)
>
> 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about poker.
>
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 16:34:38
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 7:56 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> I've played in lots of games that allowed underbets, in fact it used to be an
> important strategic option in games like 7s hi/lo split in home games in the
> 80's and before.
>
> Also table stakes rules are a phenomana of card rooms. I've mentioned the old
> Shipboard "payday stakes" games in the Navy. In college in the 70's I played
> in
> games where you `could call for what you had, but if you lost you coudn't
> rebuy. So you didn't have to call a bet for more than what you had, you could
> go allin, but doing so meant you couldn't play any more that night if you lost
> the hand. Basically those where rules that allowed you to go in your pocket
> to
> call a bet, but didn't give you an option of selectively going in your
> pocket.
> Such a rule works fine in a home game, but wouldn't work in a public room.
>
> Hold'em didn't really start getting popular until the mid 80's. I played for
> a
> living for a few years before I learned holdem (draw, loball, and stud).
>
>
>
> On Dec 13 2006 5:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it
> > was
> > available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
> >
> > The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7 card
> > stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more
> > in
> > their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets
> > are
> > also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely detached
> > from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> > thousand?)
> >
> > Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> > opponent
> > did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
> > him,
> > and he reraised.
> >
> > This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
> >
> > 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
> >
> > 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used
> > to
> > (under-raises and string bets).
> >
> > 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in relation
> > to
> > the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if you
> > are
> > reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
> >
> > 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash,
> > make
> > sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen
> > this
> > rule in action, has anyone?)
> >
> > 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about poker.
> >
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double what you
can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the uncalled amount?
I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot uncontested
if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some ungodly amount
and dropping it on the table and taking every pot. Eventually no one would play
him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before needing to
find another location.
If you want to see string betting watch Casino Royale. Grab a giant stack move
over the line, look at the opponient, drop one or two chips.
Congrats Gary on your book. I saw in a post yesterday a link to the top poker
books and yours is #20 http://top-books.org/poker
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 17:51:19
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 10:34 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
> I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double what
> you
> can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the uncalled
> amount?
> I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot
> uncontested
> if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some ungodly
> amount
> and dropping it on the table and taking every pot.
Are you talking to me? A sidepot is a sidepot. A fold is a fold.
Eventually no one would
> play
> him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before needing to
> find another location.
Eventually somebody would call him and beat him.
Home games don't have multiple tables. And if they do if the rule is to go home
if you go allin and lose, then you go home if you go allin and lose.
>
> If you want to see string betting watch Casino Royale. Grab a giant stack move
> over the line, look at the opponient, drop one or two chips.
You can see string bets in pretty much any cardroom you want to walk into. The
higher the stakes the more likely you probably are to see a string bet.
>
> Congrats Gary on your book. I saw in a post yesterday a link to the top poker
> books and yours is #20 http://top-books.org/poker
Whoever did that site is an idiot. Nobody who has a clue what they are talking
about can find 19 poker hot-to books better than my hold'em book. If you put my
book in at #5 I'd think you were downgrading my book for personal reasons, but I
wouldn't argue with it. Even #10 I might think you're uninformed but I wouldn't
argue with it. The reason I probably wouldn't argue with #20 is that he's
probably just to stupid to argue with.
But I got curious and looked. His #9 (HEFAP) is a really bad book. His #2
(Brunson I) is mostly of historical interest. His #14(Miller) is highly
derivative of my book and is self-contradictory in many places. #19 (Sklansky)
is about a betting structure that hasn't been played in years and is only
historical interest. I havn't read #7 (Sklansky Miller on NL HE) but from what
I've read about it, I'm not impressed. It's just a translation of verbal
instruction from Sklansky to Miller. Teacher to student and the Teacher thinks
his major accomplishment in life was his SAT score over 40 years and his second
most significant accomplished was fucking a 16 year old runaway when he was 53
and not getting arrested. #1 #3 #5 would probably be good if it was written
well enough to be one book. As it is it's highly overwritten and poorly
edited. Some of the others I havn't read them and don't know anything about
them.
It looks to me like he just ranked books by recent sales. You might be
surprised to learn that there isn't a high correlation between quality and sales
in poker how-to books. Marketing, in particualr TV exposure, has a very high
effect on poker book sales. Many buyers are simply TV fans.
But thanks for the compliment anyway.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 19:10:23
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 12:51 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 14 2006 10:34 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
>
>
> > I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double what
> > you
> > can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the uncalled
> > amount?
> > I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot
> > uncontested
> > if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some ungodly
> > amount
> > and dropping it on the table and taking every pot.
>
> Are you talking to me? A sidepot is a sidepot. A fold is a fold.
Thanks I was asking you but it was mainly because the OP had but in a situation
where a raiser won a pot because a caller was not able to cover the bet.
From Nick Wool
Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his opponent
did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised him,
and he reraised.
So what I was asking is if you have heard of this as I was not sure from your
first response.
>
> Eventually no one would
> > play
> > him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before needing
> > to
> > find another location.
>
> Eventually somebody would call him and beat him.
Ture some one would but in the situation i was describing it is implied that he
has twice the money as everyone in the room and bet it at the time so noone
could call.
>
> Home games don't have multiple tables. And if they do if the rule is to go
> home
> if you go allin and lose, then you go home if you go allin and lose.
I have been at a home game with 4 tables playing MTT style down to a winner.
Final table paid. No Vig either the guy just wanted to host a big game.
>
>
>
> >
> > If you want to see string betting watch Casino Royale. Grab a giant stack
> > move
> > over the line, look at the opponient, drop one or two chips.
>
> You can see string bets in pretty much any cardroom you want to walk into.
> The
> higher the stakes the more likely you probably are to see a string bet.
True. i was giving an example because I just saw the movie last night and
thought it was odd.
>
> >
> > Congrats Gary on your book. I saw in a post yesterday a link to the top
> > poker
> > books and yours is #20 http://top-books.org/poker
>
> Whoever did that site is an idiot. Nobody who has a clue what they are
> talking
> about can find 19 poker hot-to books better than my hold'em book. If you put
> my
> book in at #5 I'd think you were downgrading my book for personal reasons, but
> I
> wouldn't argue with it. Even #10 I might think you're uninformed but I
> wouldn't
> argue with it. The reason I probably wouldn't argue with #20 is that he's
> probably just to stupid to argue with.
>
> But I got curious and looked. His #9 (HEFAP) is a really bad book. His #2
> (Brunson I) is mostly of historical interest. His #14(Miller) is highly
> derivative of my book and is self-contradictory in many places. #19
> (Sklansky)
> is about a betting structure that hasn't been played in years and is only
> historical interest. I havn't read #7 (Sklansky Miller on NL HE) but from
> what
> I've read about it, I'm not impressed. It's just a translation of verbal
> instruction from Sklansky to Miller. Teacher to student and the Teacher
> thinks
> his major accomplishment in life was his SAT score over 40 years and his
> second
> most significant accomplished was fucking a 16 year old runaway when he was 53
> and not getting arrested. #1 #3 #5 would probably be good if it was written
> well enough to be one book. As it is it's highly overwritten and poorly
> edited. Some of the others I havn't read them and don't know anything about
> them.
>
> It looks to me like he just ranked books by recent sales. You might be
> surprised to learn that there isn't a high correlation between quality and
> sales
> in poker how-to books. Marketing, in particualr TV exposure, has a very high
> effect on poker book sales. Many buyers are simply TV fans.
>
> But thanks for the compliment anyway.
No Problem. i was not commenting on the site or ranking in any way i just
thought it was something that you might like to know.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 19:34:03
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 1:10 PM, CHarrison100 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 14 2006 12:51 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14 2006 10:34 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double
> > > what
> > > you
> > > can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the uncalled
> > > amount?
> > > I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot
> > > uncontested
> > > if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some ungodly
> > > amount
> > > and dropping it on the table and taking every pot.
> >
> > Are you talking to me? A sidepot is a sidepot. A fold is a fold.
>
> Thanks I was asking you but it was mainly because the OP had but in a
> situation
> where a raiser won a pot because a caller was not able to cover the bet.
I really doubt that Nick Wool is a solid source for what the character motives
are.
Nick isn't real bright and I'd expect him to describe a hand he observed in the
kind of game I was talking about in the way he made his description.
In the game rules I'm talking about there is tremendous psycholocal pressure on
someone who wants to keep playing to just fold to a really huge bet -- the
player might even say "I don't have enough to cover that so I have to fold".
But what the player is talking about is that he's worried that if he folds and
loses he can't pull out more money and keep playing and he doesn't want to do
that.
I was simply offering an explanation for what he observed. An explanation with
rules that I've seen in a few games.
>
> From Nick Wool
> Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> opponent
> did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised him,
> and he reraised.
>
> So what I was asking is if you have heard of this as I was not sure from your
> first response.
I doubt that his observations where complete or accurate. A game like he
describes just isn't likely to occur. Other rules that might look to him like a
"have to call the size of the bet" used to be more common than many are aware.
>
> >
> > Eventually no one would
> > > play
> > > him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before needing
> > > to
> > > find another location.
> >
> > Eventually somebody would call him and beat him.
>
> Ture some one would but in the situation i was describing it is implied that
> he
> has twice the money as everyone in the room and bet it at the time so noone
> could call.
That's the way Nick described it. His track record of showing an understanding
of what's going on isn't really all that good.
>
> I have been at a home game with 4 tables playing MTT style down to a winner.
> Final table paid. No Vig either the guy just wanted to host a big game.
A four table tournament isn't 4 games, it's one game.
It's not a home game if you have vig.
> > But thanks for the compliment anyway.
>
> No Problem. i was not commenting on the site or ranking in any way i just
> thought it was something that you might like to know.
Thanks, the book's been in print for a while. And its sales rank was much,
higher back pre-poker-on-TV.
Some people, like Doyle Brunson, Mike Caro, Mason Malmuth, really dislike me and
a lot of people who might otherwise mention my book on TV are afraid of the
wrath of Doyle and so although the TV surge helped my sales it didn't help my
sales as much as it has helped others.
But that's okay. I feel good about my self for being willing to say things
about various clowns that is true, and provides an insight into their character
-- even if it embarreses them and they they are likely to try to retaliate in
underhanded ways.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 20:28:18
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 7:34 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 14 2006 1:10 PM, CHarrison100 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14 2006 12:51 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 14 2006 10:34 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double
> > > > what
> > > > you
> > > > can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the uncalled
> > > > amount?
> > > > I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot
> > > > uncontested
> > > > if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some
> > > > ungodly
> > > > amount
> > > > and dropping it on the table and taking every pot.
> > >
> > > Are you talking to me? A sidepot is a sidepot. A fold is a fold.
> >
> > Thanks I was asking you but it was mainly because the OP had but in a
> > situation
> > where a raiser won a pot because a caller was not able to cover the bet.
>
> I really doubt that Nick Wool is a solid source for what the character motives
> are.
>
> Nick isn't real bright and I'd expect him to describe a hand he observed in
> the
> kind of game I was talking about in the way he made his description.
Translation from Carson-speak: He does always agree with me.
> In the game rules I'm talking about there is tremendous psycholocal pressure
> on
> someone who wants to keep playing to just fold to a really huge bet -- the
> player might even say "I don't have enough to cover that so I have to fold".
> But what the player is talking about is that he's worried that if he folds and
> loses he can't pull out more money and keep playing and he doesn't want to do
> that.
>
> I was simply offering an explanation for what he observed. An explanation
> with
> rules that I've seen in a few games.
>
> >
> > From Nick Wool
> > Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> > opponent
> > did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
> > him,
> > and he reraised.
> >
> > So what I was asking is if you have heard of this as I was not sure from
> > your
> > first response.
>
> I doubt that his observations where complete or accurate. A game like he
> describes just isn't likely to occur. Other rules that might look to him like
> a
> "have to call the size of the bet" used to be more common than many are aware.
>
Nice to see that our normal dear mr carson is back, talking out of his ares
again...if you doubt my observation, I did quote my source...go and check for
yourself...
It is exactly for the reason that 'a game like he described just isn't likely to
occur' that I came to the conclusion the writers of the series have no clue
about poker.
Anyway, happy christmas, and fuck off.
> > >
> > > Eventually no one would
> > > > play
> > > > him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before
> > > > needing
> > > > to
> > > > find another location.
> > >
> > > Eventually somebody would call him and beat him.
> >
> > Ture some one would but in the situation i was describing it is implied that
> > he
> > has twice the money as everyone in the room and bet it at the time so noone
> > could call.
>
> That's the way Nick described it. His track record of showing an
> understanding
> of what's going on isn't really all that good.
Translation from Carson-speak: He sees through my nonsense.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 20:29:20
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 8:28 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> On Dec 14 2006 7:34 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14 2006 1:10 PM, CHarrison100 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 14 2006 12:51 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 14 2006 10:34 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I have a question about the all in. What happens if a guy drops double
> > > > > what
> > > > > you
> > > > > can cover does he walk with the pot or does he get returned the
> > > > > uncalled
> > > > > amount?
> > > > > I can see there be a problem with the guy walking away with the pot
> > > > > uncontested
> > > > > if he bet more because what stops a guy from walking in with some
> > > > > ungodly
> > > > > amount
> > > > > and dropping it on the table and taking every pot.
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking to me? A sidepot is a sidepot. A fold is a fold.
> > >
> > > Thanks I was asking you but it was mainly because the OP had but in a
> > > situation
> > > where a raiser won a pot because a caller was not able to cover the bet.
> >
> > I really doubt that Nick Wool is a solid source for what the character
> > motives
> > are.
> >
> > Nick isn't real bright and I'd expect him to describe a hand he observed in
> > the
> > kind of game I was talking about in the way he made his description.
>
> Translation from Carson-speak: He does always agree with me.
oops! I mean DOESN'T...bloody typos
>
> > In the game rules I'm talking about there is tremendous psycholocal pressure
> > on
> > someone who wants to keep playing to just fold to a really huge bet -- the
> > player might even say "I don't have enough to cover that so I have to
> > fold".
> > But what the player is talking about is that he's worried that if he folds
> > and
> > loses he can't pull out more money and keep playing and he doesn't want to
> > do
> > that.
> >
> > I was simply offering an explanation for what he observed. An explanation
> > with
> > rules that I've seen in a few games.
> >
> > >
> > > From Nick Wool
> > > Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> > > opponent
> > > did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
> > > him,
> > > and he reraised.
> > >
> > > So what I was asking is if you have heard of this as I was not sure from
> > > your
> > > first response.
> >
> > I doubt that his observations where complete or accurate. A game like he
> > describes just isn't likely to occur. Other rules that might look to him
> > like
> > a
> > "have to call the size of the bet" used to be more common than many are
> > aware.
> >
>
> Nice to see that our normal dear mr carson is back, talking out of his ares
> again...if you doubt my observation, I did quote my source...go and check for
> yourself...
>
> It is exactly for the reason that 'a game like he described just isn't likely
> to
> occur' that I came to the conclusion the writers of the series have no clue
> about poker.
>
> Anyway, happy christmas, and fuck off.
>
> > > >
> > > > Eventually no one would
> > > > > play
> > > > > him but he could still make a bit going from table to table before
> > > > > needing
> > > > > to
> > > > > find another location.
> > > >
> > > > Eventually somebody would call him and beat him.
> > >
> > > Ture some one would but in the situation i was describing it is implied
> > > that
> > > he
> > > has twice the money as everyone in the room and bet it at the time so
> > > noone
> > > could call.
> >
> > That's the way Nick described it. His track record of showing an
> > understanding
> > of what's going on isn't really all that good.
>
> Translation from Carson-speak: He sees through my nonsense.
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 13:04:49
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote:
>Teacher to student and the Teacher thinks
>his major accomplishment in life was his SAT score over 40 years and his second
>most significant accomplished was fucking a 16 year old runaway when he was 53
>and not getting arrested.
Ooooh, I missed the jail bait story. Do tell.
Peg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 19:20:43
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 1:04 PM, Peg Smith wrote:
> Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >Teacher to student and the Teacher thinks
> >his major accomplishment in life was his SAT score over 40 years and his
> >second
> >most significant accomplished was fucking a 16 year old runaway when he was
> >53
> >and not getting arrested.
>
> Ooooh, I missed the jail bait story. Do tell.
>
He has his own little forum at 2+2 these days. He brags about it in some
threads there. He deleted the main thread because some people made fun of his
current g/f. She's 20 and looks about 13 (she has a myspace thing with some
pictures looking and posing like a 13 year old).
The thing about the 16 year old is that she lived with him for 8 months, so that
proves he's a stud. He didn't even have to pay her. Just had to give her room
and board and a little spending money every once in a while.
What a stud.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 13:40:40
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
Thanks for posting and sharing your insights. I actually enjoy reading this.
Seems Our Dear Mr Carson can be civil when he feels in the mood. I blame it on
christmas, goodwill to all men and all that lark.
Please dont get this wrong...as it is a genuine request for information. Please
could you expend on how under-betting (by a large amount relative to the pot,
say, less than 1/5 of the pot. Some of the scenes were showing bets 1/10 of the
pot or less) could fit into a profitable strategy unless done with a lock-hand
not subject to draw outs, or the nuts at the end?
On Dec 14 2006 12:56 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> I've played in lots of games that allowed underbets, in fact it used to be an
> important strategic option in games like 7s hi/lo split in home games in the
> 80's and before.
>
> Also table stakes rules are a phenomana of card rooms. I've mentioned the old
> Shipboard "payday stakes" games in the Navy. In college in the 70's I played
> in
> games where you `could call for what you had, but if you lost you coudn't
> rebuy. So you didn't have to call a bet for more than what you had, you could
> go allin, but doing so meant you couldn't play any more that night if you lost
> the hand. Basically those where rules that allowed you to go in your pocket
> to
> call a bet, but didn't give you an option of selectively going in your
> pocket.
> Such a rule works fine in a home game, but wouldn't work in a public room.
>
> Hold'em didn't really start getting popular until the mid 80's. I played for
> a
> living for a few years before I learned holdem (draw, loball, and stud).
>
>
>
> On Dec 13 2006 5:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it
> > was
> > available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
> >
> > The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7 card
> > stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more
> > in
> > their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets
> > are
> > also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely detached
> > from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> > thousand?)
> >
> > Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> > opponent
> > did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
> > him,
> > and he reraised.
> >
> > This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
> >
> > 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
> >
> > 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used
> > to
> > (under-raises and string bets).
> >
> > 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in relation
> > to
> > the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if you
> > are
> > reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
> >
> > 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash,
> > make
> > sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen
> > this
> > rule in action, has anyone?)
> >
> > 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue about poker.
> >
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 17:30:04
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 7:40 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting and sharing your insights. I actually enjoy reading this.
> Seems Our Dear Mr Carson can be civil when he feels in the mood. I blame it
> on
> christmas, goodwill to all men and all that lark.
That's a good way to start if you want information from me.
>
> Please dont get this wrong...as it is a genuine request for
> information.
Oh, you made yourself real clear, cowboy.
> Please
> could you expend on how under-betting (by a large amount relative to the pot,
> say, less than 1/5 of the pot. Some of the scenes were showing bets 1/10 of
> the
> pot or less) could fit into a profitable strategy unless done with a lock-hand
> not subject to draw outs, or the nuts at the end?
I think I'm not clear on what you're talking about. I was talking about
underbet as a raise less than the bet being raised. If you mean underbet the
size of the pot in NL, a lot of people habitually underbet the pot, there's
certianly no rule against it. In most cardrooms there is a rule against your
raising $1 after someone makes an initial bet of $5. That did not used to be
against the rules in most homegames and it was sometimes a good idea in games
like hi/lo split. I'll let you see if you can find someone you don't want to be
rude to who'll explain it to you.
>
> On Dec 14 2006 12:56 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> >
> > I've played in lots of games that allowed underbets, in fact it used to be
> > an
> > important strategic option in games like 7s hi/lo split in home games in the
> > 80's and before.
> >
> > Also table stakes rules are a phenomana of card rooms. I've mentioned the
> > old
> > Shipboard "payday stakes" games in the Navy. In college in the 70's I
> > played
> > in
> > games where you `could call for what you had, but if you lost you coudn't
> > rebuy. So you didn't have to call a bet for more than what you had, you
> > could
> > go allin, but doing so meant you couldn't play any more that night if you
> > lost
> > the hand. Basically those where rules that allowed you to go in your pocket
> > to
> > call a bet, but didn't give you an option of selectively going in your
> > pocket.
> > Such a rule works fine in a home game, but wouldn't work in a public room.
> >
> > Hold'em didn't really start getting popular until the mid 80's. I played
> > for
> > a
> > living for a few years before I learned holdem (draw, loball, and stud).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13 2006 5:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > > I got the dvd of the entire series after someone had posted saying that it
> > > was
> > > available. Some things did puzzle me slightly though.
> > >
> > > The games they played was mainly NL 5 card stud, with the odd game of 7
> > > card
> > > stud thrown in. Under-raises are common even though there were still more
> > > in
> > > their stacks (Example: 'I'll call your 50, and raise you 30'), string bets
> > > are
> > > also common (see previous example). Also, the bets seem completely
> > > detached
> > > from the size of the pot (people betting/raising 50/30/70 in a pot of a
> > > thousand?)
> > >
> > > Lastly, they showed a few scenes where our hero won the pot because his
> > > opponent
> > > did not have enough in their stack to call his bet, after they had raised
> > > him,
> > > and he reraised.
> > >
> > > This leads me to a few conclusions about British poker in the mid 80s:
> > >
> > > 1/ Holdem was not known, or at least not popular at the time.
> > >
> > > 2/ The players seem to have a different set of rules to the ones I am used
> > > to
> > > (under-raises and string bets).
> > >
> > > 3/ The players are all idiots (betting and raising tiny amounts in
> > > relation
> > > to
> > > the pot, raising a bet when you are quite short-stacked when you know if
> > > you
> > > are
> > > reraised and you cannot cover the re-raise, you lose the pot).
> > >
> > > 4/ All you need to win at poker is to bring along a huge amount of cash,
> > > make
> > > sure no one can match your bet, and you'll win everytime (I've never seen
> > > this
> > > rule in action, has anyone?)
> > >
> > > 5/ Or more likely, the writers of the series haven't got a clue
> > > about poker.
> > >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com
> >
> >
>
>
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 18:08:53
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Dec 14 2006 5:30 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 14 2006 7:40 AM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for posting and sharing your insights. I actually enjoy reading
> > this.
> > Seems Our Dear Mr Carson can be civil when he feels in the mood. I blame it
> > on
> > christmas, goodwill to all men and all that lark.
>
> That's a good way to start if you want information from me.
Yes, it would be if you could have provided it.
>
> >
> > Please dont get this wrong...as it is a genuine request for
> > information.
>
Well, just trying to make sure...Our Dear Mr Carson can be incredibly dense at
times.
> > Please
> > could you expend on how under-betting (by a large amount relative to the
> > pot,
> > say, less than 1/5 of the pot. Some of the scenes were showing bets 1/10 of
> > the
> > pot or less) could fit into a profitable strategy unless done with a
> > lock-hand
> > not subject to draw outs, or the nuts at the end?
>
> I think I'm not clear on what you're talking about. I was talking about
> underbet as a raise less than the bet being raised.
If you mean underbet the
> size of the pot in NL, a lot of people habitually underbet the pot, there's
> certianly no rule against it.
Yes, no rule against betting 10 bucks in a 5/10 NL game when there's 1000 in the
pot....Even a donkey such as I would know that....I was wondering what purpose
this would serve, but now I see you are refering to under-raises as opposed to
under-bets.
In most cardrooms there is a rule against your
> raising $1 after someone makes an initial bet of $5. That did not used to be
> against the rules in most homegames and it was sometimes a good idea in games
> like hi/lo split. I'll let you see if you can find someone you don't want to
> be
> rude to who'll explain it to you.
>
Well, I suppose all good things must come to an end...Don't worry, it wasn't
that important anyway, as under-raises are never allowed where I play...I think
I must have let this 'good will to all men lark' got to me...my apologies...
Now fuck off...:-)
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:45:27
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: The Big Deal: some thoughts
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 06 18:08:53 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:
>
>Well, just trying to make sure...Our Dear Mr Carson can be incredibly dense at
>times.
>
Heh.
You Brits have a way with words that I always admire.
The best I could ever come up with is a reminder to him that:
"Sarcasm is your friend; don't abuse it"
>> > Please
>> > could you expend on how under-betting (by a large amount relative to the
>> > pot,
>> > say, less than 1/5 of the pot. Some of the scenes were showing bets 1/10 of
>> > the
>> > pot or less) could fit into a profitable strategy unless done with a
>> > lock-hand
>> > not subject to draw outs, or the nuts at the end?
>>
>> I think I'm not clear on what you're talking about. I was talking about
>> underbet as a raise less than the bet being raised.
>
>If you mean underbet the
>> size of the pot in NL, a lot of people habitually underbet the pot, there's
>> certianly no rule against it.
>
>Yes, no rule against betting 10 bucks in a 5/10 NL game when there's 1000 in the
>pot....Even a donkey such as I would know that....I was wondering what purpose
>this would serve, but now I see you are refering to under-raises as opposed to
>under-bets.
>
> In most cardrooms there is a rule against your
>> raising $1 after someone makes an initial bet of $5. That did not used to be
>> against the rules in most homegames and it was sometimes a good idea in games
>> like hi/lo split. I'll let you see if you can find someone you don't want to
>> be
>> rude to who'll explain it to you.
>>
>
>Well, I suppose all good things must come to an end...Don't worry, it wasn't
>that important anyway, as under-raises are never allowed where I play...I think
>I must have let this 'good will to all men lark' got to me...my apologies...
>
You must be very careful when you use some phrase reminiscent of
Christian theology when talking to an Atheist.
(Or even an Islamist for that matter)
>Now fuck off...:-)
>
Heh.
Now you're talking Oklahoman English.
Or RGP English.
|
|
