PSA Provides Authentication of Memorabilia from The WORLD POKER TOUR™ (WPT) World Championship
SportsModerator2
Posts: 1,735 mod
Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT), a leading provider of value-added authentication and grading services to dealers and collectors of high-value collectibles, announced today that it has provided services under its PSA/DNA division to WPT Enterprises Inc. (NASDAQ: WPTE) to authenticate memorabilia from the WPT World Championship to be aired on June 29, 2005.
The WPT World Championship, the culminating event in THE WORLD POKER TOUR’S™ third season, was held from April 18-24, 2005 in the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The WPT World Championship attracts well-known and established professionals on the poker circuit and also draws a loyal fan base.
Collectors Universe authenticated a number of noteworthy items from this year’s event that included poker chips signed by each of the six world-renowned players from the final, championship table, the two hole cards from each of the two players in the deciding and final championship hand in the poker game “Texas Hold ‘Em” along with the five common cards from the center of the table in the championship hand, the felt from the championship poker table signed by both the WPT Champion and the second place finisher, and other poker items. As of June 30, 2005, these items are listed for auction on eBay. CLICK HERE
Michael Haynes, Chief Executive Officer of Collectors Universe, commented, “We are delighted to have the opportunity to work with the prestigious WORLD POKER TOUR and provide our authentication services to items used in such an exciting championship event. In our PSA/DNA division, we have authenticated more than a few famous items and we are pleased to be able to use our expertise in the WPT World Championship event. We believe these authentic memorabilia items from the championship table will make this year’s event even more memorable for years to come.”
WPTE’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Steve Lipscomb, acknowledged the importance of Collectors’ authentication. “We want our fans to know they are getting the real thing,” he said. “It has become clear that fans and collectors value WORLD POKER TOUR memorabilia and collectibles. This assures our winning bidders that they are getting the genuine article – a piece of the WORLD POKER TOUR.”
The WPT World Championship Season III event will be broadcast on the Travel Channel on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 9 P.M. PT.
The WPT World Championship, the culminating event in THE WORLD POKER TOUR’S™ third season, was held from April 18-24, 2005 in the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The WPT World Championship attracts well-known and established professionals on the poker circuit and also draws a loyal fan base.
Collectors Universe authenticated a number of noteworthy items from this year’s event that included poker chips signed by each of the six world-renowned players from the final, championship table, the two hole cards from each of the two players in the deciding and final championship hand in the poker game “Texas Hold ‘Em” along with the five common cards from the center of the table in the championship hand, the felt from the championship poker table signed by both the WPT Champion and the second place finisher, and other poker items. As of June 30, 2005, these items are listed for auction on eBay. CLICK HERE
Michael Haynes, Chief Executive Officer of Collectors Universe, commented, “We are delighted to have the opportunity to work with the prestigious WORLD POKER TOUR and provide our authentication services to items used in such an exciting championship event. In our PSA/DNA division, we have authenticated more than a few famous items and we are pleased to be able to use our expertise in the WPT World Championship event. We believe these authentic memorabilia items from the championship table will make this year’s event even more memorable for years to come.”
WPTE’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Steve Lipscomb, acknowledged the importance of Collectors’ authentication. “We want our fans to know they are getting the real thing,” he said. “It has become clear that fans and collectors value WORLD POKER TOUR memorabilia and collectibles. This assures our winning bidders that they are getting the genuine article – a piece of the WORLD POKER TOUR.”
The WPT World Championship Season III event will be broadcast on the Travel Channel on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 9 P.M. PT.
0
Comments
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=73396&item=5214330088&rd=1
You decide.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Here's a link for you guys....Is it real?
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
<< <i>Is watching poker actually that popular? I catch some here and there but usually change the station and watch reruns of Sanford and son much more entertaining. >>
In a word - yes. To give you an idea of how popular it has become:
World Series of Poker Main Event Participants:
2003 - 839 (or thereabouts, I forget the exact number)
2004 - 2576
2005 - 6600 (and that's the cap; there's probably several thousand more that would like to participate)
Keep in mind that it costs $10,000 for each of those players to play. And the reason there's so many players wanting to play is because of the huge popularity of watching it on TV and then going out and playing for yourself.
Tabe
Just for the record, it is a fact that most of the "popular" "known" players in the WSOP are broke. They have sponsors who pay the entrance fees. If you notice sometimes that these winning tournament players don't get super excited after winning, it's because they didn't actually win all that much money - their sponsors get most of the money - the percentage of the money the players won probably goes right out to pay off some poker gambling debts. Constantly playing in tournaments with the house raking 3% to 10% or more from each tournament is a recipe for losing money which these tournament players have found out. Playing tournament poker, online poker, and any poker in a casino is an absolute sucker's game with the house eventually being the only winner. The following is an article to back this up:
LAS VEGAS -- Barry Greenstein is cranky.
As he stands inside the Bellagio, where he regularly plays in the biggest cash game in the world, Greenstein and I are discussing who exactly should be called a great poker player and who shouldn't.
No. Wait. Greenstein is not exactly discussing. More like lecturing. In that contemptuous way of his. Lovably contemptuous. But contemptuous just the same.
Now, I could explain here that Greenstein's crankiness stems from the media making stars of players who win tournaments on television, declaring them "great" players, when actually many of those tournament players are not winning players who show a profit playing poker, which is why they hawk books and DVDs, and besides, tournaments aren't nearly the challenge or barometer that cash games are, and so, the bigger the cash game, the better the player who can beat it until a player gets to the biggest cash game around, which just happens to be - ta-da! - the one Greenstein plays in.
But my writing the previous paragraph risks the wrath of Greenstein's precision, so I'll let him explain.
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says. "Those are the five people who beat the biggest game. There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part. The public says, 'Oh he's a great player.' He's a live one in our game.
"You could make millions of dollars if you could beat our game. Do you really think these people would worry about making a few hundred-thousand (dollars) selling DVDs and videos if you could make millions playing poker? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
"What tournaments are all about is beating bad players. Building up big chips in tournaments is a skill. I don't want to say they don't have certain skills. But playing good players, they'd have their heads handed to them at the highest levels.
"That isn't to say that they aren't smart enough individuals to become top players. The way you get good is by playing against the best players. You've now got to make adjustments to the adjustments they've made against you.
"The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."
When told of some of Greenstein's contention the best poker players are playing poker and not selling pokerphernalia -- Greenstein, by the way, is coming out with a book called "Ace on the River - An Advanced Poker Guide" -- renowned pro Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.
"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.
"One thing I did decide, though, is I have too much respect for Barry Greenstein as a poker player and those other guys who play in the biggest games. I don't feel like I can put in a full day of business and come to Bellagio and play in a side game right now. I'm not the poker player they are right now. That's just the mental preparation thing. It's not that I don't have it in me. I just choose not to have it in me where it's all poker."
So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.
"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.
" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'
"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.
"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."
Greenstein began playing tournaments the past 18 months and has one of the better records, winning a World Series of Poker bracelet, finishing second in another WSOP tournament, capturing a World Poker Tour event and earning a bracelet in a Bellagio tournament.
What's more, to underscore the value of tournament winnings compared to his cash game accomplishments, Greenstein gives all his tournament winnings to charity, most notably Children's Inc., which is why Greenstein is often referred to as the "Robin Hood of poker."
"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."
You can doubt Greenstein's contentions about how cash game players compare to tournament players. And he will be happy to welcome you to his game. Bring money.
Steve Rosenbloom is a contributor to ESPN.com and writes a syndicated poker column for the Chicago Tribune.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
This is off topic but I hate to see fellow baseball card collectors (or anybody) get suckered into poker operated by gambling businesses so I'll just quickly state this: Anyone please try this just once and you'll then be 100% convinced that winning money against a house cut (rake) is impossible for anybody. In your local neighborhood poker game there is usually always one or two players in the game who consistently win money - poker is a game of skill whereby the best players will consistently win when there is not any cut of the pots. So...try this...over the course of say five or ten nights of playing poker...take a cut out of the pots with the same amounts as it would be done online or in a casino...just put the money in a jar somewhere and distribute the money any way the group decides after the five or ten sessions are over. It is absolutely, positively, definitely guaranteed that even those one or two best players will lose their bankroll money "in the jar" over these sessions.
The bottom line is that it is hoped everyone here spends their money on baseball cards, not wasting money chasing some fantasy dream of winning at online poker or in casinos
Steve
Hand Odds and Poker Odds
Hand odds are the chances of you making a hand in texas hold'em poker. For example, if you hold two hearts and there are two hearts on the flop, your hand odds for making a flush are about 2 to 1. This means that for approximately every 3 times you play this hand, you will hit your flush one of those times. If your hand odds are 3 to 1, then you would hit your hand 1 out of every 4 times.
X to 1 odds = You hit your hand 1 out of (X + 1) times
X to 1 odds = 1 / (X + 1) = % chace to hit your hand
(Example: 3 to 1 odds = 1 / 4 = 25% chance to hit your hand)
Outs Flop% Turn% Flop Odds Turn Odds Draw Type
2 8% 4% 12 22 Pocket Pair -> Set
3 13% 7% 7 14 Single Overcard Draw
4 17% 9% 5 10 Gut Shot, Two Pair -> Full House
5 20% 11% 4 8 One Pair -> Two Pair or Set, Gut+Backdoor
6 24% 13% 3.2 6.7 No Pair -> Pair, Two Overcard Draw
7 28% 15% 2.6 5.6 Set -> Full House or + (not counting extra turn outs)
8 32% 17% 2.2 4.7 Open Straight Draw
9 35% 19% 1.9 4.1 Flush Draw, Open+Backdoor Draw
10 42% 22% 1.6 3.6
11 42% 24% 1.4 3.2
12 45% 26% 1.2 2.8 Flush+Gut Draw
13 48% 28% 1.1 2.5
14 51% 30% 0.95 2.3
15 54% 33% 0.85 2.1 Flush+Open Draw
16 57% 34% 0.75 1.9 Flush+Open+One Overcard
17 60% 37% 0.66 1.7
[ The above chart represents your percentage and odds of hitting an out by the river ]
To calculate your hand odds, you first need to know how many outs your hand has. Outs are defined as a card in the deck that help you make your hand. So if you hold AK of spades and have two spades on the flop, that leaves 9 more spades in the deck, since there are 13 cards of each suit. This means you have 9 outs to complete your flush - but not necessarily the best hand! Usually you want your outs to count toward a nut draw, but this is not always possible.
The quick amongst you might be wondering "But what if someone else is holding a spade, doesn't that decrease my outs?". The answer is yes and no. If you know for sure that someone else is holding a spade, then you will have to count that against your total odds. However, in most situations when you do not know what your opponents hold, you can only do calculations with the knowledge that is available to you. That knowledge is your pocket cards and the cards on the table. So, in essence, you are doing the calculations as if you were the only person at the table, which in case, there are 9 spades left in the deck.
When calculating outs, it's also important not to overcount your odds. An example would be a flush draw in addition to an open straight draw.
Example: You hold Jd Td and the board shows 8d Qd Ks. A Nine or Ace gives you a straight (8 outs), while any diamond gives you the flush (9 outs). However, there is an Ace of diamonds and Nine of diamonds, so you don't want to count these twice toward your straight draw and flush draw. The true number of outs is actually 15 (8 outs + 9 outs - 2 outs) instead of 17 (8 outs + 9 outs)
In addition to this, sometimes an out for you really isn't a true out. An example would be chasing an open ended straight draw when two of another suit are on the table. In this regard, where you would normally have 8 total outs to hit your straight, 2 of those outs will result in three to a suit on the table. This makes a possible flush for your opponents. As a result, you really only have 6 outs for a nut straight draw. Another more complex situation is as follows:
Example: You hold J8o and the flop comes 9TJ rainbow (all of a different suit). To make a straight, you need a Queen or 7 to drop, giving you 4 outs each or a total of 8 outs. But, you have to look at the situation if a Queen drops, because the board will then show 9TJQ. This means that anyone holding a King will have made a King high straight, while you hold the dominated Queen high straight.
So, the only card that can really help you is the 7, which gives you 4 outs, or the equivalent of a gut shot draw. While it's true that someone might not be holding the King (especially in a short or heads-up game), in a big game, it's a very scary position to be in.
How to calculate hand odds (the longer way):
Once you know how to correctly count the number of outs you have on a hand, you can use that to calculate what percent of the time you will hit your hand by the river. Probability can be calculated easily for a single event, like the flipping of the River card from the Turn. This would simply be: Total Outs / Remaining Cards. For two cards however, like from the Flop to the River, it's a bit more tricky. This is calculated by figuring the probability of your cards not hitting twice in a row. This can be calculated as shown below:
Flop to River % = 1 - [ ((47 - Outs) / 47) * ((46 - Outs) / 46) ]
Turn to River % = 1 - [ (46 - Outs) / 46 ]
The number 47 represents the remaining cards left in the deck after the flop (52 total cards, minus 2 in our hand and 3 on the flop = 47 remaining cards). Even though there might not technically be 47 cards remaining, we do calculations assuming we are the only players in the game. To illustrate, here is a two overcard draw, which has 3 outs for each overcard, giving a total of 6 outs for a top pair draw:
Two Overcard Draw = 1 - [ (47 - 6) / 47 * (46 - 6) / 46 ]
= 1 - [ (41/47) * (40/46) ]
= 1 - [ 0.87 * 0.87 ]
= 1 - 0.76
= 0.24
= 24% Chance to Draw Overcards from Flop to River
However, most of the time we want to see this in hand odds, which will be explained after you read about pot odds. To change a percent to odds, the formula is:
Odds = ( 1 / Percentage ) - 1
Thus, to change the 24% draw into an odd we can use, we do the following:
Odds = ( 1 / 24% Two Overcard Draw ) - 1
= ( 1 / 0.24 ) - 1
= 4.17 - 1
= 3.17 or approx 3.2
How to calculate hand odds (the shorter way):
Now that you've learned the proper way of calculating hand odds in texas hold'em, there is a shortcut that will makes it much easier to calculate odds. The shortcut is, after you find the number of outs you have, multiply by 4 and you will get a close estimate to the percentage of hitting that hand from the Flop. Multiply by 2 instead to get a percentage estimate from the Turn. You can see these figures for yourself below:
Sample Outs and Percentages from Above Chart
4 17% 9% 5 10 Gut Shot, Two Pair -> Full House
5 20% 11% 4 8 One Pair -> Two Pair or Set, Gut+Backdoor
6 24% 13% 3.2 6.7 Two Overcard Draw, Open Straight w/Flush Threat
7 28% 15% 2.6 5.6 Set -> Full House
As you can see, this is a much easier method of finding your percentage odds. But what about ratio odds? This is still done using the formula:
Odds = ( 1 / Percentage ) - 1
However, we can rephrase this math equation so that your brain might process it a bit easier:
Odds = (100 / Whole Percentage) - 1
Using 100 divided by the whole percentage number, such as 24%, we can easily see that 100/24 is equal to about 4. We minus 1 from that and get a rough estimate of our odds at about 3:1. Let's try this all the way through with an example:
You hold: Ac Js
Flop is: 5c Td Kd
Total Outs: Queen Gut Shot (4) + Ace Overcard (3) - Q or A Diamond (2) = 5
Percentage for Draw = 5 Outs * 4 = 20%
Odds = (100 / 20) - 1
= 5 - 1
= 4:1
Again, 4:1 odds means that you will make your draw 1 out of every 5 times. If the 1 out of 5 doesn't make a ton of sense to you, think about the 1:1 odds of flipping heads or tails on a coin. You'll flip heads 50% of the time, so 1 out of every 2 times it'll come heads.
X:1 Hand Odds = You'll hit 1 out of every X+1 times
Pot Odds and Poker Odds:
Now that you know how to calculate poker odds in terms of hand odds, you're probably wondering what you're going to need it for? That's a good question. This is where pot odds come into play.
Pot odds is simply a ratio of the amount of money in the pot compared with how much money it takes to call. If there is $100 in the pot and it takes $10 to call, your pot odds are 100:10, or 10:1. If there is $50 in the pot and it takes $10 to call, then your pot odds are 50:10 or 5:1. The higher the ratio, the better your pot odds are.
X:1 Pot Odds = You must win this hand 1 out of X+1 times to break even
Pot odds ratios are a very useful tool to see how often you need to win the hand to break even. If there is $100 in the pot and it takes $10 to call, you must win this hand 1 out of 11 times in order to break even. The thinking goes along the lines of: If you play 11 times, it'll cost you $110, but when you win, you get $110 ($100 + your $10 call).
The usefulness of hand odds and pot odds becomes very apparent when you start comparing the two. As we know now, in a flush draw, your hand odds for making your flush are 1.9 to 1. Let's say you're in a hand with a nut flush draw and it's $5 to you on the flop to call. Do you call? Your answer should be: What are my pot odds?
If there is $15 in the pot plus a $5 bet from an opponent, then you are getting 20:5 or 4:1 pot odds. This means that in order to break even, you must win 1 out of every 5 times. However, with your flush draw, your odds of winning are 1 out of every 3 times! You should quickly realize that not only are you breaking even, but you're making a nice profit on this too. Let's calculate the profit margin on this by theoretically playing this hand 100 times from the flop, when is then checked to the river.
Net Cost to Play = 100 hands * $5 to call = -$500
Pot Value = $15 + $5 bet + $5 call
Odds to Win = 1.9:1 or 35% (From the flop)
Total Hands Won = 100 * Odds to Win (35%) = 35 wins
Net Profit = Net Cost to Play + (Total Times Won * Pot Value)
= -$500 + (35 * $25)
= -$500 + $875
= $375 Profit
As you can see, you have a great reason to play this flush draw, because you'll be making money in the long run according to your hand odds and pot odds. The most fundamental point to take from this is:
If your Pot Odds > Hand Odds, then you are making a profit
So, even though you may be faced with a gut shot straight draw at times, which is a terrible draw at 5 to 1 hand odds, it can be worth it to call if you are getting pot odds greater than 5 to 1. Othertimes, if you have an excellent draw such as the flush draw, but someone has just raised a large amount so your pot odds are 1:1 for instance, then you obviously should not continue trying to draw to a flush, as you will lose money in the long run. In this situation, a fold or semi-bluff is your only solution, unless you know there will be callers behind you that improve your pot odds to better than break even.
Your ability to memorize or calculate your hand odds and figure out your pot odds will lead you to make many of the right decisions in the future. Just be sure to remember that fundamental principle of playing drawing hands when your pot odds are greater than your hand odds.
Poker Odds from the Flop to Turn and Turn to River
An important note I have to make is that many players who understand Hold'em odds tend to forget is that much of the theoretical odds calculations from the flop to the river assume there is no betting on the turn. So while it's true that for a flush draw, the odds are 1.9 to 1 that the flush will complete, you can only call a 1.9 to 1 pot on the flop if your opponent will let you see both the turn and river cards for one call. Unfortunately, most of the time, this will not be the case, so you should not calculate pot odds from the flop to the river and instead calculate them one card at a time.
To calculate your odds one card at a time, simply use the same odds that you have going from the turn to the river. So for example, your odds of hitting a flush from the turn to river is 4 to 1, which means your odds of hitting a flush from the flop to the turn is 4 to 1 as well.
To help illustrate even further, we will use the flush calculation example that shows the often incorrect way of thinking.
Example of Incorrect Pot Odds Math
You Hold: Flush Draw
Flop: $10 Pot + $10 Bet
You Call: $10 (getting 2 to 1 odds)
Turn: $30 Pot + $10 Bet
You Call: $10 (getting 4 to 1 odds)
Long-Term Results Over 100 Hands
Cost to Play = 100 Hands * ($10 Flop Call + $10 Turn Call) = $2,000
Total Won = 100 Hands * 35% Chance to Win * $50 Pot = $1,750
Total Net = $1,750 (Won) - $2,000 (Cost)
= -$250 Profit
= -$2.5/Hand
Example of Correct Pot Odds Math
You Hold: Flush Draw
Flop: $30 Pot + $10 Bet
You Call: $10 (getting 4 to 1 odds)
Turn: $50 Pot + $16 Bet
You Call: $16 (getting about 4 to 1 odds)
Long-Term Results Over 100 Hands
Cost to Play = 100 Hands * ($10 Flop Call + $16 Turn Call) = $2,600
Total Won = 100 Hands * 35% Chance to Win * $82 Pot = $2,870
Total Net = $2,870 (Won) - $2,600 (Cost)
= $270 Profit
= $2.7/Hand
As you can see from these example calculations, calling a flush draw with 2 to 1 pot odds on the flop can lead to a long term loss, if there is additional betting past the flop. Most of the time however, there is a concept called Implied Value (which we'll get to next) that is able to help flush draws and open-ended straight draws still remain profitable even with seemingly 'bad' odds. The draws that you want to worry about the most are your long shot draws: overcards, gutshots and two outers (hoping to make a set with your pocket pair). If you draw these hands using incorrect odds (such as flop to river odds), you will be severely punished in the long run.
Implied Value
Implied Value is a pretty cool concept that takes into account future betting. Like the above section, where you have to worry about your opponent betting on the turn, implied value most often is used to anticipate your opponent calling on the river. So for example, let's say you have yet another flush draw and are being offered a 3 to 1 pot odds on the turn. Knowing that you need 4 to 1 pot odds to make this a profitable call, you decide to fold.
Aha, but wait! Here is where implied value comes into play. So, even though you're getting 3 to 1 pot odds on the turn, you can likely anticipate your opponent calling you on the river if you do hit your flush draw. This means that even though you're only getting 3 to 1 pot odds, since you anticipate your opponent calling a bet on the river, you are anticipating 4 to 1 pot odds - so you are able to make this call on the turn.
So in the most practical standpoint, implied value usually means that you can minus one bet off your drawing odds on the turn, as it anticipate your opponents calling at least one bet. In some more advanced areas, you can use implied odds as a means of making some draws that might not be profitable for a majority of the time, but stand to make big payouts when they do hit. Some examples of this would be having a tight image and drawing to a gutshot vs another tight player. Even though this is a horribly bad play (and hopefully you don't have to pay much for it), it can possibly be a positive play if you know your opponent will pay you off if you hit your draw - namely because he won't believe you played a gutshot draw. For many reasons, I do not recommend fancy implied odds plays like these, but mentioned it more so that you can recognize some players who pull these 'tricky' plays on you as well.
Good discussion - very interesting and I'll stress again...stick with baseball cards and other activities. Trying to win money playing online poker is a pathetic waste of money, time and life. I don't advocate gambling, but if wanting to play poker then stick to the private games with college buddies or neighborhood pals. There you do have a chance to win.
Steve
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
The skilled poker players today are making money because of the influx of "New Money" into the game courtesy of ESPN and others. This new money is the only reason someone can make a living playing poker. Several articles have been written about Pokers jubilence about the media coverage lavished on it, this has made the pros very happy. They are trying to figure out ways to keep this new money flowing into the game.
I must disagree about the statement that you can not make money playing on-line poker. I know several people in my local home tourney that have made lots of money. Also, 2 personal friends and myself can attest to about $12,000 profit between the 3 of us over the last 14 months. There are so many players that throw their money away on-line just for the entertainment value of the game, we love these people. Sure the sites get their rake, but that's a bargain we accept for them bringing us the fish to play against.
I know several players that have shown up in Vegas for the World Series just to play the side games. That is where the real money is to be made. The Tournament players I believe are less skilled because when playing a Tourney the most you can ever lose is your intial buy-in. That is much different than playing with your own bankroll, so your game is honed in a different manner. Barry Greenstein is exactly right on that one. When you enter a casino game with seasoned players the main difference in level of play is that even if you know the mechanics of the game, these guys know the mechanics of you. They are superior in the skill of reading people, thats their edge. You will never have that skill unless you play thousands of hours of live play.
This thread made me pull "Rounders" of the shelf last night and watch it....a great Poker movie!
2dueces...I will be in Vegas the 14th-17th. Where are the good games right now? Have you been to Wynns new room?
So if posters are willing to state things like making $75,000, and risk possible criminal action for tax evasion, it would have to mean that they have paid taxes on the winnings. Or it would have to mean that they are telling "tall tales" about winning at gambling which gamblers often do like to tell. I am not being a hypocrite - I am an ex-gambler and also used to tell "tall tales" such as these. Most gamblers like to brag about their winnings but underestimate or don't discuss their losings. Unfortunately, the house cut in poker guarantees that ALL gamblers will eventually lose their bankroll. Show me a gambler who through winning these so-called fortunes playing online or casino poker, with the winning money have bought homes in Palm Beach or on the Riviera. The only people involved in gambling who own these homes are the owners of online or brick & mortar gambling casinos.
There is no precise mathematical formula either pro or con that can prove or disprove winning at poker because of the unpredictable interaction of the poker players during a hand. As any poker player knows, the best hand doesn't always win the money - the best hand can be bluffed out. The only way to "prove" poker winnings would be to document it. So why haven't I ever seen documentation on any website or poker forum by someone who claims they are making money playing poker online or in a casino, especially online whereby they could easily show scans of the transfers and withdrawals of money on their credit card statements for a period of say one year. They also could easily show scans of their tax returns especially since they already publically stated that they won the money. This documentation hasn't been shown for one simple reason - it doesn't exist - there are no winners, except as noted with winning a super jackpot tournament which is like playing the lottery. These are the facts no matter how gambling books or anyone else spins it.
The fallacy of online poker gambling and casino poker gambling is that skill can help you win money. Skill doesn't matter as far as a long term profit for a player is concerned. Skill here only helps in losing your money slower than the lesser skilled players.
It is true that there are winners playing in private cash games. The fictional movie "Rounders" actually correctly portrays this. What is "incorrect" towards the end of the movie is that why would Matt Damon's character have some desire to take all his money and go play in some Las Vegas tournament when he is making great money beating up on private cash games left and right? That ending was purely Hollywood. REAL professional poker winners don't have any desire to play in publicized tournaments especially when they know the house cut and/or tournament fees will grind them out of their bankroll. The real pros win their money in the private games and except for rare cases like Barry Greenstein, don't brag about it for they don't want people to know how good they are. And they don't want the IRS sniffing at their door.
Steve
Actually, we all use a program named "Poker Tracker" that does indeed document every hand ever played by us. Breaks right down to how much you have won or lost on each 2 card hand. Also it tracks the play of every player we have sat with at a table and rates their play. One of the guys also wrote a program spreadsheet that tracks all play and won/loss stats. We must be the exception to your rule since our accounts are going up not down. I am not bragging, but wanted you know that there are exceptions to your blanket statement.
Rob, The only palce to play in Vegas are where the majority of the tourists play. The Bellagio
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
My response was careful and was aimed at this statement - and come on now...nowhere did I state that YOU personally made the money. And my making it a "blanket statement" was exactly the way it was intended - it applies to everybody.
Hey look...My fight isn't with gamblers, my fight is with poker websites and casinos and the way they constantly imply how "you" can be the very next big tournament super jackpot winner. The lure of the super jackpot is what suckers people in. Many people are getting badly addicted and losing lots of their money playing online and casino poker. That disturbs me and that is the intention of the posts to warn people about this.
The owners of Party Poker just did a public offering and the net worth of the company is estimated at over FIVE BILLION DOLLARS - this represents money that online poker players have lost and are continuing to lose - just to one poker gambling website! Combining all the poker websites, the amount of money that they have fleeced from gamblers borders on obscene.
As for the facts of my post. I already know these facts are true. You guys said you are up some money and I wasn't questioning that. There are winners simply through random numbers of millions of players worldwide - through random numbers it may take sometimes a bit longer for the odds to catch up. However, sooner or later the odds will catch up. If you keep playing, you will lose back those winnings and then have a losing streak beyond your wildest nightmares because of the odds catching up.
My intention is to get you to quit while you are ahead. Unfortunately, I don't know of any gambler who does quit while they are ahead...even after going in the hole for a great deal of money, they still continue with the fantasy dream of winning money again. The poker industry has done an amazing job of brainwashing gamblers into believing they can keep winning money. So it's your choice what to believe. Note that I have never rooted against a gambler in my life and I never will. So in that respect I wish you all the best.
Steve
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Now I just need to get that Shana Hiatt set registry going now.
I get the feeling that people that bad mouth poker, aren't serious players themselves. They are probably people who keep getting their butt handed to them everytime they get near a table so they want to call it a suckers game. Sure, more people lose than win, that's a mathematical guarantee because of the house rake, but don't speak of something you know nothing about.
Making a living at poker though is a different story. You have to risk the kind of money associated with making a living, and at that level, the fish are gone. Bad players and new money are the best way to make money, but it's not a lot of money. Poker definately can be profitable though.
<< <i>Just wanted to share my new favorite hold'em hand. I wish I could say I used some of my poker winnings to pay for these.
Now I just need to get that Shana Hiatt set registry going now. >>
Shanna Hiatt is so hot, love it when they are in tropical locations and she is wearing the bikini.
Since she is leaving the show, you have a nice item. Wonder if this will start a trend of authenticating signed playing cards.
Making a living at poker though is a different story. You have to risk the kind of money associated with making a living, and at that level, the fish are gone. Bad players and new money are the best way to make money, but it's not a lot of money. Poker definately can be profitable though. >>>>>
Yea, yea, yea...Well then, let's see the proof...from any online poker player backing up their claims of winning money. Let's see the scans of those tax documents of winning money over a given time frame of say a year. Until then, anyone claiming to consistently win money playing online poker is only a rumor.
As for all the "bad" players playing online poker - that is an absurd statement made by pro-gambling books and articles wanting to entice others into thinking that money can be made playing online poker. Everyone playing online poker has at least basic poker skills. You're not exactly playing against senile little old ladies. The senile little old ladies out there who are gambling online, aren't playing poker - they are playing non-thinking games such as slots, keno and bingo. Okay - I'll give you this one...if you were constantly playing online poker against senile little old ladies, then possibly you could beat the house cut in the long run. But you are playing for the most part with players on a similar level as yourself, some are worse and some are better - but all will windup losing their bankrolls to the house. Those are the facts - plain and simple.
Sure it's possible to get lucky and win a big online or brick & mortar super jackpot tournament which is similar to hitting a lottery. Just look at the current WSOP - many of the top "professionals" have already been eliminated. There is way too much luck involved with poker to overcome the long run effects of a house cut. Real poker professionals already know this.
Some wannabees after winning an online poker tournament or two, get the messiah complex thinking that they can make money at this game. With millions of online poker players, random numbers suggest that there will be players such as this. But these players, if they keep playing long enough, the random numbers will even out and they'll lose back those winnings and then a lot more. The house cut guarantees this. There are no exceptions.
Wannabees who think they can make money playing poker against a house cut, will eventually learn this lesson the hard way - by losing their money, hopefully not too much before finally realizing that online and brick & mortar poker is an absolute sucker's game.
Steve
Poker in the only game that you aren't playing against the house. Rakes are small enough that they can be overcome on a consistent basis. The truth is, no one person can say that they will profit from poker on a particular tournament or on a particular day. The luck factor will prevent that from happening. But, using many other factors, you can tilt the odds in your favor over a long period.
If poker wasn't profitable, why are some of the professional players formerly from very good paying jobs? Many are MIT grads and have law degrees and mathematics degrees. Do you think they trade $100,000 year jobs to live a broke lifestyle that you are claiming?
Well, apparently the only way you will be convinced otherwise is if a professional comes on here and posts their tax documents (which I doubt will happen) or if somebody else flat out incriminates themselves with documented proof (which I also doubt will happen). Honestly though, people who don't know, play, and study the game of poker, shouldn't try to speak as if the know the rock solid facts on the matter. That would be like me trying to explain prescription drugs to a doctor. Stick to what you know.
Baccarat has a house edge in a casino whether you are the "player" or the "banker." With you making a completely wrong statement such as this right off the bat, I think that says it all about your knowledge of gambling. You have been brainwashed by all the "How to win at gambling" books and articles out there as have many other people - especially in regards to online and brick & mortar poker.
<<< sports and horse betting which involve detailed knowledge. >>>
Yea...show me one, just one, sports or horse racing bettor who is living the life of luxury from these bets. There ain't any - and that includes online and brick & mortar poker players.
<<< If poker wasn't profitable, why are some of the professional players formerly from very good paying jobs? Many are MIT grads and have law degrees and mathematics degrees. Do you think they trade $100,000 year jobs to live a broke lifestyle that you are claiming? >>>
What? - LOL. You've been believing too many 15 year olds posting in poker forums who pretend to be MIT grads with law and mathematics degrees - LOL
I've spoken my piece already regarding your other comments. Looks as though you might have to learn the hard way that all my statements are fact. I'm not being a hypocrite, I also used to be a hardhead and chased the illusion of winning money at gambling. But not anymore. Be careful out there - your ignorance and illusions about gambling can turn into an addiction. Some of your earlier comments are classic symptoms which are typical of a gambling addict - you've been warned.
Steve
Even Chris Moneymaker if he keeps on playing online poker and entering tournaments, will lose back that WSOP super jackpot money that he won a few years ago. I'm afraid this is probably going to happen. Chris Moneymaker has publically admitted that he is addicted to gambling and it seems like he has no intentions of quitting.
So again...the best move and the smart move is to stick to collecting baseball cards and other worthwhile persuits, not wasting money, time and life on the hopeless dream of trying to win money playing poker against a house cut.
Steve
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/sports/othersports/11poker.html?ex=1121745600&en=643f4add67af4187&ei=5070&emc=eta1
July 11, 2005
In Poker World Series, a Novice Flirts With Glory
By JOE DRAPE
LAS VEGAS, July 10 - Last March, Josh Baer sat before a glowing computer screen in his apartment in Bloomfield, N.J., and let tears roll down his cheeks. For a $160 buy-in, and after three hours of carefully calculated mouse clicks, Mr. Baer, then a theater major at Montclair State University, had achieved a dream: He had defeated 80 other online players in no-limit Texas Hold'em, earning a trip here and a seat worth $10,000 in the main event of the 36th World Series of Poker.
As Mr. Baer, 26, shuffled into the Rio Hotel and Casino on Saturday morning with the headphones of his iPod draped around his neck and a backpack loaded with Gummy Worms and Raisinets, he was focused on his mission to play smart, survive 15 hours of poker and advance out of the first round. It was too early to think about reaching the tournament's final table on Friday, with its $1 million guarantee and $7.5 million first-place check.
As he took his seat at Table 142 amid a symphony of riffling chips, however, Mr. Baer was thunderstruck by the odds he faced even before a single card had hit the felt. He was one of 5,600 players hoping to rake in a life-changing pot this weekend and wear the coveted gold bracelet given to the winner.
"I feel so small," he said.
He was not alone. Into Sunday morning, Mr. Baer and his rivals would see their chips ebb and flow as their imagined fortunes rose and fell at the turn of a single card.
While 300 players in this record-breaking field were professionals, the rest looked like a cross-section of America. They included the celebrated - like the actors Tobey Maguire and Jennifer Tilly and the golfer Rocco Mediate - and the everyday people - truck drivers, housewives and college students.
Like Mr. Baer, nearly half had won their seats for far less than the $10,000 buy-in at tournaments on Internet poker sites, which last year surpassed more than $1 billion in revenue.
Every player has visions of becoming the next Greg Raymer, the Connecticut patent lawyer who won the 2004 championship and the $5 million that came with it after gaining entry into the World Series by winning the same online tournament as Mr. Baer.
Their patron saint, however, is Chris Moneymaker, 29, who in 2003 was an accountant and amateur poker player who parlayed a $40 online entry fee into a $2.5 million windfall.
"I am the poster child for online poker," said Mr. Moneymaker, who was eliminated in the second round Sunday. "Amateurs and people who never even played the game watched me on television and figured, 'Hey, I can do that.' And they're right."
Mr. Moneymaker is widely credited with transforming a nearly two-century-old pastime played from frontier saloons to modern kitchen tables into a recent cultural phenomenon. Mr. Moneymaker, a young Tennessean in mirrored sunglasses who bluffed and bulldozed seasoned gamblers like Johnny Chan and Sam Farha, entranced viewers who watched the World Series on ESPN.
In 2003, Mr. Moneymaker faced a comparatively compact field of 839 players, and televised poker was not ubiquitous like it is now, with hundreds of hours shown on network and cable television. Among those watching the 2003 tournament was Mr. Baer, who was studying at Montclair State (he graduated in May) and spending an increasing number of hours online learning the nuances of no-limit Texas Hold'em, a game in which each player receives two cards and then bets progressively over the next five common cards on the table: three cards known as "the flop," a fourth known as "the turn" and the fifth, "the river."
Watching Mr. Moneymaker, Baer decided to set his sights on the World Series of Poker, and he began spending up to 10 hours a day online, playing millions of hands and using computer programs to analyze and explain the mathematical probabilities that can determine a winning hand.
It was hardly a delusional ambition, especially in large tournament play, because luck and nerve often offset skill when cards are landing in front of the nine players at every table. Sports bookies here, known for their handicapping acumen, made Phil Ivey, considered among the best professional players in the world, the tournament favorite - but at tepid odds of 400-1.
If poker's runaway popularity has a downside, it is felt most by the professionals who make their living around a card table. Bobby Baldwin won the 1978 World Series no-limit Texas Hold'em title by besting 41 other card sharks who anted up their own $10,000.
As chief executive officer of Mirage Resorts, however, Mr. Baldwin said he understood that what was good for the industry was tough on his friends.
"There are very, very good amateur players," Mr. Baldwin said. "And when you have 6,000 players, the odds for the pros get watered down. When you're playing a hand, you have to make all sorts of assumptions on very little information. Over a course of a week, facing wave after wave of new faces, it gets tough to be right all the time."
Mr. Mediate, for example, is ranked 32nd on the PGA Tour but rates himself no better than a "14 handicap" in no-limit Texas Hold'em, which he started playing just eight months ago. Still, before play began Sunday, he was in the top third of the players, with $33,825 in chips.
"It's conceivable that I can run through this field of the very best players in the world and win the whole thing," Mr. Mediate said. "But in golf, I could take one of these guys out on the Sunday round of the U.S. Open, and they would have absolutely no chance. I have control of my golf game. They do not. And that's what makes the tournament here so appealing."
Richard Baer, Josh's father, understands, or at least hopes, that a seat at the World Series of Poker is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. A dentist from New Jersey, Dr. Baer is wary of his son's immersion in poker; he tolerated it when Josh was working toward his college degree, even taking him out for a celebratory dinner when he earned his way into the tournament.
"I regard it as a hobby, not a potential occupation," Richard Baer said in a telephone interview. "I want him to keep it in perspective and enjoy the experience. I really admire his focus, but after this is all over, I want him to use that focus to find a regular line of work."
In the days before Josh Baer sat down at the tournament table, his father would have been proud of his son. He was focused on and enjoying his trip to the World Series. Mr. Baer was determined not to be "dead money," the term pros bestow on weak players. Most nights, he was in bed early in his hotel room at Treasure Island, which he shared with his brother, Matt, and four friends. Mr. Baer's room was free because he had agreed to wear a shirt promoting PokerStars.com, the Internet site where he won his $10,000 buy-in and another $1,000 in traveling money.
If there are any sure-fire winners at the World Series of Poker in recent years, it has been the Internet poker sites. Mr. Raymer and Mr. Moneymaker emerged from PokerStars.com tournaments, and the odds are favorable that this year's champion will be wearing the company's logo. It provided the buy-in fee and accommodations for 1,116 participants, or nearly 20 percent of the field.
But the company had already provided Mr. Baer with another transcendent moment: a 10-minute conversation with Mr. Raymer and Mr. Moneymaker at a pretournament reception.
"They were nice and encouraging," he said. "I even got my picture taken with them on my cellphone. Unfortunately, I snapped it shut before I stored the photograph."
For nearly nine hours, Mr. Baer played "tight poker." He folded hand after unsuitable hand, attacked when he had winning cards and kept his stack of chips in the $9,000 to $13,000 range. As the clock approached 9 p.m. on Saturday, he was dealt two hands in the span of 15 minutes that the probabilities, his competitors' body language and his guts told him were unbeatable.
In the first, he was holding an Ace and a King against a tablemate's Ace and Queen. With the flop came another Ace, and what the probabilities said was an 87 percent chance for Mr. Baer to win. He had $7,000 worth of chips in the post when, on the turn, a queen hit the table. It was the only card that could beat him.
On the next hand, he pushed his entire stack of chips into the middle of the table. The dealer called out, "All-in," which is a spine-tingling moment for every no-limit Texas Hold'em player and a clarion call for the television cameras and spectators to pay attention. On cue, the ESPN crew arrived at table 142 just in case Mr. Baer made it to the finals and turned out to be the next Greg Raymer or Chris Moneymaker.
Mr. Baer was holding a pair of Queens against what he guessed correctly was a King and a Queen. Again, the probabilities said he had a 70 percent chance of success. But the dealer then turned over a King and two 9's, giving Mr. Baer and his opponent two pairs. Unfortunately, his rival's Kings outranked his Queens.
Josh Baer's World Series was over. He was in good company - the former champions Doyle Brunson and Phil Hellmuth and a raft of other professionals had also been eliminated. Mr. Baer shook hands with everyone at the table, and this time the tears welling up inside him were not from joy. It took him until Sunday to put poker and the big-time tournament in perspective.
"I'll definitely be back," he said. "But I also know it's time to look for a job."
To say that no one makes money at it is naive, though. People wouldn't be playing if no one made money. I myself have never invested a penny of my own money on poker, and playing with a free $10 on one site and a free $20 on another, have managed to grind my way up to almost $700 in a matter of 3 months playing small limit games. It's not much to a "real" gambler, but for someone who does it for fun and entertainment, it ain't too shabby. Could I lose it all? Yeah. But it's not like I'll be out any money.
The problem is when people lose perspective on the game. 5611 people at the WSOP... that's just bizarre. The lottery analogy isn't so far off -- poker is a tax on bad math, for most people.
[edited because I managed to post a blank message the first time around]
Stingray
Brian
By Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Volume VII #4, December 1987)
© 1987 Blackjack Forum
On September 19, 1987, in his rented vacation apartment in Paris, France, Ken Uston was found dead of an apparent heart attack. French authorities reported that no foul play was suspected. His death was attributed to natural causes. His long-time friend and business manager, Jerry Fuerle, was quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, as commenting, "His lifestyle just caught up with him."
His body was cremated, and his ashes were flown back to the U.S. At the time of his death, Uston was working as a computer consultant for the Kuwaiti government, and writing a book about his experiences in the Middle-East.
The blackjack world has lost its most flamboyant, most famous, and most controversial character. >>>
Interesting that Ken Uston at the time of his death had to work as a computer consultant for the Kuwaiti government. I guess making a living by playing blackjack wasn't working out so well for him. I read Ken Uston's book - I believed the book at the time I read it, but after speaking to others over the years and rereading parts of it, it is my opinion that many of Uston's stories are probably fictional. The fact is that no major casino has ever discontinued the game of blackjack because of people winning money - some discontinued it for slot machines simply because the profits were higher.
Quick note about Ken Uston and other book authors - Why would anyone who had a winning gambling system such as Ken Uston supposedly had,,,why would they write a book which is very labor intensive and virtually all authors never make any "real" money from writing them? Why would these gamblers suddenly become so sharing of their winning gambling systems? The reason is that all of them are pure frauds...with the exception of techniques on how to win money playing poker in private cash games - the best players do win there. That's how Doyle Brunson (I also read his book) made his money at poker - playing in private cash games - not playing online or brick & mortar poker. Brunson's book is honest in the respect that it was geared towards teaching poker - it might be the only truly honest gambling book out there although there could be others which I haven't reviewed.
So, could a single deck blackjack game be beat if all the cards were dealt and any betting increment was allowed - possibly, although I personally saw two live TV shows about 20 years ago whereby top "card counters" tried it - and went broke - maybe just bad luck that day? Or maybe it really isn't possible. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but it doesn't even matter now because any casino gambler knows that casinos will not allow certain types of incremental bets in a fully dealt single deck game. I firmly believe that casinos never feared card counters - they simply weren't making enough profit off of them to justify the expensive floor space. Operating a casino is extremely expensive. Casinos need to run games whereby they make a killing off of each game otherwise they cannot be profitable.
<<< To say that no one makes money at it is naive, though. People wouldn't be playing if no one made money. >>>
Not a valid point about being naive - sure people can make money in the short run at gambling. But take roulette for instance - only a fool would say that long term the game of roulette can be beat. Yet, roulette is the most popular gambling game in European casinos - I think that tells you all you need to know about the mentality of gamblers. That mentality is all about hoping to get lucky and win money today or tonight. But those todays and tonights add up to the point whereby it isn't possible to win money playing any casino owned and operated game. I do like your point though about taking advantage of the free money they offer. Just be careful that the free money doesn't turn out to be the most expensive "free" money that you ever received if you start dipping deep into your own pockets - that free money of course is the bait to sucker people in - I get the feeling you won't be suckered in to this - but unfortunately many people out there do get suckered in and then get addicted to it and can't stop - sort of like a local drug dealer who hands out free samples of heroin.
Steve
<< <i>The fact is that no major casino has ever discontinued the game of blackjack because of people winning money - some discontinued it for slot machines simply because the profits were higher. >>
I believe if one plays blackjack “perfectly” by making the correct moves; the house edge is a few %. It is one of the lowest juiced games, but I agree – not profitable.
<< <i>Quick note about Ken Uston and other book authors - Why would anyone who had a winning gambling system such as Ken Uston supposedly had,,,why would they write a book which is very labor intensive and virtually all authors never make any "real" money from writing them? Why would these gamblers suddenly become so sharing of their winning gambling systems? The reason is that all of them are pure frauds... I firmly believe that casinos never feared card counters - they simply weren't making enough profit off of them to justify the expensive floor space. Operating a casino is extremely expensive. Casinos need to run games whereby they make a killing off of each game otherwise they cannot be profitable. >>
First let me state this, Ken Uston died when I was 3 years old so the information I’ve acquired about him is well after that. But most of your post contradicts what I’ve heard about him.
From what I’ve read, he worked with a team of card counters. There was a person betting a small amount who would keep count. When the count was in the bettor’s favor (lots of high cards remaining in the deck), he’d signal, and another team member would come over and bet big. It’s all statistics, but it’s rather easy to see the odds are in the bettor’s favor – since there are more high cards and aces, it’s more likely for a player to hit blackjack paying 3-2; moreover, the dealer is prone to bust more often.
His lifestyle did get out of hand. Card counters want to keep a low profile, and Uston was doing the opposite. Eventually this led to his demise. He and his team were caught by the casino, and they were not allowed to return. His gripe was that card counting was not cheating (which is isn’t), but rather he’s playing the game well and should be allowed to do so. Yet card counters are in the same "book" as cheaters in the casino's eyes. This led to him wanting the spread the word – he wanted revenge.
When AC opened casinos, card counting was allowed. All the counters flocked there, and within time, the casino begged to get this changed, which it was.
If casinos do not care about card counters, why do so many have this rule
<< <i>No Mid-Shoe Entry >>
I’ll tell you why, because it eliminates card-counting teams. The “big player” can no longer step in when the count is in his favor.
Unlike horses, sports, and various other forms of gambling that require a great deal of speculation, casino games are purely mathematical. Blackjack in it’s normal sense cannot be beaten. However as illustrated above, it can and was beaten. Nevertheless, casinos simply don’t allow the aforementioned counting because they know it’ll mean a loss, and they don’t like losing money.
If you don’t believe me, take this extreme example: take a normal 52 card deck, remove all the 2’s, 3’s, and 4’s. So you are left with 40 cards, now deal the cards like you are playing against a dealer and let me know who won. I’m not exactly sure how to calculate the house odds (or lack thereof), but it’ll be apparent you have the advantage.
Brian
The reason - it's all part of the con. Getting people to believe that the game of blackjack can be beat. Casino owners are some of the biggest con artists who ever lived and some of them even admit it. Steve Wynn though was honest when he stated, to paraphrase, "Las Vegas is all about players with bad math."
Brian - you always make good points and I totally respect your point of view even if we sometimes disagree. In my view, it's all about whether or not we want to believe everything we read, and in our minds want to believe it even when the facts don't back it up because maybe we just want to believe that fantasy dreams can come true. "Who" wouldn't want to be a professional gambler? You know...live like a king and have beautiful girls hanging from our arms. "Who" wouldn't want to make a living or make good money playing online or brick & mortar poker or blackjack? But the facts don't back up any of this. There simply is not any documentation, other than continued distortions and lies by other gambling books and articles. Nowhere in the scientific community has there ever been proof that these games can be beat. And as I earlier stated, no proof from all these winning gamblers for example showing off their new homes, cars and boats that they bought with any money they made by gambling.
The most significant example is this...back around the turn of last century, pinball machines were very popular in gambling establishments and much gambling was done on them. But eventually players became too skillful and the players started to beat the house. So guess what happened...of course, the casinos simply discontinued offering pinball machines as gambling games. The bottom line is that if casinos weren't making money or considered card counting a game of skill whereby money could be made by a player - they simply like the pinball machines would not offer it - period. It's really that simple. Casinos will never allow a game of skill under their roof in which money could possibly be won.
I have read all the Ken Uston stories including the lawsuits, etc. Ken Uston, may he rest in peace, no question in my mind had a very vivid imagination. You're probably not going to believe this but casino owners actually had to love Ken Uston. Uston conned me and millions of others into believing that blackjack could be beat. Well who's beating it and who ever did beat it? Where's the proof? How about nobody was really beating it. Those teams of card counters did not succeed - Ken Uston even admitted much later that after these failures he got involved in selling real estate. He basically made a living as a con artist, not as a gambler. No question that he was simply an addicted gambler.
You can believe these various gambling stories if you want to Brian - I'll admit...I used to believe them...but not anymore. I woke up to reality that trying to make money against a gambling industry run game just is never going to happen for anyone...it never has happened and it never will happen...that includes online poker. I personally believe that online poker is going to go down in history as one of the biggest scams of the 21st century.
Steve
Tabe
I do have one exception to your argument, tho.....video poker.
I moved here to Las Vegas about 4 years ago after selling my business. I like the shows, the golf, the winter weather, and gamble recreationally.....less than 5% of my discretionary income.
I originally limited myself to the games I enjoyed most....live poker and craps.....and read many books on the subjects to maximize my odds (which translates to minimizing my loses and money management).
On vacation, which definitely qualifies as short term outcome, these games were fun and profits could be realized; but within the first 4 months of living here, I could see that the only thing to be gained by participating in these games, was entertainment.....and at some point, even with expertise, which lowers the house edge to percentage points, was too expensive.
Then, about 3 years ago, I stumbled into a free Bob Dancer seminar. I never liked video poker, so I never even put a nickel into a machine. But I am a math major and statistics minor, and was intrigued when I learned of the player edge on some machines.....if played 100% correctly.
The game I have been playing ever since is full-pay deuces wild, which pays 100.51%. If you understand long-term odds, which was your argument against gambling as these always favor the house, you know that these odds are approached as hands played approaches infinity....in other words, the more hands you play (correctly, of course) the closer you will get to that mathematical number, which in this case is .51% edge over the house....I would assume, since royal flushes figure into the equation and that the frequency of this hand is one in over 55,000 hands, that at least 20 to 30 times this number of hands has to be played before this number is approached within .05% (about a million to a million and a half hands).
Now, you must play at a coin level which will allow for 'dry' or losing periods so that you can weather those times, so I only play at the dime (50 cents per hand) level. And since I still need a play chart card, my play is slower than normal, so I play about 300 hands per hour. I have kept a log over this period, and to date I have played over 1.2 million hands (which translates to about 4000 hours of play...about 25 hours per week) and my winnings tally is $3050. which calculates to .5083%, pretty close. Remember also, that in those hours of play I have received comps in cash and food of over an additional $1000. which must be added to net gain. So, as you can see, at about $1/hour over three years, you cannot make a living at this, but that was and is not my intention. If it were, I would be playing the $5. machines which would multiply that number by 50. What the house does to counteract this, is lower the payoff on one of the hands, lowering the percentage to .03% in the case of $25. and $100. machines, otherwise everyone would be after them. It is simply an entertainment decision that is not only free, but that pays me to play, eat, drink, and socialize....not a bad way to spend one's remaining years.
The reason the house keeps these machines is that the average tourist/player plays at a much lower level, so the machine's income is still sufficient enough to keep them on the floor. Add this to the fact that lower paying/higher house edge machines, which are unnoticed by the vacationer, are in much higher abundance and more than make up for the lower percentage machines. As a note, casinos will not eliminate the player/edge machines simply because of the income generated by local play......they dont mind a small percentage of players even making $5/hour (the quarter rate) due to the revenue gained by many of these players in their restaurants and shops, and in some cases, getting bored of video poker and indulging in some table games (not me, lol).
Jim
Stevek, although we may disagree, I do respect your POV too.
The only BJ I played was for recreation on a cruise with my family, and I did win a several hundred bucks playing $5 hands. I bought a nice watch in the Caymans with the winnings
I can see where your coming from with the bad math statement, but blackjack is purely mathematical. If played with a normal deck, and if the player does all the "correct" moves, the player will still lose. This is not an opinion it is a fact - I haven't studied the statistics behind it, but they obviously support this claim.
Now onto card counting:
Let's took at a few silly examples - the deck consists of 10's and face cards. Thus every card in the deck is a "10" value. Will the player lose? No, every hand the player will tie the dealer and push. Let's add aces to the deck. Will the player win? Yes, both will get 21 frequently, but since blackjack pays 3-2, the player will win in the long run. I know this is a silly example, but my point is if the deck is not full/missing certain value cards, the odds will adjust, and in some cases, albeit less frequently, even in the player’s favor.
I haven't studied the statistical framework that can prove the house's edge on a normal game, but this has always interested me. I'm working on a master's in mechanical engineering right now studying multi-phase flow, and much of the information we know comes from experimental evidence. The same could apply here: Basically one could write an algorithm for blackjack and fill in the deck as a typical deck. It would then simulate hands, tally the wins and losses, and run until the number of games played approaches infinity. Then one could deduce the odds from this. Next, change the deck with counts of "1", "2", etc. Again run until infinity and determine the odds. I'd imagine an empirical formula for odds as a function of count could be extrapolated from this. The only problem I see with this is that logic may change - if one knows the count is high, they may be less apt to "hit" thus the algorithm is more complex in that it involves “fuzzy-logic”. Needless to say, I find it interesting and eventually I'll look into it more seriously.
Brian
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
Brian - I would really like to see the results of your study. Sounds most interesting and certainly right up my alley. Master's in Mechanical Engineering - Fantastic! You're a lot smarter than me. I'm a Finance major graduate from Penn State so I hope I'm not too dumb to understand your formula. I was fairly intelligent when entering Penn State and for two years at a local Penn State campus just outside Philly, but after two years of heavy alcohol consumption while up at State College, that destroyed most of my brain cells. That Iron City brand beer is absolutely brutal. But we drank it anyway because it was cheap - LOL
Steve
Wouldn't trade those college years though.
It is impossible to beat the game of online poker in the long-run. That is a fact. There will be coming soon a new article which will go into more detail about this. I'll post the link in this thread when it's ready - might be a few weeks or so.
There is a huge conflict of interest with ANY website that proclaims the chances of winning money at online poker, but has advertising for multiple poker websites on there. I know how website "hits" work - you probably get paid per hit or get paid on a piece of the gambler's losses or whatever for leading gamblers to these online poker websites. Please don't deny that! Hey, I'm not being a hypocrite with anyone trying to make a buck off a good website - but making a buck stating that is possible to win money playing online poker is exactly like a scam in my opinion. I don't like scammers on ebay as many here know, and I don't like people falsely proclaiming how glorious it is to win huge amounts of money playing online poker. If you edit your entire last post, then I will edit this entire post.
If you want to prove me wrong, then post scans of your tax returns from online poker winnings along with a letter from a CPA and the documentation proving your winnings. Also post scans of your credit card transactions backing up these winning figures. Or just post it on your website. If someone is openly claiming that they win money playing online poker, then they have already opened themselves up to possible IRS scrutiny, so why not post the scans of the documents to prove these winnings? Gambling winnings are taxable just like normal income - as you probably know.
I have never seen documentation such as this on any website so until then ANYONE stating how money can be made in the long-run playing online poker against a house cut is only a rumor.
Steve
I can assure you that is not true--- and, I'll put my money where my mouth is. No, I'm not going to post tax returns, etc., here or anywhere else. But I'll offer you this proposition. You name an online poker room, and I'll play 10,000 hands in that poker room. If I'm up after those 10,000 hands you owe me $1000. If I'm not, I owe you $1000. To be fair, I will give you access to my account at that poker room-- my password, etc, and I will have all hand histories forwarded to you. In other words, you name the conditions under which my activities in that account are sufficiently 'transparent', and I will abide by those conditions.
My only request is that we put the money in escrow-- either with a trusted third party here or through an escrow service. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.
Keep in mind that I use the term "long-run" because it is impossible to beat the game of poker against a house cut in the long-run. With 10,000 hands, you could get fortunate and win a poker tournament jackpot or two in the beginning and then possibly be up some money after 10,000 hands - EXTREMELY unlikely but it's possible. Like the Chris Moneymaker syndrome - he got lucky and hit the lottery winning the World Series of Poker, but he has admitted that he is an addicted gambler and if he keeps playing long enough against a house cut, all that WSOP money will eventually be gone.
You've been playing full time since 1998 - the documentation I requested would be by far the best way to really "prove" you have been making money playing online poker - and I think you already know that. Hey, I'm a realist. I won't ever encourage or advocate gambling, but I do state that money can be won in the long-run by the best players playing in private cash poker games without any house cut of any kind. That is a fact so that can't be denied. Denying that money can be made playing online poker in the long-run is easy - because it can't be done no matter how anyone spins it.
So your offer has to be refused, however so tempting that it is - that would be virtually like handing me $1,000 - very tempting - LOL. Yes, I'd easily win your $1,000 but then I'd just be back in the gambling habit again and blow it at some casino, racetrack or other gambling venue and then windup losing a lot more. That's the way gambling works my fellow card collector. Gambling is a waste of money. time and life and I ain't doing it anymore!
Steve
Sorry you couldn't keep your gambling under control. Good for you for getting out.
Just to clarify-- I will play 10,000 hands in cash games; no tournaments. Also, if 10,000 hands isn't enough of a long run for you, then you can specify how many hands you'd like me to play.
For what I think are obvious and understandable reasons I'm not posting information about my personal finances on a public Internet forum. But I think this would be a fair and equitable way to decide this issue. Like I said, you can name your stipulations; all I will do is play the agreed-upon number of hands.
One thing we could do is set it up so your $1000-- should you win-- will purchase an Ebay gift certificate, or perhaps $1000 worth of cards from a large dealer; Dave and Adams, or our own Jay Wolt, or whomever you so desire. Or, it could go directly to a tax-deductable charity of your choice. This will allow you to reap the rewards of our wager without being tempted to blow the money gambling.
Again, let me know.
Boopotts - Thank you - I appreciate that! I've always stated that I never met a fellow baseball card collector who I didn't like and that includes you. I don't dislike gamblers, in fact I've never rooted against a gambler in my life and I never will. My dislike is for owners of gambling businesses who are fleecing millions of people out of their money, and harming and destroying more and more lives everyday - this definitely isn't a rumor.
Just to get this out of the way - your "bet offer" ain't gonna happen, so let's forget about it - it's still gambling any which way it could be proposed. If you want to bury me in some fashion for not accepting the offer then so be it. I stated that I knew we weren't going to agree about this. Do me a favor and wait for the new article - I'll post the link in this thread - I would like to hear your comments on it good or bad if you so choose to make any comments on it at all.
The problem Boopotts is that most, if not virtually all gamblers cannot control themselves. And I'm not talking about the little old ladies who go to a casino a few times a year and blow $20 in the quarter slot machines - I'm talking about "real" gamblers. The type who are playing online gambling games many hours per day, who are at the horse racetrack on a regular basis, who go to the casino every weekend, who spend countless hours on stock market day trading techniques trying to beat the stock market, who buy handicapping books and magazines attempting to beat the sports bookies, etc., etc. ALL these people have been harmed by gambling - it's only a matter of degree. And most of these people are addicted to gambling whether they realize it or not, and whether they want to admit it or not.
Of course not every gambler is destitute, homeless or in debt up to their ears - but it is a certainty that at the very least they've got less money in their bank account than what would have been there without gambling. Maybe some gamblers wouldn't consider just having less money in their bank account being harmed or addicted to gambling - that would be their perspective.
But it is necessary to warn people about the realities and consequences of gambling. Because it is not difficult to go from losing money gambling as seemingly "fun and recreation" to before fully realizing what is happening - blowing a whole bank account and having to sell off some or all of your baseball cards to payoff some gambling debts. I have personally known gamblers who lost their homes, cars and other assets to gambling and these are not isolated incidents. They lose it to the likes of Donald Trump, Steve Wynn and other gambling industry owners. Gambling is on a popular hot streak right now but most things like this windup going full circle. Some day hopefully soon, when people fully realize what a sham gambling is, especially online poker, people will no longer be interested in playing these foolish sucker's games.
You obviously seem like an intelligent guy and have nice talent with website design and probably other things. Hopefully someday you'll use these skills to make a buck from doing something which benefits society, rather than partaking in a blood-sucking, parasitic industry such as gambling.
Best regards.
Steve
First, I'm not going to bury you for not taking the bet. However, I would ask that you retract your statements in an earlier thread that refer to me as a 'scammer'. I'm not a dishonest guy. The fact is, Steve, is that gambling-- in particular sports betting and poker-- have been exceptionally good to me. I don't have to work. I don't have to kiss anyone's behind. I can stay home and watch my son grow up, and spend time with my family whenever I like. I have no schedule. I have no dress code. In short, I have avoided those things that can make life in America so utterly unbearable.
The one thing I do have to deal with are swings. I'm the only guy I know who can 'go to work', so to speak, and end the day with less money than I started with. But that's just an occupational hazard. The cold fact is that online poker can be beaten, and is being beaten for very healthy sums by people who've committed themselves to learning the game and playing the right way. Now you may consider that parasitic, but I'm of the school that adults should be allowed to do what they want with their own money. If they want to buy drugs, then in my opinion they should be able to do so. Guns? Again, no problem. Hookers, lap dances, pornography? Whatever pops your corn. Gambling? Again, it's your money ,and you should be able to utilize it in the way that you see fit. If I know more about the game then you, then I take your paycheck. If you know more than me, you take mine. That's the deal, and nobody who sits down at the green baize should ever think otherwise.
I started my website for two reasons. First, poker has been a blessing for me, and I want to try and teach other people how the game can financially enrich their lives. That's why I have all the strategy articles and poker room reviews. Second, my sister is also a poker player, and it was a chance for us to work on a project together; something most grown men don't get an opportunity to do with a sibling. Now I know that gambing can ruin lives-- I'm fully aware of that. I have friends in Denver who've lost everything-- and I do mean everything-- by gambling. But it's shortsighted and unfair to denounce all forms of gambling simply because you have a problem. This is tantamount to the sanctimonious AA'er who gets on his pedastal at the drop of a hat and holds forth on the evils of alcohol. OK, so booze ruined your life. That sure as hell doesn't mean it's ruined everyone elses. And the same, I think, can be said for poker. Some people can't control themselves. Too bad for them. Others of us, however, have profited immensely from poker. Good for us!
In any case, best of luck to you on your on going recovery. From what I've seen kicking a gambling habit can be far more difficult than kicking a heroin or alcohol addiction. I know you have an uphill battle, and I admire your perseverence. Should you change your mind on my offer, PM me. Otherwise I'll let the issue drop. We have divergent opinions on this issue, but I will do my part not to let this discussion degenerate into a flame war.
Lastly, should anyone have any poker related questions feel free to PM me. In addition to my website I've had articles published in Bluff Magazine and PokerTurn (a Canadian monthly), and you can find my stuff on winneronline.com and pokerpages.com. When it comes to limit Texas hold 'em believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about.
Best,
Boo
You are actually slicker than I initially thought - you are very clever in your portrayal of gamblers, and addicted gamblers. You have learned well from your gambling industry comrades. I have seen all this language you use before from other gambling industry articles and websites - nothing new. However you lose credability by calling someone sanctamonious regarding gambling when I clearly stated the facts about winning money playing poker in private cash games.
Gambling in other forms such as starting one's own business, buying and selling of real estate, and many other types can be profitable. I am strictly against these gambling industry owned and operated games such as online poker, EVERY one of which is a total sucker's game. Anyone in the gambling industry can spin it any way they want to and they have spun things very cleverly to entice millions of people into losing a lot of their hard-earned money. The gambling industry has fooled millions of people and are trying their best to continue this charade. This charade will end - just a question of when so enjoy your profits while you can.
And PS: You know something Boo - I actually believe you when you say poker and sports betting have been good to you. But I know and you know that it hasn't been from your gambling. You are most probably making a very good buck off of your website hits and your commissions received from the online casinos. I imagine that you get a very nice check each month from these gambling websites - courtesy of the losing online poker players. Your website by the way is one of the best designed gambling websites I have seen out there. Extremely well done. Sort of reminds me of one of those spectacular spider webs that you see after a rainstorm - magnificently spun and just waiting to catch some unsuspecting victims.
Steve
My website makes me less than $300 a month.
I'm going to drop this now. Anytime you want to 'put up or shut up' you can contact me. Otherwise I think this discussion has come to an end.
And thanks for the kind words regarding the website. We worked hard on it, so it's nice to see our efforts weren't in vain.
In the end game Boo it is not you who I dislike - not even close. Doesn't matter what you may think of me. I know you are just trying to make a living for your family and son and I have to admire and respect that. It is the owners of these gambling websites and casinos who I have disdain for.
Again...Best regards
Steve
Steve, you say impossible to beat the game of online poker in the long-run; therefore, if Boo plays in the long-run, he is guaranteed to lose by your logic. Thus, it would not be a “gamble” to take Boo’s offer since his demise is a certainty as you so put it. I’m not trying to egg anyone on, but this issue was vague.
Say we were playing “war” or flipping coins against each other – some arbitrary game where we have a 50/50 shot at winning or losing, evidently if the house began to take a cut, neither of us could win.
You guys know a helluva lot more about online poker than me so my next few statements may not be totally correct - correct me if I'm wrong. From the little I’ve seen of online poker, yes, money is not conserved. Money is being shuffled around amongst players and each time the house takes a cut. Therefore the average player loses. This is opposed to a rake-less game where the average player breaks even. However, to claim that no one can win, doesn’t seem right. Poker is not solely based on luck; there is a human aspect in it. Sure more people lose than win - maybe a lot more. But due to the human aspect, you cannot dismiss that someone may win at online poker even in the long-run. Just because the house is making money doesn’t necessarily mean all the players are losing. You cannot mathematically prove that it’s impossible to beat, like you can do so for table games – this is my concern.
Sports betting is under the same classification in my opinion. Take an NFL spread – if it was “no juice” then the average player breaks even. The “juice” guarantees the house will make money so long as the action is consistent on both sides, but the juice doesn’t guarantee a player’s downfall as there’s more than luck involved.
Steve, concerning the blackjack post, I think you made a reference to if certain cards were removed a player could win. I borrowed the book from someone so I will try to reference that next time I see it. As for my research, I’ll look more into it when I get back on campus and can use some of my more computer savvy friend’s brains
Brian