Friday, November 28, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 10:44 AM
Poker and Statistics - Like Beer and Pizza!
Like Dr Fro, I have also been keeping records of my poker results. I got lazy for a while and didn't keep track of anything for more than a year, but I started up again in July and I'm beginning to accumulate enough data to start making observations. I've made some graphs that are quite interesting (click on the graphs to open larger versions).

First off - I'm taking time out from tournaments, too.

The first thing you'll see from this graph is that I'm down $465 since July. The next thing you'll notice is my bad day in Vegas earlier this month (more on that below), and the third thing you will see is probably that $435 of my total losses is from playing in big tournaments with large buyins ($100+) and forty or more players. While the poker "revolution" has been great both for the attention that the game is getting and the increase in action from bad players, a lot of newer players are naturally drawn to wanting to repeat what they see on television and thus are wanting to play in tournaments. Granted, as I have extolled in this space many times before, these tournaments can be very lucrative opportunities against (usually) poor competition, but the tournament structure itself limits the extent to which that poor competition can be exploited. Tournaments require one to be lucky (or at least to avoid being un-lucky) for a long period of time before any positive return can be realized, while it only takes one big hand for a cash game to become profitable.

Another way to look at this: Even if my skill and experience were to increase my chances in a 50 player tourment by a factor of 10, that would still just improve my chances from 1 in 50 (pure luck) to 1 in 20 - only 5%! Assuming that the entry fee in every tournament I play is $100 (which is on the low side), that means I could end up dropping $2000 (or likely more) in entry fees before I could expect to start seeing the benefits of this "lucrative" opportunity. Granted, this reasoning is slightly simplistic because I could at least finish "in the money" in a couple of tournaments and at least get some money back, but that money still probably wouldn't be enough to cover my losses in all of the other tournaments where I win nothing.

So if tournaments are bad bets for me and I'm so sure that I have a positive expectation from just grinding away in cash games, then just exactly how much should I expect to win in a cash game? That's the next graph:

This is a graph of a normalized distribution of my hourly results in cardroom (casino style) games since July. There are 56 hours of data there. If you're not familiar with a normal distribution, it can best be explained as a chart that shows the the forecasted results of a series of trials (events) on the x-axis, and on the y-axis, the percentage of trials that achieve each particular result. In this case, the chart is showing my expected results in big bets won or lost for each hour of poker played. For example, if you look at the dashed pink line, I should expect to win just over 4.5 big bets per hour 20% of the time I am playing cards in a cardroom. This chart was created by taking a weighted average of the results of my hours of play and then finding a standard deviation per hour, then applying those two pieces of data to a normal distribution (this is Freshman Statistics 101 - just trust me if you don't understand it).

There are actually two distributions on this graph because of those 56 hours, 3.5 were played in a daytime mid-limit game in Las Vegas (Bellagio 8/16). I lost 10 big bets an hour and slightly went on tilt enough to where I think that time was indicative neither of my normal game nl results - the players were much better, the stakes were higher, and the game was much tougher than my usual 3/6/12 action at the FSC. For all of these reasons, I debated whether to include these hours at all and compromised by making two curves - one that includes these hours and one that doesn't. Quite clearly, those 3.5 hours had a significant effect on my analysis because dropping them out increased my average result by almost one full bet (and from positive to negative) and it reduced my standard deviation (the variability of results and "spread" of the curve), too.

So what does this graph tell me? For one thing, it says that, at least based on the 53 hours I have played since July, I have a positive expectation per hour of slightly more than half a big bet, and, for all of you stats literate readers, 95% of the time I should expect my results to be within a range of -7.7 and +8.8 bets per hour. This is still a fairly large spread and my mean earnings number is still less than the 1 big bet per hour that all of the expert writers claim should be the goal of most players. I will continue to update this analysis as I keep playing - I would expect that my mean results will slowly increase and the standard deviation will slowly decrease. More later.

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 8:09 AM
Where have I heard this before?

Tuesday night at the Friendship Club.

Dealer: "There's the last card. Johnny Mac is first to act."

Johnny Mac: "I bet $6"

Dealer: "Mr. Singletary, $6 to you."

Mr. Singletary: "I call."

Dealer: "OK, show 'em... Looks like Mr. Singletary has the nut flush... and... full house down here for Johnny Mac, fours full of aces."

Dumbass #1: "Why didn't you bet the full $12?"

Dumbass #2 (The "Hat Man"): "I'll tell you why! He didn't know what he had! He misread his hand! HAR HAR!"

Johnny Mac: "HA HA - you got it! I'm a freakin' idiot! You guys caught me! Duuuuuuh! "

Mr. Singletary: (very thoughtfully and slowly) "No, no, no. He knew what he was doing. If he had bet $12 I would have folded."

Dumbass #1: Really? An ace-high flush is a pretty good hand!"

Mr. Singletary: "It doesn't beat a full house! I thought he was just betting a smaller flush!"

Honestly, I still don't think those guys understood my reason for the $6 bet, even after Mr. Singletary explained it himself.

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 4:02 PM
No Limit Tournament Primer

Good advice, but I don't think I'll be using it anytime soon. I am going to take a bit of a break from NL tournaments. I like them, but daddy only gets x number of hours to play poker and I'd rather use up my free passes playing cash games, where I can win much more often than I do at tournaments and get a better rate per hour.

(0) comments

Monday, November 24, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 8:54 PM
The Greene Friday night crowd stats.

I keep track of every penny won and lost gambling. I decided to look at my results and see what conclusions can be drawn about playing with the Greene Friday night crowd.

I have played 16 times and won $1,170. I have 15 winning sessions that average $84.60 with one loss for $99. The overall average is $73.13. Sounds like easy money, right? I don’t think so. Let’s look further:

My six biggest scores occurred in 2000 and 2001, with an average score of $162.80. Yet my three worst outings occurred this year (-$99, +$12, +14).

My running average has decreased 13 straight games, with one 50 cent exception.

Clearly this is a trend, but what does it mean? I can think of several possible explanations:

1) The competition has gotten better; or they have improved at a greater rate than I have.

2) I have gotten worse.

3) The games called are different and give me less of an advantage.

4) Bad luck

5) They are on to me.

I will throw out number 2 because I don’t think it is common for ANYONE to actually get worse at poker if they play regularly. Perhaps someone can get rusty after a long break, but I don’t think I am worse. I will also throw out number 4 because the trend is so overwhelming. Last, I will throw out number 5. One day, we were “on” to Glazer and learned to just call his aggressive bets. But I don’t think there is anything about me that everyone is “on” to. I don’t think I have a bad tell or a glaring weakness that is being taken advantage of.

So it is a combination of 1 and 3, and I think that 1 is the answer.

With 3, I have to say that this definitely is a factor. We used to play games where I had a massive advantage like Hold’em or Anaconda. But now there is a lot of 7-27 where I don’t think I have any advantage at all. I would say my EV on Hold’em could be as much as $20 per hour, but at 7-27 it is $0.

But the biggest factor is people have gotten better. The two guys I used to win the most from were Romberger (sp?) and Nichol. Rom is gone and Nichol has improved by leaps and bounds. So while the average player is by no means ready for the WSOP, there is clearly a lack of people making massively wrong decisions.

This shouldn’t be any great surprise - there is a real survival of the fittest thing in poker games. If you don’t improve, you eventually lose too much and stop playing.

Since the primary reason I play in the game is for fun, I welcome the improved play. It adds to the fun for sure. However, I am going to need a new game on the side to replace the lost income. Anybody know Ted’s phone number?

(0) comments

Sunday, November 23, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 7:01 PM
We played at John’s on Friday, usual stakes of 25c-$3, dealer’s choice. Biggest hand of the night was 7-27 for $170. I got half with 27 for $85, but I put $55 in, so I only cleared $30. Big hands defined the night, and I ended up +$12. Big winner took home about $140.

One person committed one of my pet peeves, which inspired me to post all of my pet peeves. This is not a bitch list, because I always have fun. Yet, I would have more fun, if people stopped doing the following:

Not paying attention. It’s your turn, its only 50 cents. Just fold, call or raise. Don’t tell me a story about work. It’s annoying. Play poker.

Arguing about rules when you are clearly wrong. It is ok to argue the rules in the exotic games because in all likelihood, the dealer did not spell them all out. But if we are playing for instance Texas Holdem, there is no need to argue about the rules. There is only one way to play. Same with Omaha, stud, and draw. If you think differently, then you are wrong.

Getting pissed at others for not doing what you want them to do. For instance you and the hero are going low and a third person is going high. You raise and the hero doesn’t like it because he knows that he is putting in a third for a shot at a half. He lectures you. He is wrong to do that for two reasons. One, you may have a perfect low and therefore correct in raising. But also, his lecturing is constructively table talk which is strictly against the rules for good reason. It is collusion against the third player.

Cutting to the left. You cut to the right. There is a reason for this.

Buring and turning early. Wait until all the betting is done, then burn then turn. Again, there is a reason for this. Surely you are bright enough to understand it.

Dealing and THEN calling the game. Especially ater there are up cards. God this is annoying.

Acting as if a question is unreasonable. If we play chase the bitch, I want to know what happens when the last up card is a Queen at the onset of the game. So, when I ask, don’t give me that look of “oh shut up” just answer the bloody question.

Always throwing in the low denomination chips. OK, if you have a mountain of quarters, you can throw them in the pot, but please don’t count out $3 worth of quarters to call every single time. It slows down the game when you call, when we split the pot and again when the winners stack their chips.

Thinking for 2 minutes to call a game. Look, you have had an hour to think of a game, and now that its showtime, you have stagefright? Lets just cut the deck for high card, highest card gets to punch you in the face, and then the deal passes to your left.

Some of my favorite things are: gracious winners, nice guys, good players, a decent mix of whacky games with real games and pizza, all of which were present on Friday.


(0) comments

Saturday, November 22, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 1:28 AM
People are playing cards in illegal games in Dallas? Scandalous! I can't believe this is going on! Goodness! What are we going to do? I mean, we all know that drug laws work really well, so why don't laws against illicit gambling? Someone call the police!

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 1:18 AM
Not sure what I think about this. A no-limit holdem tournament for charity.

It might be good, might not be. I need to think about my opinion and I'll post something later. In the meantime, feel free to leave comments.

My initial thought is to say that $200 and 200 players is just a huge gamble, esp if there is no cash payoff and only 8 players any of the prizes. Then again, it is probably one of the coolest methods of charitable giving I have seen in some time and if you do get lucky the prizes are fairly substantial.

(0) comments

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 10:23 PM
Thoughts on the big bet on the end

I played for a couple of hours tonight at the Friendship Club and won $5. The money wasn't so great, but I think I played very well and that's all I try to do nowadays - focus on making good decisions and the money will come... I hope.

Anyway, before the game started another player was making conversation and mentioned that in all of the poker books he's read, there are books on holdem and there are books on low-limit games, but as far as he could tell, there are no books that address low-limit holdem games with a big bet on the end. This is relevant because the "little game" at the Friendship is nominally a 3-6 holdem game with an optional $12 bet or raise on the last card. When I first started playing in this game, I hated that $12 bet because all it did was make the game unnecessarily expensive in my poor post-college point of view, especially when I was just learning the game myself, but now I see that bet as a useful tool for two very important reasons.

First, it provides improved implicit odds for drawing hands. A few more drawing hands become profitable because they can get paid off if they hit. This is primarily the reason I hated this bet when I started playing because I was trying to teach myself discipline and proper starting hands and that strategy was more vulnerable to bad beats from players with less discipline and poorer standards for starting hands than I had, but who nonetheless had a mathematical incentive to play with a weaker basic strategy than I. Now that I have a little experience and have improved a little bit, I find myself adapting to specific situations and not playing as rigidly as I once did. Accordingly, sometimes I now find myself in situations where the extra payoff at the end provides me an edge and I'm able to put the big bet to my own advantage. Mind you, this isn't a license for me to just start playing wild and as loose as my opponents, but it is a factor that allows me to be slightly more liberal in my calling standards when circumstances arise.

Second, the bet provides quite a strategic element to the game. It took me a while, but I eventually figured out that betting the maximize $12 on the end isn't necessarily the proper play all the time, especially if I am in early position and have the nuts or a hand that is a likely winner. Why? Because the bet represents scary strength to less sophisticated players and the last thing I want to do is scare off other players who might pay me off by calling a $6 bet but who might fold if I bet $12. This strategy is also very dependent on my own table image and my opinion of opponents - if they're going to call me anyway I might as well make the maximum bet no matter what. Similarly, there might be situations where I don't have the best hand and I don't want callers. In that case the $12 bet might be appropriate as a lead for the exact same reasons but in an opposite context.

To succeed at poker, you must have imagination and you must be able to think quickly. Playing "by the book" is a necessary step in learning, but eventually you have to start thinking on your own. Maybe there aren't any books that address the big bet on the end, but that doesn't mean you can't start thinking about it on your own.

(0) comments

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 9:33 PM
I finally finished the Feeney book this week and I still wholeheartedly recommend it. If you haven't been playing for a while or if you're new to holdem or poker generally, you might want to start with another book, but if you do have a fair amount of experience playing there are quite a lot of eye-opening concepts in there.

Now that I'm finished I moved on to a new book, or rather, I went back to an old book for a new look: David Sklansky's Theory of Poker. The copy I am reading is fairly stiff and new - a long time ago I had an old copy that I lent to Dr Fro and he loaned me Sklansky's Advanced Holdem book in return. We never returned our books to each other and instead agreed that since we each were going to buy a copy of the other book anyway, we might as well just keep the other's book and buy new copies of the ones we lent. As such the copy I have now is in near-new condition, though I read the book itself a long time ago.

I just started tonight and I had forgotten just how good a book it is. Even the preface is good, including this profound passage (note especially the wonderful use of the word "aberration"):

Jokers, wild cards, and special rules may be introduced into any of these games to create such aberrations as Baseball, Follow the Queen, Anaconda, and scores of other variations that have spiced up home poker for decades. Paradoxically, the two types of players who favor these exotic poker variations are generally amateurs who want a lot of action and hustlers who prey on these amateurs because their long experience allows them to adjust more easily to unusual games than their amateur opponents can. However, before a player can become an expert at exotic games, he must understand the basic concepts of standard games.

Take that, Chris Canonico!

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:19 PM
It is amazing how popular the game has now become.

(0) comments

Monday, November 17, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 3:23 PM
In this article Lou Kreiger makes a few good points.

Read Situation No 2. It is quite analogous to my (in)famous post re: Junell's tournament (I can't get the link to work). In NL, the guy should strongly consider a raise here. But in limit poker, he should fold. It is a very good example of a hand that plays differently in the 2 different structures

A second point made at the bottom of the article is to attack the small stacks and avoid battle with the big stacks, a bit of strategy that is often ignored by tournament newbies.

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 7:16 PM
I was in Vegas over the weekend for some sports gambling and poker. This is the first time I have ever been there for a football weekend and it definitely won't be the last. We had a blast - wake up early and grab breakfast, then head to the sports book to make our bets before sitting down in a poker game for the rest of the day. Not counting 3 hours of play on Monday morning (see below), I broke even on about 29 hours of poker and sports gambling and the only money I lost outright (-$150) was during two what-the-hell sessions of $5 blackjack. I have no reason to be upset about this because blackjack is designed for the player to lose and I had no illusions to the contrary when I sat down in the game.

Until this weekend, I had always played in the smallest limits that were offered - 2/4 and 4/8 holdem, mainly. For this trip, I I resolved to move up to the next limit so as to test myself against better competition, so I played mostly 6/12 and 8/16 holdem at the Mirage and Bellagio, respectively. I was pleasantly surprised with the results. Both games were much tougher than the little games - not necessarily tougher to beat, though, just tougher - mainly because they didn't have as many angry young posers or drunks and instead had more local players and semi-pros. There were still 2-3 loose tourists or foreign guys sprinkled in there, but without the implicit protection offered by playing with a lot of other bad players, their bad play got exposed a lot more and they seemed to lose more often when entering the pot with sub-standard holdings. For example, I got excited in these bigger limit games because I often was able to steal the blinds a few times or even occasionally chop my blind with another player, two things hardly ever happen in a wild low limit game. This was enjoyable because I was finally in a game where more advanced concepts mattered more towards winning than simply catching cards and outdrawing the other people at the table. It was rewarding to see Sklansky in practice rather than just as an idealized concept.

Anyway, I played well for the first 29 hours or so and I was pleased because I certainly wasn't the worst player at the table and I never got the impression that I was in over my head with much better players as I was fearing.

So what happend in the 8/16 game on Monday that was so different than the weekend? I hit a lot of second place hands and things got very expensive all at once. Then, to top it all off, once I got down a little bit and had given back all of my winnings and some more on top, I started to overplay some hands and call too many raises in the hopes of making a comeback. While I didn't go crazy and start playing any two cards, what I did was still a form of tilt. That is, I let my emotions influence me into making worse plays than normal, and I think it was mainly because the amount of money involved was a little higher than my comfort level. So I learned something.

The 8/16 was a good game, but I was ever so slightly in over my head and I'm probably not ready to move to that level (or 10/20) just yet. However, I am going to start playing some higher stakes than just the little-bitty games from now on, and I'm excited to know that I have reached to point in my game where I am ready to do so.

Maybe I didn't end up winning money in Vegas this weekend, but I did learn a lot about the quality of my game and that counts for a lot.

(0) comments

Monday, November 10, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 1:27 PM
Another evolution article here, but more personalized. I find this guy interesting due to many similarities between us:

1. Had a life-changing experience getting worked over in a small limits game & learned that he needed to improve.
2. Played pot-limit in Europe
3. Derives a lot of improvement from non-poker games (I play gin, bridge, chess, and have gambled on everything)
4. Heeds Daniel Negreanu's advice (see 2 posts down)

The thing I found most interesting was a short reference to the look he gets when he calls out people's hands. I used to do this all the time (e.g. "Okay, I have a flush, show me your trips") and it would completely freak people out, like I had some super power. This is a great way of knowing the quality of your opponents. When Glaze and I used to get bent over in a 5-10 Omaha8 game, the whole table would say, "ok Craig show me your A-2 with the ignorant end of the staight" I would think "How did they know?" Conversely, when people don't know how you knew what they held, you know you have a sucker. I've quit doing it now, because it sometimes has the effect of scaring off the customers.

(0) comments

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Posted by Johnnymac 7:26 PM
I stumbled across this essay at the 2+2 homepage. It's very simple and it's probably self-evident to a lot of people, but it's also true to life. The Different Stages in a Player's Life.

For the record, I consider myself to be in the "tight stage" right now and I've been there for a couple years now. I'm learning to be aggressive, but I'm still not comfotable risking large amounts of money in any one single bet. One way I have recently taught myself to be more aggressive and comfortable with large bets is to play No Limit and Pot Limit stakes. After calling some large bets and making large bets and raises of my own, a capped round of betting in a 5-10 holdem game doesn't seem that difficult. (Here comes stage 3!!! ha ha)

(0) comments

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 8:51 AM
Daniel Negreanu has had his fair share of success in tournaments. While this article doesnt get into a lot of math, it does, on the surface, contradict some points in popular tournament theory, including Sklansky's ideas.

Basically, if the tournament pays out 6 places (like JG's and my tournament) and there are 7 players left, should you play conservative and back into the money or play agressively? I think Daniel is right that you should play aggressively. This is because you know that others will Be playing too tight. So all you are doing is taking advantage of their mistakes. I have seen this pay dividends where a guy really increased his stack size at the bubble stage of the tournament, which put him in a great position to win it all. The only downside is that if his the chances he takes fail, he wins no money.

The only time this advice should not be followed, IMO, is when all 7 (or most of the 7) players are using this advice! In that case, let them duke it out, and you may back into 3rd place.

This is the one aspect of tournament poker that I have always struggled most with, so I am interested in reading your comments.

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 5:17 PM
Off topic, football post:

Interesting article about handicapping football games. The guy is spot on with regards to the fact the turnovers are sometimes random events that need to be ignored when handicapping a team, but often the turnovers are not random and must be considered in handicapping.

However, he makes a mistake in his last paragraph. He tries to prove that turnovers are leading indicators but only shows that turnovers in the past are highly correlated with past performance. DUH! He needs to show a point in the season where Team A lead the league in turnovers and then show how they performed ATS (that's against the spread in case you didn't know) from that point forward.

An interesting mistake to make from a pro.

(0) comments

Monday, November 03, 2003

Posted by Dr Fro 9:07 AM
A much better forum for discussions than rgp is 2+2. It is moderated (ala so it weeds out some riff raff. RGP is a better resource in terms of research because there are probably a million+ posts. What 2+2 lacks in quantity it makes up for in quality.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:55 AM
A little off-topic, but Jayson and I had a conversation a week ago that I thought I could elaborate on here. Many people have an immediate aversion to gambling. This is sometimes due to risk aversion. Some, however, are under the belief that all gambling carries a negative expected return. This is simply not true.

Almost all table games offer a negative expected return. We all know this, and this is the reason casinos stay in business. The sum of all parties' expected returns must net to $0, so if the house has a built in advantage, then you necessarily don't. In the long run, you can't expect to make money on craps, roulette, etc. To the best of my knowledge, there are only three forms of gambling where a player can expect a profit. This is not to say that all players can expect profit (remember: all expected returns must net to $0), but some may.

This is the easiest one to explain. First of all, there is no house take in a home game, so there are only two possible explanations of distributions of expected returns. Either a) everyone has a $0 expected return or b) some have positive and some have negative. I have actually met individuals that believe option A to be true. These people are mistaken. Once you recognise that individuals make decisions in poker and that some decisions are better than others, then it stands to reason that each time one player makes a sub optimal decision in the same situation that another player always makes the optimal decision, you now have one player with a positive expectation and one with a negative.

In card rooms, the house does have a take. As long as the positive expectation you have absent the house take exceeds the house take, you still have a positive expectation in card rooms. In other words, if you are good enough to win $40 per hour and the house charges $10 an hour, you still make $30 an hour. Of course the guy that expects to lose $40 per hour now expects to lose $50 an hour.

I think most people are familiar with the term "basic strategy." It is often represented in tabular format on little cards. Basically, for every combination of your hand and the dealers up card, there is one course of action that has the best expectation of all options. I don't remember the exact number, but I recall that even using basic strategy, you should expect to lose 0.5% of all money wagered. Negative expectation. Bad. However, if you are capable of counting cards, then you can flip that expectation into a positive. This is because you have greater information about the composition of the remaining cards. There are more card counting strategies out there than you can shake a stick at, and choosing from them basically involves a trade off between higher positive expected returns and complexity. I am quite good at math and memory, yet I cannot master even the simplest card-counting strategies. I would venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of people that claim they can count cards actually cannot. That leaves a small group out there that is making money playing blackjack. But they are there. Why does a casino offer a game where players may expect to win in the long run? Because the amount they lose to counters is immaterial to the heap of money they will take from the rest of us.

There is a misconception out there that all lines are set with some sort of omnipotent power such that it is impossible to win more than 50% of your bets. This is simply false. Lines are set by humans in anticipation of what other humans may bet such that 50% of the money is put on each side of the line. Thus, they are prone to inaccuracy. Lines move over the course of a week and this is evidence of the inaccuracy of which I write.

People will quickly believe that certain money managers are capable of beating the stock market, yet they scoff at the idea that an individual can beat the bookie. In finance, there is a "strong market theory"that basically asserts that stocks are priced perfectly such that nobody can expect to do any better in the stock market picking stocks than they could by throwing darts at the WSJ. I ask subscribers to this theory to explain to me the likes of Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch and watch them try to argue their way out of a paper bag.

Use similar logic as the home poker game argument I made above. If the net expected return of all punters (that' a good British word for gambler) is $0 (absent juice) then every time an idiot places a bet with a negative expected return, then the pro should have an equal and opposite return. Remember, the bookie does not care if the line is accurate he just wants your dollar and the idiots dollar on opposite sides of the line. So, say the omnipotent odds maker knows that the Horns should be favored over the Ags by 20. The idiot is willing to take the Ags at any line greater than 15. The savvy omnipotent pro of course is happy to take UT minutes 19 or more or the Ags plus 21 or more. Odds maker does not set the line at 20, or else he gets only the bet on A&M. He sets it at 18, gets money on both sides. Play the game 1,000,000 times and the savvy pro wins more often than the idiot.

But there is juice of 10% on winnings, so you must win 52.4% of the time to stay ahead. (That's +52.4 - 47.6*1.1 = 0.04, which is positive)

The sport betting of course includes horses, etc.

The most important difference between betting on a game versus the spin of a roulette wheel is that the outcome of the game is not a random event. The other difference is that not all punters have the same information. As with the stock market, the one with the best information and the best ability to draw conclusions from that information will come out ahead.

(0) comments

Random thoughts from a lawyer, an accountant, a commodities trader, an ex-Marine and a WSOP Main Event money finisher that don't know as much as they wish they did...



Home Page


What's this all about? Poker. Why we like poker. What we have to say about poker. How we play poker.

Why isn't it gambling?


09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009

The Doctor is IN

Dr Fro
aka "slow roller"

Which one is the fish?

aka "Sunday Stroller"

You go now!

Johnny Mac
aka "Chop Suey"

You got to know when to hold em;  Know when to Mo' em ...

aka "Mo roller"

Old School

"Baby's Daddy"

free hit counter


Beautiful handmade receiving blankets. Get yours today in flannel or seersucker.

Get Flash

I play poker at