blonde poker forum

I hate it when people buy in to a cash game win a big pot (sometimes a small pot) then leave straight away. It drives me insane and i think they are pathetic.

Anyone agree?

So if you have a really big win at the bookmakers do you

1) Leave the shop with your winnings

or

2) Stand there feeling a little sorry for the bookmaker thinking to yourself "well maybe i should stick around and donate some of my money back to him"

Its up to them IMO.  For every person who does that, there are a dozen who buy in with far too little for the level, try to get lucky, lose and leave.  Swings and roundabouts.

To me gambling is a business, i am in it to make a profit - be it against a bookmaker, a casino or other poker players. I feel i need to set myself a limit as to how much i am going to win or lose. Once i have lost my allocated limit, i get up and i walk away regardless of who i am trying to win from - the same with winning, once i have made my allocated profit i get up and walk away.

Having the discipline to do it is the hard part for a gambler but it is one that is essential. Some say its wrong to leave a game if the conditions are in your favour but how many times have people said that "i'm on a roll, i cant lose" only to then give back what they've already won.

Of course it's up to them but there isn't much honour in it.
I particularly hate it when someone comes on and performs a horrific outdraw then leaves immediately.


Don't get me started on the people who buy in for $5 dollars a go on a $100 table, they should be strung up.

People buying in for the minimum is great - they usually lose it really quickly and it keeps the table topped up with cash!

I dont gamble for honour - i gamble for profit

those small stacks buy in small gamble like mad, triple up and leave.
What do i stand to gain from them and what do they stand to gain from me, i don't mind putting my money up against someone else but when they have produced a number of sick outdraws and actually have a stack that can dent mine considerably they still play it like it's their $5 buy in and go for any draw with no odds and usually hit it. They have an edge if they can parlay their $5 up to something significant and still p[lay it like it's $5.

Ditto.  I know exactly what you mean, but at the end of the day most people want to make a bit of cash along the way.  If they are a pants player and have just got lucky, don't worry it they walk away... I'm sure they'll be back... and hopefully you'll be at the same table as them when they do come back...

I see your point from a cardrooms perspective.

It is Etiquette to announce last three hands, even if you don't play them. When someone comes in and plays one hand and takes the money of the table, it sometimes kills a reasonable game. I have seen a player who does this regularly, walk to an empty seat in cash game as he was first on the waiting list, and all the players stopped the game stood up and all put their names down at the bottom of the waiting list. This maybe chopping their nose off to spite their face, but I think the hit and run player got the message!

Wait, you don't like people with large stacks playing really badly either?

Great post Matt.

Something I need to do more often. The leaving a table when I have lost my "allocated" loosing amount I have mastered, its the leaving a table when reaching the "allocated" winning amount thats the problem. Because if I sit down at 4 tables of $2 $4 and double up early on 2 or 3 of the tables, for me it is hard to leave as I want to play for a "set" amount of time. Something I need to work on.

As for people buying in for the minimum, getting lucky then leaving - good luck to them. For how many of those there are, it is alot less than the people who buy in for the minimum and loose!

When i play cash games i do usually buy in for the maximum but have no qualms about anyone else buying in for as little as they like and how long they stay.

Generally short stacks are poor/weak players and usually give their little bit of money to the table and leave.

I have personally experimented buying in with a Short stack and have found it profitable if played properly, wait for a good spot to double up and then leave. When you see a short stack sit at a cash table you automatically sterotype that player as weak and will try and push them around if you are involved in a pot with them. I am guilty of this myself when short stacks sit at my table and constantly see other players doing the same. You can use this stereotyping to your advantage and make some decent cash. I personally play with the max buy in as i love playing flops and the streets. But give it a try, buy in as a short stack say 1/4 of the buy in and watch people try and run you out of the pot everytime, often with them having marginal holdings

I think there is adifferent etiquette betwqeen live and online


Live I would never leave asap after a big win and would announce to the tabel I am intending to leave a round before I do so

Online I have no qualms about leaving asap, I am doing it to turn a profit and achieve an hourly win rate etc...why shouldn't I get up?

Love to see shortstacks at my table too, generally poorer players and my variance reduces because though I am not going to win ther max from a big hand I am going to lose less from a "whole stack moment" if a biggie is cracked


Finally, I always leave after I have hit a stop loss, never reload and start again...leave it a while and start again with a new mindset and not chasing losses

 

They may play one hand in that session, they may play 1000 in the next. Its all relevant. However long they stay for, don't let it get to you just remember that cash is one long game.

In fact if I know that it winds people up, the next time I double up in hand one, I might leave the room and return to the same game under a different account in the hope that I have tilted someone! ;)

Whilst your motives may have a devious streak about them, telling people that you have multiple accounts on a public forum is probably not a good idea.

Just ask JJ Prodigy and ZeeJustin...............

It is not against the rules to have multiple accounts providing you don't money launder between the two accounts or enter the same game at the same time and thus avoid collusion.

What JJ and Zee did was completely different and that is why their funds were rightly confiscated.

From Pokerstars "Terms and Conditions"

4.2 PERSONAL USE. The Software is intended solely for your personal use. Commercial use of the Software is strictly forbidden. The User is only allowed to wager for his/her personal entertainment. Under no circumstances shall a User be permitted to use his/her "real money account" with PokerStars for any purpose other than for playing the Games. The User agrees that his/her use of the Games is in a personal (and not professional) capacity. Before the User participates at PokerStars, he/she is responsible to verify the laws on gambling which govern the User use of the Software in order to determine restrictions and act in accordance thereto. The User must provide full and truthful information regarding his/her legal name and identity when such information is requested by PokerStars. A User may not have more than one account with PokerStars.

Chances are most online sites have the same kind of things written into their TOC's

Yes but Matt, MOST sites are a skin/cage of the software providor (ie Blue Square, VC, Blondepoker)

I know Pokerstars is different though

A bit of confusion here I think.

I am talking about different accounts with different providers. Eg all crypto, but I have accounts with William Hill, Betfair and Inter Poker. Through Tribeca I have accounts with Victor Chandler and Blue Square. Party poker/corals ... the list goes on. They can't and won't stop that unless I am playing more tahn one account at the same table.

Strangely enough, my wife also has accounts with all of those people ;) ;)

Beat me to it M3. I really must learn some quicker typing skills! :)

Sorry guys sometimes you have to remind Matt poker stars is not the only poker site.....

It isnt?

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao