I don't really know the rules, I assumed from OP that ace goes either way. You can probably adjust the table below yourself anyway, it should give you a good approximation.

Card   Good cards   Bad cards   Win%
Ace   12   0   100%
2   12   0   100%
3   11   1   92%
4   10   2   83%
5   9   3   75%
6   8   4   67%
7   7   5   58%
8   7   5   58%
9   8   4   67%
T   9   3   75%
J   10   2   83%
Q   11   1   92%
K   12   0   100%

      Average win %   81%
      Average lose %   19%

      Consecutive Wins   
      1   81%
      2   65%
      3   53%
      4   43%
      5   34%
      6   28%

Having said that, Colin Fry and John Edwards are conmen who have earnt fame and a living preying on vulnerable people.

It occured to me that someone could argue the same could be said about winning poker players.

I think the difference is that it would be like making sure you will only played poker and won money from people whose close friends and relatives have recently died.

[positive response/body language]

Just a thought...

Everytime she mentioned this 'older man' she could tell I was responding to what she was saying to me, so if she was just judging on how I react to things then why did she say that Leon was in the same age group as me?

As long as you wanted an informative answer and don't just think this is cynicism for the sake of it...

1 technique you will see (used quite frequently by Colin Fry) when fishing for dates or ages is just to change what you meant as you get responses.

Imagine trying to cold read the age of a person's younger sister:


"She is quite a lot younger than you"
1) [positive response/body language]
"Its a lot of years between you, and this meant you didn't always get on perfectly" (note the second half is virtually certain and deflects from the date fishing)
This is now a judgment call, but I guess:
a) [Firmly positive]
"Sometimes siblings with 8-10 years between them have (...xyz issue, make something up)"
[Above is an indirect guess, reconfirm a positive response as though you knew it, adjust guess otherwise, it will be considered correct from 6-15 maybe 20 years]
b) [Medium response]
"She is around 5, maybe 6 years younger than you"
c) [Weak Response]
"3 - 4 years, maybe more"

OR

"She is quite a lot younger than you"
2) [weak response/body language]
"1 or 2 years at least"

The latter is where you need to be a salesman and deliver the line completely confidently and congruently, in text its clearly silly, but live, with someone who wants to believe and you have created good rapport with, its quite possible it will be remembered as a successful hit, and certainly not a failure.

I don't know how the conversation went in your case, but a guess would be that she said "around the same age range" and got a strong positive response and, went for within months (or you said "yes, within months!"), and hit first time. I guess if you had looked uncomfortable at the 'same age range' comment, she would have said "yes, similar age range, within 10 years?" and tried to sell it as a hit.

I should add, because I think someone hinted at this earlier in the thread, that some of these pyschics could well believe what they are doing (unconcious fraud). This is because instructional books on tea leaf reading or palm reading tell the learner what phrases to say based on patterns or lines. The phrases are worded as per the cold reading, but perhaps even the author believed it and didn't realise that.

Because of the correct wordings, the hits are believed by both the reader and the subject, and they both come to genuinely believe in the supernatural. Add to this someone who reads people well anyway and will trust their intuition (although probably without realising they are unconciously picking up all the queues from theit customer), and they can genuinely believe they are doing something magical.

Having said that, Colin Fry and John Edwards are conmen who have earnt fame and a living preying on vulnerable people. So some cynisism is healthy...

I have read quite a lot about cold reading (and NLP etc) and have been trying to do it myself. It is interesting to watch Colin Fry do it on FTN in the evenings (talking to dead people). For a pre recorded show they usually seem to still edit in plenty of swings-and-misses.

There are a few key techniques that are often used by cold readers, even when they aren't in a position to 'read' the person. (e.g. horoscopes, by telephone etc)

For example, they often use items or devices that transfer the responsibility of the predictions onto something random in order to prevent it being too personal for the reader and make it seem less like they are coming up with whims. (e.g. palm, tea leaves, tarot cards, etc)

"Ok here goes...

I chose 10 tarot cards and she said "Hmm, interesting" then went to turn the tv off so she could concentrate."

A lot of the language patterns they use are of the form "there has been an issue which you know about, but it is over or improving now". They use particular words for which I have forgotten the term, but they mean nothing without context and require the listener to add the context, this means they are great in hypnotherapy as they are always congruent, but also means thy can be manipulated in cold reading. "Interference" is a good example. Ending phrases on positive notes prevents listeners wanting to dispute them.

"First she mentioned the interference I'd had in my life recently. She said although it's been painful it's over now. She said as long as I perservere with what I want everything will be ok."

Cold readers then often talk about issues that are common to everybody: Love, health and money. This is an area where being face to face will allow them to get a stronger reading and jewellery, clothing etc add clues to the equation.

"I am naive with love, I fall too 'head over heels' and she said I'll end up in the mental hospital if I carry on like that (which I agree with)."

Note that while doing this they will still use the types of words I described above. For example, the word "problems" can refer to love, health, or money, and noboday ever has zero problems:

"My family has had lots of problems but thats all sorted now too (that was to do with the recent problems with my dad and his wife all clearing up)."

In personality reading, complements work best. While I have been practising this the easiest things to get good responses to are "people don't realise your full potential", "on some level you realise if you were'nt so modest and concerned for others you could progress much faster", "why did you start learning an instrument or art skill you havent realised to your full potential"

"I have a good brain but I'm not using it (no job and not in education). I am a good communicator and I can build upon this by getting a job where I'm not in the background. She suggested a front-desk or similar. Even suggested taking up French or Spanish (but I'm no good at langauges)."

Anything you would like to cold read that refers to the future can obviously be anything you want to say, as it hasn't yet happened, but using the language patterns described above will make it more likely to come 'true'

"She asked me to make one wish on the Crystal Ball which I did and she said it'll come true as long as I get out of my depression and fight for what I want.

Don't marry too young. I am the sort of person that wants a life partner, not lots of on-off boyriends. (True).

I am very fertile, and will probably have my first child when I am 26."

Unfortunately, once cold readers start talking about dead people, they get into an emotional freeroll of success because anything they say is so welcome. They often guess that an older person has passed, and the subject says somethign like "yes it was my nan, is she here??" passing over all the 'read' information voluntarily.

"She then asked about my Nan, and a lot was said about her, stuff I don't really want to go in to but as I've mentioned before, she was my closest relative before she died.

She also mentioned that as well as being a good communicator, I am good with figures and money, so should maybe look for a job to do with that."

Throught a long reading, cold readers will be throwing out names and dates all the time, remembering half hits and quickly dismissing complete misses. It is very likely that some information could be picked up earlier, then presented much later in the session as a completely unknowable but accurate fact.

"She somehow knew that Leon and I met when we were 14 and 16, she said he is a good man that will give me no grief, that I can forgive him once but not more. She said to stay away from the older guy with the baggage - he isn't good for me."

Certain things are true about people that go to see psychics, for example, they are very recepetive to the complementary idea that they or their families could have pyschic abilities or other spiritual qualities themselves.

"When I asked about my children she said I would definitely have kids, she said theres at least 1 boy she can see and that one of my kids will be very wise, as if they have lived before. Perhaps even psychic. She went quiet for a bit because she turned over the Science card which meant that even though I am fertile I might have trouble concieving because of my period problems (True) but in the end I won't have any grief over my kids... so to sum up, I might need help with concieving, but hopefully I won't lose any children. She also said she hopes I'm not pregnant now because I'm not ready to be a mother."

Other random things were:

- I like blowing things (Dirty cow!)
- My mums shoulder could cause problems
- I should wear brighter colours
- She could sense a doll in a pink dress but said this might be my daughter.

It was a good experience, and for £25 it didn't break the bank. The scared me when she said she could see my Nan and she could tell I was her favourite and my Nan was upset with me because I kept crying into my pillow. Also when she managed to tell me that I met Leon when I was 14 and he was 16... that was strange, I was like "How on earth did you know that?" I didn't give off any indication that we'd been together long or that we'd met when very young, she didn't even know his age.

It was a good experience and I would consider going again.

Don't worry Thomas, it wasn't dangerous!

and Rookie, I believe in ghosts too. If I go into those experiences I will be going on forever!


- I should take up a course
- Cut down on gluten"

And if they're only right 1 time in 5, or 1 time in 10, won't that be enough?

[the total number of chips in play and the prize distribution]

With regard to deals, what I favour is for a system that enables them to be discussed as openly and conducted as fairly as possible. They should be managed by the cardroom supervisor/tournament director. He or she would

- inform each player what their chips would be worth if it were a chip count situation
- oversee the discussion
- ensure players do not get bullied into unfair/bad deals
- ensure that any deal made leaves some prize money left over to be played for competitively
- ensure that any added prize/seat supplied by a sponsor is left over to be played for competitvely
- redistribute prize pool payout structure according to the agreed deal and payout on the dealt amounts

The 1st point is a terrible suggestion, and the 3rd needs clarifying.

Deals are part of the game; informing players of their equity and ensuring they don't get bad deals is the same as warning them their blinds are being stolen or that they are being bluffed too often. One player to a hand.

Here is an updated list:
- Ensure everyone knows the total number of chips in play and the prize distribution
- Oversee the discussion
- Ensure players do not get bullied into taking a deal they don't want.
- Ensure that any deal made leaves some prize money left over to be played for competitively
- Ensure that any added prize/seat supplied by a sponsor is left over to be played for competitvely
- Redistribute prize pool payout structure according to the agreed deal and payout on the dealt amounts

One more note on the Pro-Am definitions discussion
I really think that the players concerned about "pro's" making fields tougher should relax. Read their blogs, read Swimming with the Devilfish and anything else you can get your hands on. Many of these sponsored "pro's" aren't even covering their buy-ins, and would be broke if it weren't for the sponsor. They ones that are talented are not going to play a £75 tournament.

These days there are 'amateurs' who play far, far, better than nearly all of the old-school pro's. There is a wealth of information available and 100,000s of hands' experience to be gained on the internet by educated people. And many of these guys are just not going to fit any definition of "Pro" you can come up with, probably because they stand to make more money by staying in education and then business, than by stopping to play poker.

What I think some of the posters are really looking for is a an Untalented Players Poker Association Tour, and its certainly going to be more difficult to define the entry requirments for that.

2 Recommendations

1. Allow any sponsored Pro that wants to play a £75 game to play, they'll probably make the field easier while increasing publicity.

most importantly:

2. Hold the events on the same dates as added-value festival events.
 

...
I like the idea of lower buy-in events that have more credibility, this should help bring more new players into the game, really £50-£300 freezouts have become a bit of a farce nowadays since all the buy-in's have increased over the last 2 years, and many of the pros (and those with deeper pockets) just use them as an opportunity to "let off some steam". This can be frustrating for the serious ameteur getting their AA cracked by 24, so I hope this APAT works out really well...

Although the rich business men (and in relation to me this is a lot of people) will still be able to enter an amateur tournament in the same vein, I would be much happier if the seasoned pro/semi-pro weren't as I would prefer the majority of people there to regard this £75 as a significant amount of money and not something that could be gambled every week. In light of Rob's comment I would see the rule regarding people who think a sub £100 freezeout being worthwhile isn't going to work.

If you think they won't play 'properly' they are adding value to you.

For those who think they will turn up seeking the 'value'. The added-value is worth about $66 per player, after $10 juicethats $56 added. Then there is transport to and from twice, or transport and hotel to consider.

How about we define a pro as anyone who can consider value in the above terms, and therefore wouldn't bother anyway. (Even if you took the $66 as pure added - no expenses, that could only be $3-$5 per hour which anyone you would call a pro could 10x online with no trouble)

Don't be paranoid about playing with people who call themselves "pro's" some of the time, but would enter an event like this on the basis of 'value' rather than social reasons. I very much doubt they would make the event much tougher.

[A player who does not deem it worth their time to play a tournament with a buy-in under £100]

I think the tour is a great idea, but any of thr pro-am distinctions mentioned above would be a nightmare to police.

The answer is very, very easy, as are all the best answers.

Alex's definition of  Professional player for APAT purposes
A player who does not deem it worth their time to play a tournament with a buy-in under £100

Admitedlly this will exclude some people with well-paid regular jobs, and people who are earning significant incomes from online poker as an amateur, but either way it self-regulates itself fantastically and cannot cause any arguments.

I really never got the button thingy headsup, i don't see the difference  maybe someone can explain exactly why it is such a biggy?

I  used to play occasionally at the Nottingham Gala while I was at Uni, and agree fully with all your complaints.

For clarity, I can add the reason for the small blind being on the button when heads up.

In Hold'em, the blinds are posted out of position.

This stimulates action: imagine a hold'em game in which a single blind was posted by the player on the button; what holding would you need to take this player on compared with raising an OOP blind from the button?

So when heads up, the larger of the live blinds should be posted in front of the button, by the player out of position in future rounds.

If heads-up is played incorrectly as in Nottingham (and some sites online) it becomes correct to play fewer hands from the small blind (out-of-postion) as the big blind can play far more aggressively from the button. This kills the action and changes the game significantly.

It is also likely to take longer.

If he put some chips in while simultaneously saying "All in", the verbal declaration stands (before he has let go of the chips)

Similarly if someone moved the amount in for a call, while saying "raise", they are allowed to raise.

If someone said "check" while moving chips in, I would make them take back the bet.

Dropping a single oversize chip in a pot after the flop usual constitutes a bet/raise, but if he put an oversize chip in while saying "call" he would get change.

So, generally, the verbal declaration is the most important part.

So, if the verbal declaration stands, he calls the bet of zero and gets change. (Chips are returned)

BUT, since this is a beginner, if I was his opponent I would definitely ask him what his intention was, and urge the dealer to use common sense and let him act as he intended. Any good player should realise the importance of offering a friendly approachable game to beginners and this should be the defining factor.

Aiming for 1 smoking night a week to trial the concept is an excellent idea. I would be very confident that once established it would be hugely oversubscribed and there would be huge pressure on the casino to make more and more evenings non-smoking.