Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[tikay]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

I agree with your logic Ralph, but I was referring to the ability in SS (via strategic betting) to "get back in the pack" other players upcards which you may want to help improve one's own hand.

[tikay]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

...and as to the "waste of time", well, the stupid & time-consuming "squeezing" which some folks do every single hand to amuse themselves (& bore grown-ups)wastes far more time. But really, I play Poker for fun, enjoy the banter, & dont have a train to catch, so re-shuffling the deck now & then is no big deal (shuffle?) in the greater scheme of things. The scoops in £5 £10 SS are frequently £2k plus, so if it takes 5 or 6 minutes, I can live with that. Especially if, as happens every leap year, I scoop.

[Karabiner]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

I agree with your logic Ralph, but I was referring to the ability in SS (via strategic betting) to "get back in the pack" other players upcards which you may want to help improve one's own hand.

Ahah, but can games which need two packs of cards really be considered to be "poker" ?

[Snatiramas]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

I agree with your logic Ralph, but I was referring to the ability in SS (via strategic betting) to "get back in the pack" other players upcards which you may want to help improve one's own hand.

Ahah, but can games which need two packs of cards really be considered to be "poker" ?

Well they could be Kalooki

[tikay]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

I agree with your logic Ralph, but I was referring to the ability in SS (via strategic betting) to "get back in the pack" other players upcards which you may want to help improve one's own hand.

Ahah, but can games which need two packs of cards really be considered to be "poker" ?

Well yes, any game that involves the traditional poker hand rankings, including straights, flushes & full-houses, is "poker", even if it needs a re-shuffle, or, as you prefer to put it, two decks of cards. On which criteria, of course, and as we debated many moons ago, Padooki does not qualify.....

[redsimon]

Tony, why did you show your Aces when you passed vs JJ man?

[boldie]

Tony, why did you show your Aces when you passed vs JJ man?

because he wanted to make a "hero" lay down?

The way you played the Aces might have been bad..showing them was worse though.

[Karabiner]

I'm curious Tony as to why you consider that games which need two packs of cards (more than one pack) are okay.

I've always  considered that  remembering the passed cards is an intrinsic part of all stud games, not to mention the time wasted in the reshuffle etc.

I agree with your logic Ralph, but I was referring to the ability in SS (via strategic betting) to "get back in the pack" other players upcards which you may want to help improve one's own hand.

Ahah, but can games which need two packs of cards really be considered to be "poker" ?

Well yes, any game that involves the traditional poker hand rankings, including straights, flushes & full-houses, is "poker", even if it needs a re-shuffle, or, as you prefer to put it, two decks of cards. On which criteria, of course, and as we debated many moons ago, Padooki does not qualify.....

Lowball does not have straights, flushes, or full houses, so do you you still consider that to be "poker" ? 

[Simon Galloway]

I guess lowball does have straights and flushes... its just that they are considered hi and therefore not desirable!

As for betting SS to put cards back in the pack, I'm not sold.  I've certainly thought on many occasion that I would like player X to fold as they have 2 desirable cards for me.  But most of the time, if there are 4 players playing and plenty of discards from others to shuffle back in, those cards are far from certain to come your way.  I doubt if it is very often enough to make betting the right play in its own right.  If you are torn between calling and raising, then fine.  Let it be the decider.  But I have heard the "i wanted those cards back in the deck" line a few times, once by a well known player in the game that potted it on 5th street with 3 parts to broadway showing against an obv low and a 3rd player who had low cards+paired board+flushing potential, who understandably was more than happy to repot it.  Mr Broadway got the ace of spades back in the deck alright, but he paid Harrods prices for the privelige.

[Josedinho]

Started to read this yesterday.
Decided i would read 10 pages a day to catch up. I'm on page 50 at the moment because "i couldn't put it down".
Stunning read.

[tikay]

Started to read this yesterday.
Decided i would read 10 pages a day to catch up. I'm on page 50 at the moment because "i couldn't put it down".
Stunning read.

Thank you Mr Jose. I hope the rest does not disappoint, but really, I love doing it, trying to express my thoughts & views, & now & then riding my little horse, which goes by the moniker of "Hobby".

[tikay]

Tony, why did you show your Aces when you passed vs JJ man?

because he wanted to make a "hero" lay down?

The way you played the Aces might have been bad..showing them was worse though.

In this case, I think you are right.

However.......

[tikay]

Tony, why did you show your Aces when you passed vs JJ man?

Well now, that is an interesting question.

Let me begin by explaining that it's always been my habit to challenge conventional thinking, & this applies to anything & everything I read in Newspapers, see on TV, or read about Poker, Golf, Footie, or whatever. I have a default filter for all incoming information - I ask myself "why?", "how do I know that's true?", "does that really add up?" sort of thing. Hence, for example, my some may think illogical views on the value of poker books as a learning tool, which derives fom the logic that poker is so situational. It also leads, it must be said, to a certain stubborn dogma on some issues, in that my head becomes stuck up my arse, but on balance, it works for me.

So, "show or not show". The balance of opinion - by a small minority I think - is it's best not to show. That kite does not fly for me.

I think a balance between showing & not showing works best, & I tend to show more often than not. I show for a reason, & I don't show for a reason, I do it for lots & lots of reasons, & it's table & situation dependent. It's a very important weapon in our box of tricks, but most folks, imho, don't really understand how to use this weapon wisely. It's "conventional wisdom", so they just buy it, in many cases without knowing why.

This applies to many things in poker. Checking in the dark, Marcel style - most players who have copied Marcel have no idea why they are doing it, & how it can be best used, but Marcel did it, so it must be good.

Ditto Live Straddles, which as the recent debate proved, most folks don't really understand why they do it.

And so to my showing of my piss-poor pass of Aces against Jacks on Tuesday. I wanted to see what he had, & because I showed, he obliged. Which, on balance, because it messed up my head so badly, was a bad thing  - on this occasion.

My show or not show policy will remain as is - I'll show the majority of times, because I'm doing two or three things when I show - giving info, extracting info, & building image. Bad image, if Tuesday is anything to go by, but even that faux paus can be turned to my advantage. Or not, as the case may be.

But I never show bluffs - because I never bluff.

By the way, I hope you are in better health now Simon - last time we spoke, you were in & out of Hossie. It'd be nice to see you one night over at DTD, which has all - or most - of the old Gala Notts veterans there. You & I musta shared a few Final Tables at Gala Notts eh? And didn't that Thewy lad do good?

[Karabiner]

I guess lowball does have straights and flushes... its just that they are considered hi and therefore not desirable!

Only in the now rarely played "London Lowball" afaik.

Straights and flushes do not exist in the normal (US standard) lowball nor in any hi-low games that I am aware of, apart from Padooki where flushes are not desirable, but which tikay does not consider to be "poker"

[tikay]

I guess lowball does have straights and flushes... its just that they are considered hi and therefore not desirable!

Only in the now rarely played "London Lowball" afaik.

Straights and flushes do not exist in the normal (US standard) lowball nor in any hi-low games that I am aware of, apart from Padooki where flushes are not desirable, but which tikay does not consider to be "poker"

Straights & flushes do not exist in Hi-Low games?.......Ahh, THATS where I'm going wrong. I assumed they did, in the "High" Pot.

I'm happy with DTD's yardstick. "We will lay any form of poker. Obviously, that excludes Padooki".