Side bet for poker is being introduced
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/28/gamblings-next-big-thing-casino-lands-first-poker-side-bet-gaming-option-160176
I think it will change the way some players will play the game. And that will be bad for everyone.
Quote: MidwestAPI'm not so sure it will be bad for everybody. I think some players will try to chase down hands for bad prices, that can be good for the sharper players at the table.
Hmmmmm.....
You may have a point there.
If it's an OPTIONAL side bet, then you might be right.
It will also help to quickly identify the fish. Then again, it will help identify the sharks...
Quote: DJTeddyBear...It will also help to quickly identify the fish. Then again, it will help identify the sharks...
This was my main thought... Us sharks don't need any help identifying the fish. Speaking as a poker player, and not even as a general AP, I would NEVER play this side bet. Run though a hand where you could get in big trouble...
Say there's 4 hearts on the board. You have the 9 of hearts and you bet the side bet. Well golly gee that's gonna pay you $15!!! So now the guy across from you bets $40, what do you do? You should fold because your 9 high flush is horifically beat. Why on Earth would you chase $15 at the expense of much more (which I could see happening way more than not with this side bet).
Never mind the lowest limits normally found are $1-$2 blinds. In a no-limit game by the time you've seen the turn 'more than not' you've had to call bets well beyond that $15. Basically, the only thing this side bet does is try to get you to chase a small payoff at the expense of losing much, much more. Even the fish will figure this out after they call a $50 river bet to win $15 then realize they net lost $35 in the process.
Result: The side bet will quickly die out. Neither sharks nor fish will bet it.
For starters, is it acceptable to calculate on the notion that the player always stays in and sees a river if he has a draw to any paying hand? That happens often, but the player could lose a fortune in the process of chasing that small side bet.
Royal Flush: 0 for 1
Straight Flush: 200 for 1
Four of a Kind: 100 for 1
Full House: 25 for 1
Flush: 15 for 1
Straight: 10 for 1
All Other: 0 for 1
If this is correct, the long-term return is 99.884% for a player that never folds.
Quote: JBIf I understood the article correctly, a Royal Flush doesn't pay anything (just funny money). So the paytable is effectively:
Royal Flush: 0 for 1
Straight Flush: 200 for 1
Four of a Kind: 100 for 1
Full House: 25 for 1
Flush: 15 for 1
Straight: 10 for 1
All Other: 0 for 1
If this is correct, the long-term return is 99.884% for a player that never folds.
I interpreted it as they acquired a stash of $1000 bills that haven't been taken out of circulation yet. So they could be worth more than $1000 for the bill on a collectors market.
Quote: rudeboyoiI interpreted it as they acquired a stash of $1000 bills that haven't been taken out of circulation yet. So they could be worth more than $1000 for the bill on a collectors market.
If it's a real $1000 (1000-for-1) then the bet returns 101.4231% to a player that never folds.
Quote: JBIf it's a real $1000 (1000-for-1) then the bet returns 101.4231% to a player that never folds.
Its kind of a neat little problem. If a page ever ends up going up on the wizardofodds.com page I'd suggest having a table that shows the EV per individual hand for a player never folded until the river. And maybe show different tables assuming the $1000 bill is worth other amounts. Like $1500, $2000, $3000.
| Hand | Payoff | Combinations | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal Flush | 1000 | 43,240 | 0.000015 | 0.015391 |
| Straight Flush | 200 | 379,224 | 0.000135 | 0.026996 |
| Four of a Kind | 100 | 4,047,264 | 0.001441 | 0.144058 |
| Full House | 25 | 35,914,320 | 0.012783 | 0.319582 |
| Flush | 15 | 41,883,800 | 0.014908 | 0.223621 |
| Straight | 10 | 79,953,072 | 0.028458 | 0.284584 |
| All Other | 0 | 2,647,254,840 | 0.942259 | 0.000000 |
| Totals | 2,809,475,760 | 1 | 1.014231 |
I can see side bets on the board cards only becoming popular. Things like rainbow flop, 3 of a kind on the flop, flush on the board, etc. It would give players something to sweat when they are not in the hand. The down side is making the payouts would slow down the game unless they are all long shots. It's similar to the prop bets made by high stakes players among themselves (so I have read.)
Another down side for the players is that it gives even more responsibilities to the poker dealers. Their primary job should be running a fair and impartial game.
Quote: RomesThis was my main thought... Us sharks don't need any help identifying the fish. Speaking as a poker player, and not even as a general AP, I would NEVER play this side bet. Run though a hand where you could get in big trouble...
Say there's 4 hearts on the board. You have the 9 of hearts and you bet the side bet. Well golly gee that's gonna pay you $15!!! So now the guy across from you bets $40, what do you do? You should fold because your 9 high flush is horifically beat. Why on Earth would you chase $15 at the expense of much more (which I could see happening way more than not with this side bet).
Never mind the lowest limits normally found are $1-$2 blinds. In a no-limit game by the time you've seen the turn 'more than not' you've had to call bets well beyond that $15. Basically, the only thing this side bet does is try to get you to chase a small payoff at the expense of losing much, much more. Even the fish will figure this out after they call a $50 river bet to win $15 then realize they net lost $35 in the process.
Result: The side bet will quickly die out. Neither sharks nor fish will bet it.
i disagree. poker is about pot odds, and that extra 15 is like an extra 15 in the pot. It may not worth much in large pots, but when the pot is low ($20, 30$?) an extra $15 is always welcome.
So in the above situation, if i am the other guy across, i am not betting 40 to drive him away. I will bet 10 to suck him in.
Quote: rudeboyoiI interpreted it as they acquired a stash of $1000 bills that haven't been taken out of circulation yet. So they could be worth more than $1000 for the bill on a collectors market.
I assumed that the $1,000 bill is just a souvenir / facsimile - kinda like the giant checks for jackpot wins, but that you also get $1,000 cash/chips.
Quote: JBHere are my calculations with the royal flush valued at $1000:
Hand Payoff Combinations Probability Return Royal Flush 1000 43,240 0.000015 0.015391 Straight Flush 200 379,224 0.000135 0.026996 Four of a Kind 100 4,047,264 0.001441 0.144058 Full House 25 35,914,320 0.012783 0.319582 Flush 15 41,883,800 0.014908 0.223621 Straight 10 79,953,072 0.028458 0.284584 All Other 0 2,647,254,840 0.942259 0.000000 Totals 2,809,475,760 1 1.014231
So what if me and 8 buddies got together, took a table over, max bet the side bet, then just checked around to each other / played with minimum variance? Assuming we kept the pots low enough to only get raked for $2-$3 per hand, what would the odds be then?
Assume: 9 people betting max ($25?) on the side bet. Assume max $5 house rake per hand dealt. The money that passes back and forth from players is erroneous as we're all on a team... Do we still have a house edge over the casino?
Quote: andysifi disagree. poker is about pot odds, and that extra 15 is like an extra 15 in the pot. It may not worth much in large pots, but when the pot is low ($20, 30$?) an extra $15 is always welcome.
So in the above situation, if i am the other guy across, i am not betting 40 to drive him away. I will bet 10 to suck him in.
This is primarily why I said this wouldn't work at all in NL and maybe would have a better shot (but still die out) at low, limit, games. In NL, the lowest blinds are almost always $1-$2, avg pre-flop raise $10. I would be fairly confident that on average you would get your odds blown out in with the amount you'd have to call just to see the river, never mind 'milking' maximum EV out of your river bet. Essentially I'm saying your extra $15 to "pot odds" is going to not be worth it. Plus, even in your example you're talking about winning a $20 pot, and trying to milk another $10 from him, so a $40 pot... where you'd win $20 and another player would lose $20 (approximately). Even here it's not worth chasing the $15 flush.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI assumed that the $1,000 bill is just a souvenir / facsimile - kinda like the giant checks for jackpot wins, but that you also get $1,000 cash/chips.
Grover cleveland is on the $1000 bill though. It's not like $1000 is that large a jackpot to warrant something like a giant check.
Quote: RomesSo what if me and 8 buddies got together, took a table over, max bet the side bet, then just checked around to each other / played with minimum variance? Assuming we kept the pots low enough to only get raked for $2-$3 per hand, what would the odds be then?
Assume: 9 people betting max ($25?) on the side bet. Assume max $5 house rake per hand dealt. The money that passes back and forth from players is erroneous as we're all on a team... Do we still have a house edge over the casino?
From the article it sounds like the side bet is always $1 since they were talking about fixed amounts for the payoffs. From JB's caclulations at a 10 player table the side bet would be worth about 15 cents a hand between all of you, not nearly enough to overcome the rake. Even if there were no rake and you could get out 60 ultra-fast hands per hour you would be making less than $1/hr per person.
It is true that the paytable pays out over 100% if you were to play every hand out through the river no matter what. The problem with that is it would cost you too much in lost money in the main pots. This is the reason I limited the bet to $1-$10. I believe it would be advantageous to play every hand no matter what if you could put $25 on the side bet in a $3-$6 game. I think you could win more on the side bet than lose in the main game. If I found the game anywhere on a low limit game ($2-$4 would be even better), I'd play $25 on every hand.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13It is true that the paytable pays out over 100% if you were to play every hand out through the river no matter what. The problem with that is it would cost you too much in lost money in the main pots. This is the reason I limited the bet to $1-$10. I believe it would be advantageous to play every hand no matter what if you could put $25 on the side bet in a $3-$6 game. I think you could win more on the side bet than lose in the main game. If I found the game anywhere on a low limit game ($2-$4 would be even better), I'd play $25 on every hand.
If this is true couldn't you have a couple of sharps in collusion playing every hand to the river and not betting each other up?
Of course, it would be pretty obvious what they were up to. Note that I don't play poker, so I'm probably missing something.
Over 100%? seriously? How much over? What's to keep a group of players from locking up a table all betting max on the side bet and just everyone checking down each hand to the river?Quote: Zcore13I installed this game in January on two of our poker tables. I implemented betting limits of $1 - $10. Some people loved it from the start, for others it grew on them and of course some just won't play it. In March the distributor changed so I had to pull the game from play until the new distributor was licensed and ok to distribute to my Tribe. I had multiple complaints that $3-$6, $2-$8 and $2-$100 we more fun with the side bet.
It is true that the paytable pays out over 100% if you were to play every hand out through the river no matter what. The problem with that is it would cost you too much in lost money in the main pots. This is the reason I limited the bet to $1-$10. I believe it would be advantageous to play every hand no matter what if you could put $25 on the side bet in a $3-$6 game. I think you could win more on the side bet than lose in the main game. If I found the game anywhere on a low limit game ($2-$4 would be even better), I'd play $25 on every hand.
ZCore13
Quote: AxelWolfOver 100%? seriously? How much over? What's to keep a group of players from locking up a table all betting max on the side bet and just everyone checking down each hand to the river?
Us kicking them out. Any type of collusion between any amount of players for any promotion would result in the players being removed. If it happened again, I'D ban them.
ZCore13
I wouldn't consider that collusion if its not being used to cheat other players.Quote: Zcore13Us kicking them out. Any type of collusion between any amount of players for any promotion would result in the players being removed. If it happened again, I'D ban them.
ZCore13
Lets say there was never any agreement between players to do this, everyone just realize it was smart.
You're going to kick out players for playing a game 100% within the rules? That's awful.
trust me It happens sometimes. Especially during a promotion when some day shift old timers play day after day.
I seen this more than 10 times. IE downtown in Vegas they had a deal where if you put in x amount of hours you got x amount of cash. all the regulars played soft so as not to drive up the rake or bust each-other.
There been promotions where everyone at the table realized it was better if everyone just limped and checked it down. There was no discussion or engagement.
People do similar stuff when there is a bad beat jackpot, Aces cracked, high hand possibility. Someone will say how much is in the pot (or something )and the other player(s) who would normally fold to a small bet, they now call because they know what that means.
Added:
If this side bet is good enough and it catches on, I'm almost certain it will happen. There's millions of poker players in the US. At some point there would be thousands who all had an unwritten agreement to play a certain way without ever discussing it.
Quote: AxelWolfI wouldn't consider that collusion if its not being used to cheat other players.
Lets say there was never any agreement between players to do this, everyone just realize it was smart.
You're going to kick out players for playing a game 100% within the rules? That's awful.
trust me It happens sometimes. Especially during a promotion when some day shift old timers play day after day.
I seen this more than 10 times. IE downtown in Vegas they had a deal where if you put in x amount of hours you got x amount of cash. all the regulars played soft so as not to drive up the rake or bust each-other.
There been promotions where everyone at the table realized it was better if everyone just limped and checked it down. There was no discussion or engagement.
People do similar stuff when there is a bad beat jackpot, Aces cracked, high hand possibility. Someone will say how much is in the pot (or something )and the other player(s) who would normally fold to a small bet, they now call because they know what that means.
Added:
If this side bet is good enough and it catches on, I'm almost certain it will happen. There's millions of poker players in the US. At some point there would be thousands who all had an unwritten agreement to play a certain way without ever discussing it.
I would absolutely kick them out for colluding or cirumventing. No different than players talking about a jackpot hand, saying something about having Aces during Aces Cracked or any other unsportsmanlike activity.
ZCore13
Quote: DeucekiesThis is exactly why side bets, especially house-banked ones, do not belong on a poker table.
That makes absolutely no sense. I protect the integrity of all promotions. That includes player funded promotions from the promotional rake.
ZCore13
Quote: FroggerHow much does it slow the game down?
About 1 hand per hour.
ZCore13
Quote: ParadigmWhy not just adjust payouts to 75-1 for 4OAK and 250-1 for SF. I calculated 0.9849 RTP using the charts above. The potential collusion problem goes away and you have impacted the pays up and down for events that are combined 1 in 635 occurence....seems like that wouldn't change the feel of the game.
There really is no collusion problem. One would have to play every hand to the river and have everyone else at the table checking to him so he would not lose money in the main pot.
We have 90% regulars every day of the week. We also have only tables of the gsme. The Supervisor is always near the game (s). I have zero concern. I was just replying to what ifs.
ZCore13
Is it any different than card counting Blackjack? Does your casino kick out counters?Quote: Zcore13I would absolutely kick them out for colluding or cirumventing. No different than players talking about a jackpot hand, saying something about having Aces during Aces Cracked or any other unsportsmanlike activity.
ZCore13
Quote: DJTeddyBearI also think there's nearly zero chance of any problem, but...
Is it any different than card counting Blackjack? Does your casino kick out counters?
We would flat bet them or shuffle on a large increase in bet, depending on the situation.
ZCore13
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Is it any different than card counting Blackjack?
Yes, keeping track of information availible to everyone during play is very different than coordinating with other players at the table to gain an advantage. It's actually cheating...
At least that's my understanding
I'm not sure how much its worth per person .Quote: Zcore13I would absolutely kick them out for colluding or cirumventing. No different than players talking about a jackpot hand, saying something about having Aces during Aces Cracked or any other unsportsmanlike activity.
ZCore13
The information and the side bet hasn't spread around enough yet.
Your place may be not ever have a problem because of the location, but if this side bet spreads and it's valuable guys are going to eventually try it somewhere(especially in short handed games). Your locals may not be savvy enough or realize the value (if any)
It would have to probably be worth at least $20 an hour per person for people to get excited about it enough to fall in line and start slow playing.
If it's worthwhile eventually players will figure out how to play it without checking down every hand so an not to be so obvious about it but still have +EV.
It looks like you can't have short handed games or possible reduced rake? (certainly not heads up).
--------------------------------------------
"No different than players talking about a jackpot hand, saying something about having Aces during Aces Cracked or any other unsportsmanlike activity."
They may not have EVER talk about it or say anything at all. So then what? it's no difference than everyone playing basic strategy and flat betting table min at a blackjack table because there some promotion where betting the minimum is the bet EV. I have Played many BJ promotions where flat betting $5-10 a hand was the best way to play the promotion where everyone at the table was doing just that even the locals.
IE. X number of blackjacks with a $5 min bet receives a nice bonus.
So what then you would start kicking out everyone just because they were playing 100% within the rules?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not sure how much its worth per person .
The information and the side bet hasn't spread around enough yet.
Your place may be not ever have a problem because of the location, but if this side bet spreads and it's valuable guys are going to eventually try it somewhere(especially in short handed games). Your locals may not be savvy enough or realize the value (if any)
It would have to probably be worth at least $20 an hour per person for people to get excited about it enough to fall in line and start slow playing.
If it's worthwhile eventually players will figure out how to play it without checking down every hand so an not to be so obvious about it but still have +EV.
It looks like you can't have short handed games or possible reduced rake? (certainly not heads up).
--------------------------------------------
"No different than players talking about a jackpot hand, saying something about having Aces during Aces Cracked or any other unsportsmanlike activity."
They may not have EVER talk about it or say anything at all. So then what? it's no difference than everyone playing basic strategy and flat betting table min at a blackjack table because there some promotion where betting the minimum is the bet EV. I have Played many BJ promotions where flat betting $5-10 a hand was the best way to play the promotion where everyone at the table was doing just that even the locals.
IE. X number of blackjacks with a $5 min bet receives a nice bonus.
So what then you would start kicking out everyone just because they were playing 100% within the rules?
You are comparing collusion to playing within the rules. Very big stretch.
I made my game unattractive to outside people that may want to try and take advantage by limiting it to $10. I have heard of other places doing as high as $25. $1-$10 is perfect for my locals. Most play $1 or $2. Some on the higher limit games on the weekends play up to $10. If you normally play a lot of hands, it's not a bad deal. If you are conservative and only play top premium hands you don't play it. I have a few that play it on their big blind only $3-$6 limit). They know they will be seeing the flop 90% of the time from that spot.
ZCore13
Yes. This.Quote: mrsuit31Yes, keeping track of information availible to everyone during play is very different than coordinating with other players at the table to gain an advantage. It's actually cheating...
At least that's my understanding
Your understanding is absolutely, positively, most definitely, unambiguously correct, and anyone who doesn't get that (probably because they are the sort of low-life that doesn't want to) has no legitimate business sitting down at any poker table, anywhere, ever. Getting kicked out is the very least and weakest of the range of responses that are minimally acceptable. Handcuffs and jail time are a better response, and as a player I'm pleased to say that I have personally contributed to seeing a group of some scumbag colluding players frog marched to jail for exactly that kind of communication and collusion (which was non-verbal in that particular case by the way) . And I suppose they'd probably choose to call themselves some kind of "AP" or somesuch nonsense, and choose to say & perhaps really think in their fevered little 'noggin that it wasn't really cheating because [insert ludicrous self-serving bullspit here].
So, if anyone doesn't get it, here's an idiot-simple version of what one needs to know about the distinction: If someone engages in some kind of communication about play at the poker table selectively or surreptitiously, because they can't do it totally in the open in a manner that anyone and everyone in the poker room including all players, staff, management, cocktail waitresses, and janitors and their moms, can equally see and hear clearly without 'code' or other (always asinine because they are never very good at it) attempt at concealment, then it is very wrong and YOU KNOW IT which is why you are doing it. That isn't "AP" or any such crap. That is a felony, no ifs, ands, or buts, and if I'm at the table or anyone like me (and there probably will be eventually) you may soon get a formal public criminal record with an orange jumpsuit and plastic sandals with a number on the back to prove it.
[/end of rant about scumbags cheating through explicit collusion]
If there are any actual poker players about, here's something else that is reasonably likely to be at the table, in the case of what is known by the term 'implicit collusion' (without any communication or agreement - which IS legal) when it occurs due to excessive emphasis on jackpots and promos and carnival stuff which sometimes occurs due to poor management which doesn't understand what they are doing in running a poker room: Someone, likely even more than just one someone, possibly including me, will pick up on what's going on, find it disgusting because they sat down for an actual poker game, and not choose to play along, by becoming hyper-aggressive & betting people off their passively played promo-whoring hands. And they will have every right to do so if they choose. Some of the more peculiar folks who camp out in a forum like this will not like that. Tough beans. Lump it, pal.
Lets say 5 Advantage players/poker players who have never talked to each other all end up at the same table. Each of them independently figure out there's an advantage on this side bet.Quote: mrsuit31Yes, keeping track of information availible to everyone during play is very different than coordinating with other players at the table to gain an advantage. It's actually cheating...
At least that's my understanding
They all realize everyone is there to take advantage of the side bet.
How would they know that? Well it might be obvious when everyone is sitting there on a low limit table with the max on the side bet.
They all start playing extremely soft, Perhaps they bet the minimum when they have the nuts or pocket Aces.
They all have the same information, they are not taking advantage of each other. If someone new sits down and they notice the person isn't there for the side bet they play normal poker.
Explain how that's cheating?
Quote: AxelWolfLets say 5 Advantage players/poker players who have never talked to each other all end up at the same table. Each of them independently figure out there's an advantage on this side bet.
They all realize everyone is there to take advantage of the side bet.
How would they know that? Well it might be obvious when everyone is sitting there on a low limit table with the max on the side bet.
They all start playing extremely soft, Perhaps they bet the minimum when they have the nuts or pocket Aces.
They all have the same information, they are not taking advantage of each other. If someone new sits down and they notice the person isn't there for the side bet they play normal poker.
Explain how that's cheating?
That is a different situation than I was saying was cheating. As I'm sure you know, I meant when players are deliberately (expressly or silently) exchanging information. Players used to do this all the time for the bad beat jackpots, that's why a lot of places pulled them out. Anytime players had the potential to have two monster hands going at it (both of course holding two live cards) they would make it known to try and get that big pay off.
Your hypo is very similar to what goes on in a lot of places when players are simply high hand hunting. If you are at any no limit game (most of the time) you will have a few guys like drawingdead above who will simply take all of your money and not let you check to the river. Low limit on the other hand ...............
If their is no exchange of information, then that's not colluding (at least from the minimal facts we presented).
If players recognize that there is a player advantage to this bet and if everyone simply checks around each and every hand, it's on the directors for bringing the bet in.
That being said colluding (as described above) equals cheating which equals a crime... No Bueno.
Also, this is why there is a minimum pot size for that hand to qualify for the high hand. I don't think that is possible for a side wager however.
Edit: changed to the proper spelling of drawingdead's tag
I agree if any other players are in a hand you shouldn't play any different than normal.Quote: mrsuit31That is a different situation than I was saying was cheating. As I'm sure you know, I meant when players are deliberately (expressly or silently) exchanging information. Players used to do this all the time for the bad beat jackpots, that's why a lot of places pulled them out. Anytime players had the potential to have two monster hands going at it (both of course holding two live cards) they would make it known to try and get that big pay off.
Your hypo is very similar to what goes on in a lot of places when players are simply high hand hunting. If you are at any no limit game (most of the time) you will have a few guys like drawingdear above who will simply take all of your money and not let you check to the river. Low limit on the other hand ...............
If their is no exchange of information, then that's not colluding (at least from the minimal facts we presented).
If players recognize that there is a player advantage to this bet and if everyone simply checks around each and every hand, it's on the directors for bringing the bet in.
That being said colluding (as described above) equals cheating which equals a crime... No Bueno.
Also, this is why there is a minimum pot size for that hand to qualify for the high hand. I don't think that is possible for a side wager however.
BE HONEST: Let say they have a promotion where if you flop 4 Aces you get 10k. But there must be $20 in the pot. You pick up pocket Aces and make it $5 to go everyone folds but one guy. You flop 4 Aces and it gets checked to the river, you're certain the guys going to fold (there's not $20 in the pot) in or check unless you say something like, "How much is in the pot?" indicating he shouldn't fold to your bet?
Would you just check knowing you wouldn't get the 10k?
Quote: AxelWolfI agree if any other players are in a hand you shouldn't play any different than normal.
BE HONEST: Let say they have a promotion where if you flop 4 Aces you get 10k. But there must be $20 in the pot. You pick up pocket Aces and make it $5 to go everyone folds but one guy. You flop 4 Aces and it gets checked to the river, you're certain the guys going to fold (there's not $20 in the pot) in or check unless you say something like, "How much is in the pot?" indicating he shouldn't fold to your bet?
Would you just check knowing you wouldn't get the 10k?
But your allowed to ask the dealer to spread the pot to see how much is in it to calculate your bet ;)
But realistically (at least in the few card rooms in Florida that I've played in) most are pretty aware of the pot minimum and will call regardless if the have poopee (perhaps spaghetti flavored, all rights reserved by zcore13) if someone makes a bet that is obviously trying to get to the limit for the high hand or in this case side bet. But it's pretty rare for the pot not to get to that level with the blinds alone.
Realistically, the players that have a problem with this stuff and will voice their opinion(again simply in my experiences) seems to only be the 2-5 no limit players I have played with (or higher blinds) and they aren't going to be there for a side bet anyway. Pre flop the pot will be anywhere from $60 - $xxx anyways so there will never be an issue.
I certainly understand what your saying, which is why side bets don't belong on a poker table in my opinion. Leave it at high hands and be done with it.
I get that they are trying to increase revenue due to the rake revenue cap that cannot be increased, but I'm not sure side bets are the way to go. And I'm not sure there is an answer hence why card rooms are and have been rapidly shrinking in casinos all over. Even if players flock to the casino and start playing blinds and checking out to the river trying to win, all of the real poker players they want to patron the room aren't going to come back because all of the tables are going to be a miserable excuse for a game. Terrible pots and horrible play will only kill the room in the long run. And I don't understand how much they can possible profit from this since it will essentially slow down the already low hands per hour rake amount they are already getting. Not worth it...
They are going to realize that the chip racks are going to have to constantly be cleared of the excess chips if players are losing the side bet etc... Especially if people are only playing white dollar chips (which will definitly be the case). I see this turning into a much bigger headache than the poker room managers anticipate...
Edit: the chip rack example will most likely not be an issue. However as stated the player "control" issues are going to be the biggest problem.
I'm ALL FOR THE SIDE BET. I think players will call down hands they shouldn't. I'm all for it being over 100%Quote: mrsuit31But your allowed to ask the dealer to spread the pot to see how much is in it to calculate your bet ;)
But realistically (at least in the few card rooms in Florida that I've played in) most are pretty aware of the pot minimum and will call regardless if the have poopee (perhaps spaghetti flavored, all rights reserved by zcore13) if someone makes a bet that is obviously trying to get to the limit for the high hand or in this case side bet. But it's pretty rare for the pot not to get to that level with the blinds alone.
Realistically, the players that have a problem with this stuff and will voice their opinion(again simply in my experiences) seems to only be the 2-5 no limit players I have played with (or higher blinds) and they aren't going to be there for a side bet anyway. Pre flop the pot will be anywhere from $60 - $xxx anyways so there will never be an issue.
I certainly understand what your saying, which is why side bets don't belong on a poker table in my opinion. Leave it at high hands and be done with it.
I get that they are trying to increase revenue due to the rake revenue cap that cannot be increased, but I'm not sure side bets are the way to go. And I'm not sure there is an answer hence why card rooms are and have been rapidly shrinking in casinos all over. Even if players flock to the casino and start playing blinds and checking out to the river trying to win, all of the real poker players they want to patron the room aren't going to come back because all of the tables are going to be a miserable excuse for a game. Terrible pots and horrible play will only kill the room in the long run. And I don't understand how much they can possible profit from this since it will essentially slow down the already low hands per hour rake amount they are already getting. Not worth it...
They are going to realize that the chip racks are going to have to constantly be cleared of the excess chips if players are losing the side bet etc... Especially if people are only playing white dollar chips (which will definitly be the case). I see this turning into a much bigger headache than the poker room managers anticipate...
I just don't think casinos have the right to tell players how to play as long as players are in agreement.
It's no different then 2 players agreeing to run it twice, or agreeing to have a 7-2 bounty,or agreeing to chop, or everyone agreeing to straddle. All of them things sound like the same thing as agreeing to check it down
Hmm I wonder why they suddenly wont let players agree to do something and they suddenly want to call it illegal collusion.
If EVERYONE said they wanted to play face up poker or go all in preflop they should be allowed to.
Suddenly poker becomes a house banked game? That's the problem here. POKER SHOULDN'T BE A HOUSE BANKED GAME if they are going to start 86ing you for winning money.
Quote: AxelWolfPOKER SHOULDN'T BE A HOUSE BANKED GAME
I agree...
Quote: AxelWolf
I just don't think casinos have the right to tell players how to play as long as players are in agreement.
You are wrong. Players should not be allowed to make their own rules. A casino is not a home game. There is an expectation of professionalism and standard rules when playing poker in a casino. The house rules are the house rules and they should apply to everyone. There is nothing worse than playing somewhere and some strange rule or ruling happens that is not written anywhere.
Quote: AxelWolfIt's no different then 2 players agreeing to run it twice, or agreeing to have a 7-2 bounty,or agreeing to chop, or everyone agreeing to straddle. All of them things sound like the same thing as agreeing to check it down
None of those things you mentioned are allowed at my location. No agreements between players to do anything, no side bets between players, no discussion or offers of checking down when someone is all in. If you play at any casino that allows this stuff it's just a matter of time before someone goes postal when unfairly losing their money.
ZCore13
Do you have rules saying players can't all check if they choose to do so?(without any discussion of course)Quote: Zcore13You are wrong. Players should not be allowed to make their own rules. A casino is not a home game. There is an expectation of professionalism and standard rules when playing poker in a casino. The house rules are the house rules and they should apply to everyone. There is nothing worse than playing somewhere and some strange rule or ruling happens that is not written anywhere.
None of those things you mentioned are allowed at my location. No agreements between players to do anything, no side bets between players, no discussion or offers of checking down when someone is all in. If you play at any casino that allows this stuff it's just a matter of time before someone goes postal when unfairly losing their money.
ZCore13
Quote: AxelWolfDo you have rules saying players can't all check if they choose to do so?(without any discussion of course)
Of course not. If they are not colluding, they can do what they want individually. But the discussion does not have to be at the table. If they all check every hand from start to finish, only playing for the side bet, it's pretty obvious what they are doing and it would be stopped. That would mean that they all got together prior to the game and decided to work together. That is not allowed in poker. It doesn't matter if it's house banked money or player promotional fund, it's the same rules.
ZCore13
