Side bet for poker is being introduced
When it comes to cheating in poker, if you have not been cheated, you haven't played. Not talking about idiots raising partners with nothing, but smooth moves.
Let me know what my partner or partners discarded, and I will win 2 or 3 big pots I would not have otherwise. My apologies if I am wrong Zcore, but just how the hell did you enforce that no checking when 3rd player is all in. Pretty much an unspoken agreement in every tournament I have seen or played in.
But I admire your stance. Just don't see how you can enforce it, or should I say the dealers ???
Quote: theotherguy. My apologies if I am wrong Zcore, but just how the hell did you enforce that no checking when 3rd player is all in. Pretty much an unspoken agreement in every tournament I have seen or played in.
But I admire your stance. Just don't see how you can enforce it, or should I say the dealers ???
If it's unspoken and unplanned between the two players until it happens, then it's not collusion. I've seen plenty of times someone checks with the intention of checking down and then the other player bets. The first player says something and then we have to warn them that they cannot agree to do anything like that and players can play however they want.
The definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." It's pretty simple. If someone is trying to get one over on another player or the house it's not tolorated. I know some places, as I've been playing poker for over 25 years, that don't enforce these types of rules. They pick and choose, give the benefit of the doubt to regulars, allow regulars to do all sorts of stuff because they are afraid to offend them or make them mad because they might leave. I say bullshit. I would choose to not play at all then to play at a place like that. That's not how poker is supposed to be played. Saying it's ok to work with a friend or agree to do things that benefit you over another player in poker is like saying it's ok for a PGA golfer to kick a ball out of a bad lie or use an illegal club as long as his partner is ok with it and nobody else knows.
ZCore13
How can you stop ghost players ? They take over a lesser players hand after they get knocked out. And one player to a hand ? Yeah, bet me.
Quote: theotherguyI have played in places like you describe. Just hate when TV commentators say how smart players are to check the hand down. Funny thing was I knew lots of cheats who never played in casinos until Black Friday. All online poker rooms are cesspools for cheating, day in and day out. You can only catch the idiots. Yes, you could catch sophisticated cheating, but nobody is gonna put the money and effort into doing that. And they will be back next week anyway no matter what you do.
How can you stop ghost players ? They take over a lesser players hand after they get knocked out. And one player to a hand ? Yeah, bet me.
Online is really tough to stop tech savvy players. They've come a long way though. It used to be if you just used a proxy it was tough to prove anything against you. Many of the sites now compare who you play with during ring games and compare what would be a random pairing of players to how often you are showing up at the same table with a specific table.
I was considering a job in Turks & Caicos at one time, helping a start-up online casino. Creating the rules would have been no problem. It's being able to catch the cheats that would have really made me nervous.
ZCore13
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.Quote: Zcore13That would mean that they all got together prior to the game and decided to work together.
Some Advantage players can instinctively spot other advantage players. Nothing has to be said.
If I sit down at a blackjack table with another AP's (for some promotion)who I don't know and the dealer flashes a 10 with a 6 showing, we wouldn't of all had to have had a conversation prior to that to decide it's best for all to just stand.
If I seen someone betting max on the side bet I would quickly figure out if they were there specifically for that or not.
-----------------------------------------------
You're casino doesn't allow people to chop the blinds??? IIRC I may have only seen that once ever, and I can't even be sure of that. Even if you don't allow it, I would be willing to bet you it happens all the time at your casino. If you turn a "blind" eye to that, it would be hypocritical to say that's ok. They do because it really doesn't affect the house much. Actually it's probably better for the house if players chop blinds because generally there's no rake and it's wasted time.
But what I cannot understand is -- If everyone is allowed to "check all the way down", and everyone "checks all the way down"....then what's the LEGAL problem? Having a side bet that makes it +EV for the players should have no bearing on the legality of this kind of play.
What if there was no side bet that was +EV. Everyone checking all the way down, every time? Would you still say it's illegal? Would this even be a debate?
It's more like if they had a entry fee hole in one contest that normally took in slightly more money than the odds dictated. Then all the players noticed one player was using a particular club that cut his odds in half, so they all independently decided to use the same clubQuote: Zcore13. That's not how poker is supposed to be played. Saying it's ok to work with a friend or agree to do things that benefit you over another player in poker is like saying it's ok for a PGA golfer to kick a ball out of a bad lie or use an illegal club as long as his partner is ok with it and nobody else knows.
ZCore13
Either change the entry fee, cancel the contest or take the risk. Don't change the rules
Perhaps you think they should change the entire rules of golf? Sorry guys no more 9 irons we consider it cheating and unethical here.
Everyone checking down every hand to the river ISN'T CHEATING.
Just find out where the $25 side bet is.Quote: RSI don't play poker, but...
But what I cannot understand is -- If everyone is allowed to "check all the way down", and everyone "checks all the way down"....then what's the LEGAL problem? Having a side bet that makes it +EV for the players should have no bearing on the legality of this kind of play.
What if there was no side bet that was +EV. Everyone checking all the way down, every time? Would you still say it's illegal? Would this even be a debate?
Poker dealer question: If everyone checked down could you get out 50hph?
Does anyone know what % this is worth if everyone independently decided to check it down?
Card counters that have been barred from BJ care typically welcome at every other casino game.
I love poker, but I very rarely get to play it. When I go to the casino, I want to play.
On another topic, if they are actually paying players with a $1000 bill, then the promotion is even better than players might realize. Those bills are rare, and if they are in good condition, are worth more than face value. So you may very well be getting $2000.
Quote: AxelWolf
You're casino doesn't allow people to chop the blinds???
It's in our rules available to everyone that if the last two players remaining pre flop are the small and big blind, they may chop. Before we added that option to our rules a few years ago, it was not and no dealer would allow it, no matter who wanted to or how much they complained.
ZCore13
Quote: RSI don't play poker, but...
But what I cannot understand is -- If everyone is allowed to "check all the way down", and everyone "checks all the way down"....then what's the LEGAL problem? Having a side bet that makes it +EV for the players should have no bearing on the legality of this kind of play.
What if there was no side bet that was +EV. Everyone checking all the way down, every time? Would you still say it's illegal? Would this even be a debate?
It's not illegal. I've never said anyone is getting arrested. It's against the spirit of the game and we won't allow it.
And yes, if there was no side bet and everyone was just checking around, we'd not allow that either. It's happened before. Whether it's waiting for Aces for Aces Cracked or to get more time in to qualify for a drawing or anything else, if you are not there to play poker, you can go somewhere else.
ZCore13
Quote: MBIf the whole table is checking down to the river with w max side bet, the correct action is to disallow the side bet for those players, not go down the rathole of prosecuting the players for committing a felony.
Card counters that have been barred from BJ care typically welcome at every other casino game.
I would never charge anybody for something like that. A warning first, then asked to leave for 24 hours, then possibly a ban if the behavior continues.
In my experience talking with many many Table Games Directors, card counters are not allowed to play other table games. They are generally asked to leave the casino and not come back. That's at most places.
I generally flat bet them, so they are welcome to stay and continue to play under those rules or play a different game.
ZCore13
Quote: MrGoldenSunOn another topic, if they are actually paying players with a $1000 bill, then the promotion is even better than players might realize. Those bills are rare, and if they are in good condition, are worth more than face value. So you may very well be getting $2000.
I'd be shocked if they're using real $1000 bills. Probably a certificate that looks like a $1000 bill (but obviously fake so as not to tread into counterfeiting waters).
eBay listings for $1000 bills, between $1800-$4000 depending on the quality.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI'd be shocked if they're using real $1000 bills.
Same here.
I only knew Cleveland was on that bill from a Jay-Z song.
a) Some poker players are students of game theory. Not all, but certainly more than most house-banked card game players where such considerations don't matter. Under the game-theoretic lens, when the rules of a game change to encourage implicit collusion, that collusion should be expected.
b) As a game designer, it bothers me that someone would attempt to sell a side bet that frequently and intentionally fouls the player strategy for the underlying game. Someone tried this for blackjack a few years back -- and it even won an award at Raving, I think -- but it was a terrible idea. I go out of my way to prevent tension between players' wagers -- you usually don't want someone to have to choose between winning the main game vs. winning the side bet when they've bet on both. The only time I want that to happen is with purpose-built hedge bets, like Any Craps vs. the Pass Line.
c) ZCore, please let me know if you want a different house-banked side bet for your player-banked poker games, one that doesn't have any problems with implicit collusion or strategic conflicts. I can custom design one for you that will be unaffected by player strategy.
Quote: MathExtremistb) As a game designer, it bothers me that someone would attempt to sell a side bet that frequently and intentionally fouls the player strategy for the underlying game. Someone tried this for blackjack a few years back -- and it even won an award at Raving, I think -- but it was a terrible idea. I go out of my way to prevent tension between players' wagers -- you usually don't want someone to have to choose between winning the main game vs. winning the side bet when they've bet on both.
Yes, and this is a problem for me as someone who wants to just play a standard game of poker. I don't want to have to think about this other stuff and try to analyze how the rest of the table might be reacting to it. I like the game as is.
Quote: MathExtremistWithout quoting and replying to a bunch of different posts, here are my thoughts:
a) Some poker players are students of game theory. Not all, but certainly more than most house-banked card game players where such considerations don't matter. Under the game-theoretic lens, when the rules of a game change to encourage implicit collusion, that collusion should be expected.
b) As a game designer, it bothers me that someone would attempt to sell a side bet that frequently and intentionally fouls the player strategy for the underlying game. Someone tried this for blackjack a few years back -- and it even won an award at Raving, I think -- but it was a terrible idea. I go out of my way to prevent tension between players' wagers -- you usually don't want someone to have to choose between winning the main game vs. winning the side bet when they've bet on both. The only time I want that to happen is with purpose-built hedge bets, like Any Craps vs. the Pass Line.
c) ZCore, please let me know if you want a different house-banked side bet for your player-banked poker games, one that doesn't have any problems with implicit collusion or strategic conflicts. I can custom design one for you that will be unaffected by player strategy.
All of this talk from others has been theoretical. I have had no issues. I set it up with a $10 maximum side bet limit to not allow it to be taken advantage of.
It also does not change the basic game of poker, which is why I allowed it to come in. You place the bet prior to the deal and if you end up with one of the hands on the paytable at the showdown using both your cards and 3 on the board, you win. Someone who folds can not show their hand if they folded with a straight. Nobody gets to keep their cards after folding in case they would have got something. The only time a hand does not have to be played to the showdown is if everyone folds to the winner. The winner of the hand, at any time, can show their hand to collect on the side bet. So for example, someone puts $1 on the side bet has 10 J in their hand and the board flops 10 10 10. Player bets $3 and everyone folds. Normally without the side bet the winning player would win a $3 pot for flopping quads. With the side bet he would show his cards and win an additional $100.
As for your offer, I'm always willing to listen to game ideas, but again, I don't see any risk in my current offering.
ZCore13
Quote: MrGoldenSunYes, and this is a problem for me as someone who wants to just play a standard game of poker. I don't want to have to think about this other stuff and try to analyze how the rest of the table might be reacting to it. I like the game as is.
The game "as it is" has been dying for years now. Poker Rooms all over the Country have been closing. 6 have closed in Las Vegas in the last few years. Probably 15 over the last 5 years. Revenues from poker rooms have been declining steadily at most places. Casinos are moving, down-sizing and replacing poker rooms with more slots all the time throughout the Country.
Everything changes, evolves or eventually dies. Your "as is" is going to be "as was" before you know it.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13That makes absolutely no sense. I protect the integrity of all promotions. That includes player funded promotions from the promotional rake.
ZCore13
That's not what I was getting at. I'm not saying you're the reason poker shouldn't have side bets. What I meant was that side bets like this one completely diminish the integrity of the poker game. People are talking about how people make bad calls to chase a bonus, and let's face it, sharps are going to try and game the bonus at the expense of the other players, making the measures you mentioned necessary. None of this is good for poker. I'm a poker purist, but I say if you wanna play poker, sit down. If you wanna play carnival games, go to the pit.
Quote: Zcore13The game "as it is" has been dying for years now. Poker Rooms all over the Country have been closing. 6 have closed in Las Vegas in the last few years. Probably 15 over the last 5 years. Revenues from poker rooms have been declining steadily at most places. Casinos are moving, down-sizing and replacing poker rooms with more slots all the time throughout the Country.
Everything changes, evolves or eventually dies. Your "as is" is going to be "as was" before you know it.
ZCore13
In 2010 Nevada had 920 Poker Tables, In 2015 it was 681, a decline of 26%. The Daily Win per table Increased 18% during that time.
What will be the next evolution of poker ? We have gone from Draw to 5 card stud to 7 card stud to limit holdem to no limit holdem.
On a side note, in a 1964 New York Times article " Dr. Thorp, the modern Wizard of Odds, has published a book detailing his winning system, Beat the Dealer. "
Donald Angeline was the inspiration for Michael, I believe. Never saw Thorp referred to this way before finding the Times article.
Quote: theotherguyIn 2010 Nevada had 920 Poker Tables, In 2015 it was 681, a decline of 26%. The Daily Win per table Increased 18% during that time.
What will be the next evolution of poker ? We have gone from Draw to 5 card stud to 7 card stud to limit holdem to no limit holdem.
On a side note, in a 1964 New York Times article " Dr. Thorp, the modern Wizard of Odds, has published a book detailing his winning system, Beat the Dealer. "
Donald Angeline was the inspiration for Michael, I believe. Never saw Thorp referred to this way before finding the Times article.
The next evolution might be side bets, it might be a game with wild cards or a game that is played at home games right now. You never know. Like I said, you have to evolve or you die. I'm choosing to try and evolve. A casino in near me Flagstaff did not and poker closed.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13The next evolution might be side bets, it might be a game with wild cards or a game that is played at home games right now. You never know. Like I said, you have to evolve or you die. I'm choosing to try and evolve. A casino in near me Flagstaff did not and poker closed.
ZCore13
Perhaps they should try out 31... It could operate in mini sit and go style tables. Of course all of the little details would need to be worked out but I have been thinking about proposing that for some time now.
I honestly don't like the idea of side bets for poker. But I'm not 100% anti... I would almost feel obligated to play and dump my money on them. It's like sitting at a table game that has a number of them and be afraid to not play and obviously hit a big payoff. This what happens to me at all games with the six card bonus attached to them. I have a problem not placing it....
I am serious about my 31 statement. Even though most would think I'm just plugging my table game. I'm really not, I love thirty one, obviously. I would play of any room had it and I obviously wouldn't be involved with that portion of the business...
Quote: mrsuit31Perhaps they should try out 31... It could operate in mini sit and go style tables. Of course all of the little details would need to be worked out but I have been thinking about proposing that for some time now.
I honestly don't like the idea of side bets for poker. But I'm not 100% anti... I would almost feel obligated to play and dump my money on them. It's like sitting at a table game that has a number of them and be afraid to not play and obviously hit a big payoff. This what happens to me at all games with the six card bonus attached to them. I have a problem not placing it....
I am serious about my 31 statement. Even though most would think I'm just plugging my table game. I'm really not, I love thirty one, obviously. I would play of any room had it and I obviously wouldn't be involved with that portion of the business...
You never know. I tried open face Chinese poker in my poker room. I really liked it and played it when I was in Las Vegas at the Orleans. But my players didn't take to it. When I first brought in the side bet for poker, I didn't think it was going to be all that great either. But now that I've seen it played I would play a dollar on it every hand if it was available and I was playing. To each their own. Some people don't like Blackjack side bets and some do.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13
You never know. I tried open face Chinese poker in my poker room. I really liked it and played it when I was in Las Vegas at the Orleans. But my players didn't take to it. When I first brought in the side bet for poker, I didn't think it was going to be all that great either. But now that I've seen it played I would play a dollar on it every hand if it was available and I was playing. To each their own. Some people don't like Blackjack side bets and some do.
ZCore13
Well if you ever think about trying it, I'd of course be happy to help get it started...
And I agree, in reality the only thing that will answer any of our questions is how the bet performs and what affect, if any, it has on the room as a whole...
Skill gaming that also has an element of luck could be big. Ahigh's system was actually perfect for that.
Unfortunately I kinda think the gaming industry acted to slow on that.
They should've integrated social media like facebook and twitter to all the games years ago.
Angry birds for money would've been huge IMO.
Quote: Zcore13All of this talk from others has been theoretical. I have had no issues. I set it up with a $10 maximum side bet limit to not allow it to be taken advantage of.
It also does not change the basic game of poker, which is why I allowed it to come in. You place the bet prior to the deal and if you end up with one of the hands on the paytable at the showdown using both your cards and 3 on the board, you win. Someone who folds can not show their hand if they folded with a straight. Nobody gets to keep their cards after folding in case they would have got something. The only time a hand does not have to be played to the showdown is if everyone folds to the winner. The winner of the hand, at any time, can show their hand to collect on the side bet. So for example, someone puts $1 on the side bet has 10 J in their hand and the board flops 10 10 10. Player bets $3 and everyone folds. Normally without the side bet the winning player would win a $3 pot for flopping quads. With the side bet he would show his cards and win an additional $100.
As for your offer, I'm always willing to listen to game ideas, but again, I don't see any risk in my current offering.
ZCore13
How does it not change the game?
Board is 3456K, I have 2,J, do I stay in the game, when others are pushing in chips, knowing they probably got a 7, but I want that side bet money?
Quote: Zcore13It also does not change the basic game of poker
I don't see how it couldn't change it at least a little bit.
Quote:You place the bet prior to the deal and if you end up with one of the hands on the paytable at the showdown using both your cards and 3 on the board, you win.
This would seem to incentivize playing more starting hands, chasing more draws, and checking more good hands if they have a shot at a big bonus.
Quote:So for example, someone puts $1 on the side bet has 10 J in their hand and the board flops 10 10 10. Player bets $3 and everyone folds. Normally without the side bet the winning player would win a $3 pot for flopping quads. With the side bet he would show his cards and win an additional $100.
I conclude that if a side bettor bets a scary board and everyone folds, then he was almost surely bluffing. So it alters the ability to keep bluffs secret. I guess this only harms the side bettor.
I just realized another problem I have with the bet. It takes money that would have hit the table and gives it to the casino. I assume most of the players making this bet are not skilled. So in addition to altering the gameplay and reducing hands per hour, we're also making bad players go bust even faster.
Quote: MrGoldenSunI don't see how it couldn't change it at least a little bit.
This would seem to incentivize playing more starting hands, chasing more draws, and checking more good hands if they have a shot at a big bonus.
I conclude that if a side bettor bets a scary board and everyone folds, then he was almost surely bluffing. So it alters the ability to keep bluffs secret. I guess this only harms the side bettor.
I just realized another problem I have with the bet. It takes money that would have hit the table and gives it to the casino. I assume most of the players making this bet are not skilled. So in addition to altering the gameplay and reducing hands per hour, we're also making bad players go bust even faster.
What if a sidebet was mandatory at $1 and taken instead of a rake? Say it was the 2 card bonus on Texas Hold-Em Bonus, less the AA dealer match jackpot?
Just thinking out loud...but then all your money would be potentially working for you.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat if a sidebet was mandatory at $1 and taken instead of a rake? Say it was the 2 card bonus on Texas Hold-Em Bonus, less the AA dealer match jackpot?
Just thinking out loud...but then all your money would be potentially working for you.
The only thing I'd dislike about that is that it compels you to show some hands where you win preflop that you wouldn't be compelled to show now.
I don't think this sidebet idea is the end of poker. I just don't see much I like about it. I also think it's not going to be the thing which saves poker, if you believe it needs "saving." There are lots of more fun places to make side bets.
