No, I'm being completely serious, but there is obviously some amount of discretion/judgment that you need to exercise. I wouldn't be handing out loans at a 1-2 game but there are perfectly good reasons why people need to borrow money when they play slightly larger.

Hypothetical example: if getting stiffed out of 5k allows you to win 25k it's a pretty good spot.... if there's a 5% shot you get stiffed out of 5k and it gives you a 80% chance to win 25k it's a really really good spot.

most loans will have well under 5% chance of getting stuffed and there's a lot of stand up people where that number is 0.

Sounds optimistic.

I have no idea how you think this is ever the case.

thete are lots of people that have more money than I could ever imagine and also stand up people, if they need to borrow money saying no is simply foolish.

If somebody is clearly a degenerate gambler than you have played with 4 times then clearly the answer is no.

If I was playing 1-2 NL I was would have a 100% no loan policy because people should be able to come up with 3/4 but ins to bring to the casino or readily have access to that amount on thei ATM card. But as you move up, having a never loan money policy is jsut not relastic or practical. Because quite often the situation is going to be loan money or the game doesn't go (or breaks).

I'm no saying loan money to anyone that asks, that would be horribly stupid. But thete are lots of cases where not loaning money would be horribly stupid as well...


I consider myself extremely lucky that for the most party I play with very trustworthy and stand up people. I've been stiffed for a total of 2k lifetime (this has to be record low for poker players) and that was loaned to somebody that played me HU and was drawing dead to win (so effectively out $0)

Beat or brag? JL has loaned me money. I don't think he was even at my table.

How much of your 25k bink did you give him?

This is not universally true.

It is not true in the SF Bay Area MSLHE. More often there are 10 people milling about with the money to play but not the willingness to play.

You have it backwards...First you loan him...then you bink

Don't be that guy. There are a half dozen players in my room who spend 1/2 of the time walking the room bum hunting, 1/4 actually moving tables and maybe playing hands 1/4 of the time.

Don't be that guy. If your table is bad, sure ask for a change. But don't be in the 2nd best table in the room itching like you are on fire to get to the best table.

be humble enough about your own ability to recognize when a game isnt profitable.

If you're at one extreme, ask for a change. If you're at another extreme, don't ask for a change There is no middle.

So you know people who don't know how to efficiently table change. That doesn't mean that everyone who looks for better tables is doing so inefficiently, and you are spewing money by trying too hard not to be "that guy".

Table changing is one of the most profitable things — if not the most profitable thing — you can do at small stakes poker, and it is the thing I stress more than anything else to new players after having them get comfortable playing in a live setting.

Short term I agree, long term I disagree.

Changing tables and seats is great until you start playing so much that you get known for it. And it stunts your long term growth so when you move up to midstakes games where table changes are non-existent and seat changes are contested, you have to spend 5x as much to figure out how to play from the worst seat.

If anything, I advocate seat anti-selection. Pick the worst seat at the worst table while you're playing for peanuts.

I don't table change at 2/3 because the worst case I've ever experienced is having to wait an hour for an obvious mark and still having 4 or 5 mediocre regs to beat up on.

That Guy spotted ITT