So ending there is enough for me, of course you're going to be biased.

I never said that dealers can control cards, etc.

Anyway, I'm saying that some are better than others and other posters agreed, it's just we may vary in the definition of "better" but we're not going to tip unconditionally.

The problem is that your definition of "better" is delusional. The only way it could possibly make sense is if dealers could control the cards, which you just denied.

I never said anyone wanted $25/hr either. I just said lets use that for the sake of the example because I'm not going to say what dealers make on average per hour. And yes, I believe all poker dealers would trade what they are making now for a guaranteed $1/hand dealt.

I put that in and confused ppl? Are you serious? I started this whole debate with my question! In that question I used $25/hr as a base for the example! I challenge you to find a post before mine that used $1/hand. Someone else changed it to $1/hand for their own stupid reason.

Regardless, this simple question has turned into an argument about what dealers make and what everyone thinks would have to be done to compensate instead of just answering a simple question just like everything else here so I'm over it. Thank you to the couple of posters that actually answered my question.

There have been posts in this thread for years about dealers making about $1 per hand.

And that is about what they appear to make in my extensive experience as a player. I don't think that's a 'stupid reason' to use that as a starting figure for debate. It is stupid to use $25 per hour if you don't think that is accurate.

That's why I don't think the waiter analogy is a good one and the sports ref is a better comparison. Anyway, it starts getting confusing since they are totally separate industry sectors.

How is it delusional if I say it happens some dealers are better and some are not, based on past history? It's delusional to ignore facts and no that is not the "only" way it makes sense is that they can control cards, thing is you don't have to make sense of it but observe it happen.

It is delusional to 'like' dealers better based on their having been 'luckier' for you in the past. The 'fact' is that past results do not reflect anything meaningful, and do not affect anything in the future.

Or I could put it this way, it is 'mean' for you to like dealers less who have been unlucky for you in the past. You already admitted the dealers can't control the cards. So why do you want to punish them?

We are debating in circles then, because if they don't affect cards (again, I'm saying they don't, rather, I'm saying they are "unlucky" for lack of a better descriptor to be giving me bad card situations), why tip them? However, I still tip because I like some dealers over others, but based on my criteria.

Like it or not, this is a results game in the end (nobody goes this is best process-oriented poker player in the world if he is bankrupt or has no winning record), if some dealer keeps dealing me beats or colddecks, it's gonna sting and I won't be smiling and giving them $1 next time I win a $5 pot when in the past I got stacked a few times. That's just ridiculous.

But if they don't control the cards, and thus didn't cause you to lose, then why are you taking your losses out on them by not tipping when you do win?

We already gave lots of other, legitimate, reasons to tip the dealers. Why do you keep ignoring those answers and asking the question again?

You can tip or not tip for whatever ridiculous reasons you like. But don't expect anyone else to think you're being reasonable to do so. I don't know why you want to convince anyone here that you are correct.

It's simple, because the beats/colddecks they gave me far outweigh the measly $5 pots I get in return.

Some ppl may think that's "mean" but I'm not. In reality, they're "mean" to me giving me those situations! How the heck am I the mean one?

Like I said, dealers can't have it both ways: get a good pot, that's subconsciously/whatever I did/good service/etc so I deserve a tip and get a bad beat, nope, it's all luck! See the fallacy in that premise?

You're confused then, as I'm not here to convince anyone, just to explain my tipping criteria. I think it makes sense. I dunno how some players after a major beat, losing >100bbs, for example, can turn around and win a $5 pot the next hand and still tip the dealer. That's funny.

Because you are voluntarily choosing not to tip them. They are not voluntarily causing you to lose the pot.


I honestly have a very hard time believing anyone can be this dense not to see the difference. Starting to think these are just troll posts.


Do you get angry with the mailman when he delivers you a bill, but really like him when he delivers a nice Xmas gift from your mother?

Well, if you still don't know how they can do it, that's your fault that you haven't been paying attention. We have given you lots of legitimate reasons for acting that way. You have given us all illogical reasons for your actions.

But you have accomplished your purpose of explaining your criteria. So I guess you're done here?

Ss1,

Most dealers will deal you a brutal beat at some point that results in you losing a giant pot you were a big favorite to win. Should probably go ahead and stop tipping all the dealers, because even if it hasn’t happened from them yet, it’s likely coming.

LOL, you don't have to be rude just because you're losing the argument, that is, failing to convince me to do things the same as you. I'm not here to convince you, you seem to care more.

I'll say it again: dealers CAN'T have it both ways, why tip them if they don't control cards? They don't. However, I still tip, but based on results.

Is that supposed to be a jinx? Same to you then.

No, I have my good dealers and I know the bad ones.

I'm not being rude. I am trying to get you to understand, because everyone keeps answering your question of why to tip the dealers when they can't control the cards, and then you keep asking it again and again. Others do not tip on results, because the results are not under the control of the dealers.

Suit,

Ok now we’re all on the same page.

As to your question, yes I’d prob prefer to have tipping eliminated and have the rake increased the $1.20 or so per hand required to give dealers that guaranteed pay they’re happy with.

Ss1,


You must be new to poker. Give it a few years and you won’t have any dealers left you still need to tip.

I thought tips were *voluntarily*, because you're making it sound awfully like it's *compulsory*, and we might as well have something like the 10% service charge included in our poker sessions like in some restaurants. I tip if I feel like it, based on certain criteria, that's it.

I'm not asking again and again, you're confused. You're asking me again and again why I tip/don't tip in those situations and I already told you but you don't accept my answer.

Assumption incorrect. Also, could you possibly be saying that all dealers will give you the exact $ result be it + or -, because that's wrong too.

I never asked you why you tip or don't tip. You gave your reasons with your first post so I didn't need to. All I did was explain why your reasons were irrational.

Then you asked several times why anyone tips dealers if they can't control the cards, and we answered you several times.

I also never said tipping was compulsory or that you should tip all dealers.

Except it would take more than $1.20. Peace.

Ss,

Tipping is pretty much compulsory at poker, in the same way tipping is pretty much compulsory at a sit-down restaurant.