Part Six: Other Cardroom Personnel
Props
Props are players who are hired by the poker room to help start games and to keep games going. They play with their own money. And they come in two flavors.
The first type of prop is what is known as a “standard prop.” These are people who are paid a salary to play in games, at an agreed upon maximum stake or lower, where the poker room feels they are needed. Props will be added to a new game to help get it started and are also added to a game when it becomes short-handed. In addition, when the game fills up, one (or more) of the props is usually pulled from the game so that a regular customer can play. (However, this can vary from cardroom to cardroom and some rooms are known not to pull their props from a game if that person wants to keep playing.) The prop salary is usually roughly equivalent to what the rake or time charges would be in the biggest game that they play.
The second type of prop is what is known as a “silent prop.” These are people who act like a regular customer. That is, at the agreed upon time, they come to the cardroom and sign up on the list just like a regular player, and then they also agree to play a certain length of time. In addition, since they are treated as a regular customer they are never pulled from the game, and many people who frequent a public cardroom are not even aware that silent props are sometimes used. (But not all cardrooms who use props will have silent ones.) The silent prop, since he’s not as useful to a poker room as a standard prop, is usually paid a lower salary than a standard prop.
But I think there are a lot of problems with props, especially with silent props, and strongly recommend to those cardrooms that use them to try to modify this system. First, since their salary essentially allows them to play either rake free or at a reduced rake, it means that the real poker room customers are paying for them. Thus, you have a system where some players are essentially playing rake free while others are paying extra rake to account for the players who are getting their rake back in the form of salary. This doesn’t seem fair and can create resentment among the regular customers.
Next, in cardrooms with a lot of standard props, they often tend to become friendly with each other, which at times can lead to soft playing and in extreme cases collusion. Poker room management should be on the lookout for this and remove those props who do either of these two things.
Another problem, and this is important, is that props also tend to play tight and rather well since they are professional players, and the poker room should probably not encourage tight games. This is especially true with the silent props since they don’t get pulled from the games. Notice that this has the potential to upset the proper balance of luck and skill that poker rooms require to be successful and which this book often talks about. And the proper balance of luck and skill, as has already been pointed out, is one of the requirements to produce good games.
Again, poker rooms need to strive for good games and the prop system, especially if a lot of props are used, helps to create the opposite. So, while props may be employed to help start games and to keep games going, and at times are needed to do this, in the long run, they, especially the silent variety, may have the opposite effect by making the games tougher and by driving up the rake. Therefore, my recommendation would be to get rid of the silent props and to use the standard props sparingly.
And now for a story. Many years ago, I wrote an article for one of the poker magazines that said essentially what is stated above. I then received a letter from a reader that said given how tight my play was known to be, that I had no business criticizing others who also played tight. But the person was wrong.
The reason he was wrong is that as a customer I had the right to play any way which suited me, and this includes both loose and tight play. But no matter what my playing style, the poker room was not paying me to sit in the games. Notice that this is much different for a prop.
Hosts
A host is a person who is in charge of creating and maintaining a specific game in the cardroom, and sometimes more than one game. This is a job he is paid for and the host almost always plays in his own game. In many ways, they are glorified props who just want to create a game in which they’ll do well in. And that’s exactly the problem.
In the “Game Structures” chapter, starting on page 72, I talk about a host who changed the ante size in the big Las Vegas stud games because he liked to play loose. Today, a host in a no-limit hold ’em game, and I know of one example like this, might want to raise the maximum buy-in, and this topic has already been thoroughly addressed. (See the chapter “Buy-ins That are Too Large” starting on page 16.)
Another problem with hosts is that it’s easy for them to become involved in the decision-making process when there is a dispute in the game. After all, it’s their game and they’re in charge of it. This can not only lead to bad decisions, but also to accusations of favoritism (in the host’s game) which in turn can contribute to the adversarial relationship between players and management.
So, in my opinion, hosts are like props but with more potential problems. And those cardrooms that employ hosts should probably rethink this strategy.
Now, with all of this said, I do think that a big poker room should have a position that should be called a host. But his role would be very different than playing in a game. This would be someone who could talk to those new to the poker room and help to explain how the games are played and which game might be best for them to start in.
On our website, our poster pwnsall also pointed out that the host could help the new player understand “How to get on lists, how you'll get called for your seat, how much time you’ll have to claim your seat, where and how to get chips, etc., etc.” I completely agree and feel that a host used in this manner could be a valuable employee for a major cardroom, especially one located in a large casino that is populated by a lot of non-poker playing customers, some of whom might be willing to give poker a try.
However, I’ve never seen this type of host even though in some poker rooms the brush does handle some of these issues. But a host dedicated to being a “real host,” in my opinion, can and should be an asset to the cardroom.
Brushes
The role of the brush has been mentioned in other places throughout this book so this chapter will be kept short. And with that being said, the main job of the brush is to help create and call the lists, help to start new games, and to make sure that when a player is called to a new game, he’s able to get into that game in a quick and efficient manner.
Obviously, a poker room could not function without a brush, and it’s important that he not only does his job well, but also in a fair and courteous manner. In addition, the brush can at times help in assisting others who work the floor when help is needed.
But there are a few potential problems relative to the brush, so, I thought it only proper to mention three of them. The first has to do with running chips.
Now I understand that part of the brush’s income is from tips and in some cardrooms the best way for the brush to get tips is to get chips for a new player who’s about to take his seat. But if there’s a line at the cashier, the brush can be away from his post for much longer than he should, and in his desire to get a tip can actually cost the poker room business when a potential customer gets tired of waiting to get his name on the list. In addition, in those poker rooms where chip runners are employed, having the brush run chips may hurt the income of the chip runners since the tip will now go to the brush instead of the chip runner.
The obvious solution for this is to not allow the brush to run chips, but to pay him more. Unfortunately, I don’t think that many poker rooms will want to do this. So, this becomes a tough problem to fix. But if there are complaints about the brush often being nowhere to be found, the poker room manager will need to address it.
The second problem has to do with the fact that some cardrooms also have the brush make decisions when there’s a dispute at the table. This too can cause the brush to be away from his post, but there’s an additional problem, and it’s that the brush can be accused of favoritism if any of the decisions that he makes go in favor of a big tipper. In the introductory chapter “What a Poker Room Needs to Accomplish” starting on page 9, it was stated that one of the things a poker room needs to strive for is a “reputation of integrity and honest games,” and having a brush make decisions is one of the possible ways that this positive reputation can be lost. And this can be the case even if all decisions are done in an honest and ethical manner.
The third problem is not really a problem anymore but for completeness it’ll be mentioned anyway. Years ago, the brush would keep the list private. That is, he wrote the list on a piece of paper and he was essentially the only person who had access to it. This meant that if the brush wanted to change the order of the list, include some fake names, or slip in players who came later ahead of those who had come before, he could often do this with little fear of getting caught.
In today’s modern cardrooms where a large electronic board displays all the lists for all the games that are being offered, the problems mentioned above become very unlikely. However, if there are any complaints in this area, the poker room manager should take them seriously and thoroughly investigate.
Cashiers
The last group to mention that’s employed in the cardroom is the cashiers. However, in many cardrooms, even though these people work in the poker room, they don’t report to poker room management. Instead, they work for the casino head cashier and are just temporarily assigned to the poker room, sometimes for only that particular shift.
I recognize that being a cashier is not an easy job, and it’s also a job with a lot of pressure since if the amount of money is off at the end of the shift the cashier is often responsible to make up any short falls. Many players don’t understand this, and they’ll hurry the cashier so that they can cash out quickly. But there also are two issues that I want to mention.
The first is that the poker room can sometimes have a busy night when the rest of the casino is slow. This might happen because a jackpot is high, there’s a big tournament in town which brings in a lot of poker players, a special group that wants to play poker is visiting the casino, and who knows what else. Yet on nights like these I’ve seen long lines at the poker cashier when more cashiers were needed.
Now when this happens, I suspect that the casino head cashier just didn’t send enough people to work in the poker room, but another possibility is that communication between the poker room and the casino cashier was poor. So, it’s important for poker room management, when they anticipate a busy night, to make sure that the casino cashier understands this. If not, there can be long waits in the poker room.
The next problem I want to mention can also occur on a busy night. What happens is that when a new player sits down, or someone playing goes broke, and now needs to purchase chips, this player will then give his money to either the brush or the chip runner. Next, the person running the chips ends up at the rear of a long line of players who either want to buy chips or cash out, and thus the player in need of the chips, who is now playing, won’t have chips for a fairly long length of time. But why can’t the chip runner have a dedicated line?
Here’s what I mean. Suppose it’s a busy night and even though there are four cashiers each working in their appropriate window, the line to cash out is still long. Instead of the chip runner going to the end of this line, why can’t one of the four windows be dedicated for the chip runners and have its own line that only those running chips can get in. This way, the wait to get chips for a player in a game will be short, and if at the moment there is no chip runner at this window, the next regular customer can be called to it.
Appendix: Some New Poker Games to Try
by David Sklansky
One way to make poker rooms more successful is to offer games that amateur players are more likely to play than those that are presently offered. These could be new games, presently offered games with somewhat different rules, or even games that were popular many years ago but not so much now. Here I will offer sixteen different types of possibilities that might fill the bill.
The reasons no-limit hold ’em does not fill the bill are easy to see. Frankly, it’s kind of a fluke that it ever did. But it benefitted from tournaments, television, the hole card camera, and the fact that it can be easily explained to the viewing audience. Plus, of course, the fact that TV shows that only show highlights, can cherry pick those rare exciting big pots. But no-limit hold ’em has problems. The biggest one, as Mason points out, is that the best players win too often. The next biggest is that optimum strategy in most full games is to fold a large proportion of your starting hands. Also, the game itself is not really that fun or interesting. Finally, there’s the fact that the technique known as GTO or Game Theory Optimum is being utilized more and more, with the aid of computers, to help players use strategy that is essentially unbeatable.
And this GTO strategy diminishes the importance of attributes that good poker players used to take pride in. Specifically, the ability to evaluate situations “on the fly.” Including the ability to read hands, the ability to decide whether and how to play a hand deceptively, and the ability to tie those things together depending on pot odds. But if you are armed with computer derived (also known as “solvers”) tactics, you can study various types of situations at home and play a tough to beat game without using those old-fashioned talents. Especially if the game is no-limit hold ’em.
With this in mind, I have invented or resurrected games that avoid most of these problems. Games that usually allow you to play a lot of starting hands. Games not easily analyzed by a computer. Games whose strategy cannot easily be derived in the comfort of your home. Games where psychology plays an important part. And finally, of course, games that are fun. (I suggest that cardrooms set aside one table to try out some of these games.)
1. Hi-Lo Declare. This is far from a new game. In fact, the variations of hi-lo declare were easily the most popular home games during the 60s, 70s, and beyond. Not surprising because it’s a lot of fun and a talented player can play a lot of hands. The reason for this comes from the fact that you can take down half the pot with a bad hand even without bluffing.
For those who have never played this game, the key rule is that after all the cards are out the players “declare” whether they are “going” high, going low, or in rare cases, going both ways. If you declare only one way, you can win only half the pot unless all the other players go the same way as you. It does not matter if you happen to have the best hand in the category you didn’t declare for. If you declare both ways you must win both ways or you lose. (By winning both ways I mean beating all the high declarers for high and all the low declarers for low. If a low declarer happens to beat you for high it’s irrelevant.)
If only one player declares for high or low, he automatically gets half the pot. It doesn’t matter how bad his hand is. So, an astute player can often finagle his way to winning these half pots with a bad hand. Sometimes this ploy involves declaring one way even though his hand is much better the other way. That’s because he’s likely to be beaten that other way.
The game may or may not include one last round of betting after the declare. The declare may be done sequentially or simultaneously. The game is not usually played “eight or better” but it could be. The simplest version is seven-card stud, but there are myriad of other versions.
The reason this game was not brought into casinos was that there was concern about how easy it would be to collude. Because two or more mediocre players can become unbeatable by using the simple strategy of never declaring in the same direction. But I don’t think this is a good enough reason to outlaw a game that has a chance of being quite popular. At the very least, it could be offered at small stakes where cheaters are not apt to hang out. But I think nowadays players are sophisticated enough to spot suspicious play, especially with the help of rules requiring more exposure of hole cards than usual, and thus it may catch on for bigger stakes as well.
2. Seven-Deuce Game Variation. A version of the seven-deuce game is sometimes played as of this writing. Basically, if all the players agree, anyone who wins a pot with a seven-deuce in limit or no-limit hold’ em is paid a bonus, perhaps the size of a big blind or even more, by every other player. People often like this game. And it actually changes correct strategy. Not only because you should now often play that hand, but also because you must now put that hand into an opponent's “range.”
The problem, of course, is that some people don’t like having money in jeopardy when they’re out of the pot. To avoid this problem while keeping the incentive to play that (or possibly other) bad hand or to put it into others’ range I propose an alternative. If you play seven-deuce and lose you get a 50 percent rebate on the money you lost.
3. Turn in a deuce or trey for another card before preflop betting. (For limit or no-limit hold ’em.) Obviously, the average starting hand gets better and it’s at least a little more likely it will be good enough to play (even though the worst starting hands should now be a bit stronger). The turn in could be optional or mandatory. The optional version is of course more skillful. Just maybe this option could even be offered before the flop or even before the turn, especially if one of the goals is to give those “solvers” a headache.
4. Disallow Pocket Aces or Kings Preflop in Hold ’em. (Mainly no-limit.) If you are dealt one of these hands you must turn them in for two new cards. Though these hands don’t come up often, completely eliminating them as possibilities has interesting effects on correct strategy and also gives loose players a better chance.
5. Two Rounds of Betting on The Same Street. This can be instituted for any type of poker game. It could be used for every street or just one. I have never played such a game, but when I think about it many interesting ploys pop into my mind. Meanwhile, this would be another game that ought to give GTO calculators ulcers.
6. Increase Antes, Decrease Blinds and/or Bring In. It should be obvious that either or both of these changes punish tight play, especially in limit poker. In no-limit or pot-limit hold ’em or Omaha, the increased antes don’t do much when the stacks are large enough such that all bets can be increased proportionally. However, when the stacks aren’t large, that ante makes all-in situations more likely which usually favors the weaker player who also plays the river badly. Decreasing the blinds or bring-in entices limps with hands that would otherwise have been folded in both limit, pot-limit, and no-limit .
7. Allow Only One Raise Before the Flop. There would be a variety of ways to implement this general idea, but they all share the attribute of making the game a little less intimidating to beginners and players who like to see a lot of flops.
8. Pay the Pot to Get Something Extra. Again, there are many ways to implement this idea. But in general, players at a certain point can sweeten the pot, perhaps substantially, in return for something like getting an extra card, declaring themselves all-in, or even getting the right to see one of their opponent’s hole cards. (If that hole card is “chosen” rather than selected at random, we have a game that I’m sure could never be fully solved, even by a computer.)
9. Simultaneous Betting. This is one of my personal favorites. Because it’s a simple non intimidating game for beginners that helps get their feet wet while at the same time being theoretically interesting. It works for any fixed-limit poker game. On each street a player either calls or folds, there are no raises, and the bet or folds are not in order and are all revealed at the same time. (Some mechanism or gizmo, such as players secretly pushing a button, would be needed and the results are then revealed when all are done or after 15 seconds or so. If you miss the time limit, it’s a fold.) And when you fold you don’t participate in the next round.
The winner is the best hand among those who called on all the rounds and if only one player calls on any round he wins. If no one calls, the pot is split among the callers on the previous rounds. Also notice that a “bluff” can sometimes work.
This game has no blinds, but obviously everyone must ante. I have also done a little work on the hold ’em variety and can tell you that with a decent ante you should call with a lot of starting hands.
10. Expose Some Unplayed Cards at One or More Points in the Hand. This idea is mainly an anti-computer one rather than an incentive for amateurs. But some amateurs might like it as well. The exposure should occur after the players have anted, but could occur as early as before the first round of betting or as late as before the last round of betting.
There could also be more than one point throughout the hand where the dealer deals that face up card(s) for all to see. And these face up cards would do nothing except be looked at and taken into account. I doubt the University of Alberta will announce the perfect strategy for this game, even heads-up, anytime soon.
11. Reverse the Order of Betting After the First Round. Having to act first on all four streets is both intimidating and forces much tighter play in early position. Once people got used to it, it’s my opinion that this wrinkle I’m proposing for both hold ’em and Omaha would make both games more fun. Think about it.
12. Backs of Cards Give Hint of Denomination or Suit. The simplest example might be that hearts or diamonds have red backs and spades and clubs have black backs. There are myriad possibilities.
Of course, this idea shares with the “expose unplayable cards” game the attribute that it thwarts computer analysis and memorizing algorithmic strategies while helping talented players who can think on the fly more than it helps amateurs. But the average player might like it as well.
13. Hi-Lo Split that Awards the High Hand More Than 50 percent. Most of you probably know that most forms of hi-lo split punish players who start off with pure high hands that are less than excellent because they usually can’t turn into low hands, while low starting hands can become good high hands.
The “eight-or-better” rule partially ameliorates this fact, but not to the point where you can often play hands like medium pairs. But that would no longer be true if the high hand got more than 50 percent, somewhere between 60 percent and two-thirds. In live poker with real chips, it would, for convenience, have to be the latter. You could institute this wrinkle in the declare or eight-or-better varieties as well as Omaha, but I think it works best in a simple seven-card stud, anything qualifies, no declare version.
14. Seven-Card Stud High With One Possible Change. Seven-card stud fell out of favor for no good reason. Most likely the main reason was, due to television, the popularity of no-limit hold ’em. But a secondary reason could be that players did not want to deal with remembering the cards that are exposed and then folded. The simple solution would be to keep those cards face up somewhere on the table. It also might help to increase the ante a little.
15. Limit Games with Escalating or Variable Limits. Basically, something between regular limit games and no-limit games. For instance, a $10-$20 limit hold ’em game could become a $10-$20-$30-$50 game. Or for those who like the opportunity to choose their bet size but don’t feel comfortable in full-fledged no-limit games, you could have the limits be something like $10 to $100 at any time in ten-dollar increments.
(I should note that both these variations have been tried in the distant past with only moderate success. But I think they deserve another chance given the recent popularity of no-limit hold ’em.)
16. Allow Variable Buy-ins For Some Tournaments. Rather than rebuys or add-ons, offer tournaments where you can buy in whatever you want (within reason). Small buy-ins are taking a shot. But they also profit nicely just sneaking into the money. Larger buy-ins are much more likely to cash, and the best players should buy a moderately high amount. But if they take this too far they become suckers (given normal pay structures). Do you see why?
