No, I haven't. I've claimed you're being arbitrary i.e. going on a personal feeling about what to class poker as with the backing of a decent amount of common understanding that gambling is a form of entertainment.

I've been playing live poker, mostly as a part of my living, for ~18 years too. Just because you haven't seen yourself as being in the business of entertainment when you play live, and you haven't made any efforts to entertain the fish, means that you've missed out on the benefits, which include not seeing yourself as a parasite as well as making more money and/or making your life easier. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it isn't a thing that other people do profitably. It's like saying that a chess puzzle isn't completable on the basis you can't complete it.

people like you really don't understand live poker. maybe a lot of the people who lose in 1/2 nl are too stupid to understand what's going on around them but people in bigger games that can afford to lose are generally intelligent and there to have fun. They know when they're being seat hopped, they know when scum regs take every tiny edge etc. they also know when they're bored out of their minds b/w the game has no action, constant tanking etc.

A good pro absolutely is in the business of providing entertainment and you're right they're doing so for money. They're giving their customers something for their money as oppose to sucking the fun out of the game and taking out some money. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's some noble thing they way you're making out to be. But it's also genuine. I have way more fun in a game with people laughing bullshitting talking sports and drinking than some anti social snooze fest.I want to have fun when I play.

You realize the entire casino industry is built around entertaining people for money right? Pros/ winning players should understand that in poker and we'd all be better off. It's what any business needs to do- give customers something for their money. Oh wait somehow amazingly you don't realize that.


And over the years I've read tons of posts from people on here who somehow don't understand this. They think they can study some charts or solves, go to the casino, throw on their headphones, watch a movie at the table and no matter what bad players have to show up and hand them money- they don't.

And yes no matter what there are some bad players who will continue to play poker because there is something they like about the game itself. But there are TONS of bad players who either stop playing poker or play less often, not because they money they're losing bc of how boring it's become. These people still lose betting sports, still lose in the pit but have fun in the process. Or they'll still play poker but only play private games. I know people who still go to the casino plenty and barely play poker anymore or don't play at all bc of how boring it became and how they were treated. They still punt hard in the pits. The types of guys who would sit down- blow 5-10k almost every time they played. Some of them would even give their wives or girlfriends (and in some case both) money to go shred in the slot machines while they played poker. And for what? To get seat hopped by some back packer who can't even straddle when everyone else is? And when that guy finally plays a meaningful pot his tanks for 5 mins while everyone at the table falls asleep?

But yea you're right pros aren't in the business of entertaining bad players

This is so good.

Imagine actually thinking that the recreational players who can lose $5-10k in a night aren't aware enough to understand seat hopping, headphones on not interacting, taking small edges and pushing them to the limit.

It's astonishing that people still argue this type of stuff and can't comprehend that being affable, social and entertaining isn't +EV for the players who play for a living.

I have a good job, I play poker for fun and entertainment because it is complex, social, dynamic and interesting. If I get to a table and people seat hop, don't interact, sit on their iPad watching movies waiting for someone to punt and overall just not interested in engaging I'll either A.) request a table change immediately B.) just go play craps or BJ.

In general, people are aware of what is happening around them and to think otherwise until PROVEN otherwise is totally naive. To do the type of stuff listed above is just selfish and assumes you are entitled to peoples time and money.

I have seen this argument play out, on twoplustwo specifically, many times in many different threads. It always ends up with people in 2 camps "My job is to win as much money as possible immediately anyone else be damned" or "My job is to be part poker player and part entertainer to keep the economy healthy long term". I think the latter is more in line with where I'd expect people who make a living from poker would live in their thinking. There are very few professions where you can be an outright scumbag, within the rules of course and there is nobody to check them which is probably what attracts some of these people to poker. I can't imagine, doing analogous things to the above in a workplace setting and not having some repercussions but there is no poker HR team.

I also have a good job and play poker mostly for fun.
But the game isn't fun if it's outside of my financial comfort zone. And being forced to straddle every hand would often make the game uncomfortable for me.

There's a difference between defining "fun" as "sociable" and defining it as "forcing people to gamble money they can't afford to lose".

Agreed, I maybe didn't explicitly tie it back to the straddle discussion like I should have but it should largely just come down to having awareness about the table dynamic. If people seem hesitant, don't push it. If people seem interested and want to, go for it.

It seems that everyone wants it to be completely black and white which is interesting because professional poker players habitually live in the gray based on their profession. I just find these arguments interesting because people seem to want to take this black/white approach.

Lol you yelling at the dude about straddling and it’s not even mentioned in his post

Great post. You last few posts were so accurate. It's a shame not all pro's understand the dynamics.

In response to George Rice. The whales might not notice all the stuff not regs do right away (table changes, seat changes, bum hunting, etc) but they will notice. They are there to have fun and not pay attention to every detail. Those nitty regs drive them crazy, and they will learn who they are before long. The whales will tolerate the OMC type nits as long as they are friendly, which OMC's usually are. It's the younger, internet, anti social hoody guys that really ruin the games for them.

They actually seem to love playing with LAG winning players no matter how good they are. It's action and they love it. It might take the whale a while to realize that LAG is a crusher and a pro. Even then they don't seem to care, their play style makes the game fun for them. Can't tell you how many times a whale has asked, where is Player X, get him in the game. Meanwhile Player X is the toughest pro in the room and has played with the whale 100 times.

This entire thread is about straddling, and the discussion it follows is several people essentially claiming that everyone should be expected to straddle for the benefit of the "fun" of recreational players.

And in what way am I "yelling"?

There's a bunch of pros in this thread more or less lecturing other posters about what recreational players "want".
I'm a recreational player, and I don't usually want to straddle. Why should you be telling me what I should want?

Woah woah pls lower your voice, sir

Just because you are a rec doesn’t mean you’re a fun rec.

I’m kinda trolling but there are some people the game just revolves around and have to be accommodated. There’s also some regs who like to push straddles/rules on people and claim it’s what fun players want (I think Garrett was crucified for this???). It’s all situational. Everyone in here is probably smart enough to have situational awareness and react appropriately. If a guy raising blind every hand just giving away money asks me to straddle I’d feel pretty shitty saying no. If a reg just lost a huge pot says let’s do a round of straddles or wants to bump up the game I laugh and say not right now.

If I don’t feel comfortable coming into an existing game that has a straddle or blind raise or whatever agreement on I just go to a different game. I don’t see why it’s such a big deal? If I’m playing a game that has an agreement on and a player comes in while I’m losing that doesn’t agree to it and the game suddenly plays a lot smaller it’s kinda upsetting to me so I don’t do it to others.

Anybody discussing lowering winrate in the context of a straddle is clueless. As mentioned in this thread many times, it's about hourly rate. These games with mandatory straddles are not 100bb avg stack, they are typically much deeper than that, and not uncommon to be uncapped. If you are in these games sitting on 100bbs you might want to play a smaller game.

Wrt playing above your comfort level, you can always move down in stakes, mandatory straddle games are commonly the largest game running in the room, (at least for that game type), so these players beating the drum for straddles can't move up, at least not easily.

Why is it always the impetus of the person who wants to play the table stakes to play bigger? Poker room managers need to stop catering to sharks that chew up fish and spit them out.

Because if 9 people want to do something and you don’t so you don’t let them you are being pretty selfish. Poker room managers are incompetent and can’t offer players what they want which is why these issues occur in the first place.

Allow me to retort.

Here are some facts:

I'm a rec player, not a pro or reg. When I'm playing sometimes I'm mistaken for a pro by the recs, or a reg by the regs. This is partly because at 1/3 and 2/5, where I've done most of my playing recently, I usually win; partly because I don't table a lot of crap hands; and partly because players see I know the names of a lot of the staff. I've only been playing NL for a few years. I played mostly limit up to the 20/40 level regularly. By regularly I mean when I played, although I averaged maybe a dozen or two sessions a year for more than 20 years. The limit games were becoming fewer and fewer, and the average player better and better, so I couldn't win there being a part time player. So I switched to NL and haven't gone back. I'm not a nit regular who wears headphones and a hoodie who's anti-social at the table. I try to be pleasant to the other players and will straddle if the other players want. There was a time I didn't want to straddle because of limited bankroll. Now I'm okay with it. Sometimes I'll be the first to do it. If a rec dares me to straddle when I haven't been, I'm glad to do it.

By far, most of the games in a large cardroom are the lower limits. Some cardrooms have nothing but lower limits. Most of the recs in a cardroom at any given time will be in these lower limit games. Some of the recs are good, some of them are okay, and a lot of them are bad and have no clue. There are also a lot of regs in the games. The proportion of regs to recs is typically higher in 2/5 than 1/3. A lot of these regs will play higher if the games are going.

Recs are human beings. Some of them are experienced enough at poker to pick up on things like bum hunting. All of them are experienced at life. Most of them will pick up on false sincerity and fake smiles.


Here are my points:

I'm giving my opinion and observations from the point of view of a rec, not a nitty pro or high limit crusher. Some of you go off on tangents, apparently putting me in the bucket with others you don't like playing with and assume I'm defending their behavior. I'm not.

I wrote:

Notice my use of the work "most". You all know what it means. I didn't say or suggest that ALL recs don't know why or suspect the what and why of other player's actions. I'm a rec who does, for one.

When I say it's mostly the regs who have a problem with it, I include the regs thinking it hurts the game.

Borg responded:

Most recs are in the lower stakes and most players in the lower stakes are losers. I wouldn't call them stupid, but whatever. But there are enough of them to make my statement true on it's face. Most recs aren't in tune with what the "nitty regs" are doing. I'll add that there are fewer nitty regs than some seem to think and wouldn't have a large impact on the recs even if the recs were turned off by it. YMMV.

As for bigger games, Borg states that people in bigger games are generally intelligent. I'd argue those more intelligent players are less inclined to know every edge some "scum reg" takes, than to know when they're being worked by the friendly regs. Some who make his argument seem to think that if they're stroking the rec in the front, the rec won't have a problem with being pounded in the rear because the rec finds it entertaining or fun. Maybe some do. I posit that most see right though it and resent it. As a rec, I find it entertaining that the regs don't realize I see right thought them. But at the same time I prefer playing with friendly regs than "scum regs". But I wouldn't be entertained by what they think.

Borg is right that I'm implying that the pro's behavior is not noble as some of them would like us to believe. But my comments aren't to suggest anything about Borg himself, as I don't know him or his motivations. And being a poker pro is not engaging in a business in the accepted sense of the word, in my opinion. It's another thing poker players tell themselves and others to feel better about themselves. And I too prefer a game with people laughing, taking sports, drinking, yada yada yada. Who wouldn't? Most of the pros wouldn't be there if that was all that was happening.

The casino industry is built around the illusion of entertainment, status, going from rags to riches, etc. Yes there is some legit entertainment going on in live shows and some people enjoy gambling, dressing up, etc. for the sake of it. But the entertainment aspect of it is secondary to making a profit. And I never suggested a business doesn't need to provide something for their money. An incorrect assumption that was jumped to.


A number of posters have built their straw man and have made their arguments against it. All I did was make two statements. Essentially that the impact of "bad pros" isn't as large as some believe and that pros aren't as noble as some pretend. All the comments about the better way to go about being a pro, etc., are beside the points I was trying to make, even though I agree with much of what is said.

Making a profit always comes before everything if your choice is to make something your living or business. If it doesn't make money, it's no longer a living or business.

People who know they're in the entertainment industry aren't seeing themselves as noble, they just aren't bashing themselves in order to placate those who think all winning poker players are predatory or parasitic. Entertainment covers a wide range of possible things including titillation, substance abuse, bright lights and video interfaces, shows, and the actual gambling itself. As a pro poker player I try to provide a good gambling service that includes no bad behaviours at the table and the attempt to provide a fun experience to the losing players by getting interesting chat and good vibes flowing around the table. There is absolutely no sense that any of that translates to 'noble'. It's no more noble than a professional comedian or magician trying to earn a buck.

In my experience, I’ve played with lots of “fun” recs who like to straddle/restraddle, etc. But these players almost never try to pressure other players to straddle if they are uncomfortable with it.

The people who try to pressure others to straddle are almost always pros who are doing so because they think raising the stakes of the game will increase their win rate. And I don’t know why I should agree to do something to help some pro increase their EV.

I assume this means you have an option to straddle for a lessor amount. If that's the case, won't you still get to act last for the lessor amount?

Mason

There are a lot of noble professions out there. I'm glad you realize that yours isn't one of them. And it is parasitic and predatory. Who are we kidding if we claim otherwise? The general public sure knows it.

It's my opinion that the button straddle is bad for the long-term longevity of the game and that poker rooms should not allow it. But that doesn't mean if you're in a game that allows a button straddle you shouldn't do it.

Mason

It does effectively raise the stakes. But another reason for a pro to want them is that they will adjust to them better than the recs. I think the second reason is where a pro will extract the most profit. Shorter effective stacks might actually work in favor of many recs who may have a lot of experience playing short stacked.

I discuss bomb pots in my Cardrooms book, page 74. They're ideal for colluders and should never be offered by poker rooms.

https://www.amazon.com/Cardrooms-Eve...s%2C149&sr=1-2

Mason

I agree. And whenever I hear a manager say that he'll talk to the players to see what they think, my reaction is that there's a good chance this person shouldn't be running a poker room.

While true, can't the weaker regs just buy-in for a smaller amount? Also, while I don't like the straddle to the left of the big blind, I don't think it does much harm and is well entrenched.

I agree, especially the button straddle.

I'm not sure exactly how a scientific sample can be done in this situation (and I know a lot about this topic).

Mason

None of them have last names. They are trash.

Joan Rivers was right

Lol, you post that in this thread but not the link?

https://youtu.be/hnNmJ7lKCm0?t=149