I gather he organizes games at MGM. His only potential enemy is everyone else in the player pool (who doesn't get to play in his game).

just like not that many doctors, sales people, etc etc ever set up their own business and continue working for their employers earning half or more likely 33% of the total value they generate for their company

only the best, the most entrepreneurial or the better funded employees set up their own thing

I'll try to respond to most things.

I have had pros in games before. If the game is built around particular people, and those people don't want to play with you - you're not in. If they do want to play with you - you're in. Being my friend or good/great at poker means very little. I don't mind playing with great players. I played jungleman heads up the other night knowing I'm a big underdog in the match, but I don't mind playing against great players. He wouldn't be my ideal choice for a social private game, but that has nothing to do with him being better than me and me wanting to box him out, it's because the players in the game don't want him. If a player said "Hey, I'm a jungleman fan and I want him in the game" I would do everything I can to get him in.




Why doesn't everyone with $100 mil live like Dan Bilzerian? Different strokes for different folks. I remember when I was grinding $1/$3 and how hard I worked to move up. I wished I could afford coaching, knew what good coaching was, had someone to back me when I went bust, someone to guide me along the way... etc. Poker can be a lonely journey, and to me it's more fun to share the grind with friends. I also get a self satisfaction out of helping people learn the game and kind of giving them a job and a path away from the 9-5 path. I enjoying living with other people and being social. I realize this isn't for everyone, and not everyone I stake lives with me, but the ones that do - we're all very happy being where we are.

I cannot think of one scenario where I would ever be at an advantage over a horse because I stake them. The only example I ever here is "what if you're signaling etc and you squeeze this player out of hand" etc. And of course I have to explain that example is called cheating, not staking.


I call those games private games because I do initially fill the game, but they are not technically private. The list is open to all after the initial nine sit.

I've had many move on an do well playing poker on their own, I've had

When I played at Rivers Casino I was very transparent about who I staked, but because people didn't understand it, it didn't go over well. I would be happy to point out anyone I stake to you.

How can multiple horses at the same table have any positive or negative consequence as a result of being staked? They don't get a piece of each other.

Private games are not illegal in Maryland. Home games where you take rake are (unless rake < expenses), but I don't take any rake (Just $50 off every stack for dealer tip).

It is absolutely no disingenuous. I've play a lot of poker for a long time and I have never witnessed anyone try to collude, staked or otherwise aside form the "lets check it down" stuff between friends.

Soooo, you'd blow through $10k because you get $3k back? Then you can blow the $3k and get $1k back.... at point is this going to work out for you? Never. You still have to play well if you want to make money.

It would not bother me, and unless you brought it up in some absurd suspicious way, I doubt anyone at the table would be bothered.

Sure. Feel free to send me a PM or contact me privately with questions, or if you'd rather the AMA, where would you like me to start it?

These types of player - mute nits - to me, hurt poker far more than what I do. When Maryland Live first opened, games were amazing. Sure, some people who play big go bust, but this is a wealthy area of the country and in my experience that's the case far less often than people not playing because the average reg kills the fun in poker. As I'm sure you know MrAdvantage, running a private game is actually really tedious work, and I would much prefer to just show up in the casino and have the games be great... that just isn't the case, so I take matters into my own hands on occasion.

Make poker fun again for everyone sake.

This. Also, my percentage is on a sliding scale. Simply put, the more money a horse makes, the bigger their cut gets. It's fair because I do more work coaching in the beginning so getting a bigger cut pays for more time. As they become better they have less questions, I do less work, and they get more money. Also, when they get better and move up in stakes they could potentially be rolled to play lower stakes on their own, but would rather play higher on stake.

Chad, you have the writing prowess of a PR rep from Tesla, I'll give you that.

I am also one of the few long(erer) term grinders who doesn't fault the idea of hosting private games. I don't want to tangent this thread further but if what you do isn't illegal then survival of the fittest. Actually even if it is illegal it is still survival of the fittest (but now not "fair" within a societal structure)

But if you continue to make the claim that there is zero conflict of interest with horses playing at the same table, I'm gonna have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt here.

Saying something like "they don't get a piece of each other" is simplified/naive at best. It is below your intelligence, and insults ours.

If they are playing ethically, then I see no conflict of interest in horses playing with one another. They do not have any financial incentive to play each other any differently than they would if the other player wasn't a horse. On the flip side, I can count the number of ethical poker players using less than one hand.

As a rec player, I would not feel comfortable playing against several of Chad's (or anyone's) horses at a single table. Even if it's true that everyone is playing entirely the same, it doesn't really matter. It would feel as if I'm being teamed up on, and that would feel ****ty and like I'm a fish who is being taken advantage of. Doesn't matter whether it's actually happening or not, because I have no way of knowing whether people are splitting the profits back at the house like they have shared bankroll, or whether they are effectively teaming up on me. The perception here is what's important, and whether or not there's any collusion, you can't eliminate the bad optics when the possibility of easy collusion is present (i.e. two or more good players, that play to pay their rent and live together with at least some possible intermingling of finances).

So my two cents are that private games are fine, but two horses at the same table isn't. Obviously others can and do disagree.

Where are you getting your legal information from? Until very recently, all home game poker was illegal in Maryland whether you took a rake or not. This was changed just last year to make rake-free home games legal but only if there is less than $1000 on the table. Somehow I doubt this is true of your games.

Maryland Poker Home Game Bill Becomes Law

Does it bother you that i can borrow from any winning player in any high stakes game in my casino to play with them in that game?

Obviously not the same thing as staking, but there is typically a culture among live pros where they behave cooperatively with each other, making loans, telling each other when whales walk in. If this was made clear to fish would it be good for the games?

Does this mother ****er think he's doug lee or something?

This seems like an article about doubhebags written by another douchebag.

Holy Christ, Chad is nothing at all like the Toolbox.

The loans don't bother me, but whispering behind people's back about who's a whale does a bit. I don't know what "behaving cooperatively" means so hard to say whether that bothers me or not. However, as a rec player I view poker as an outlet for competition for me (I'm particularly unathletic). I don't like it when the game, either actually or optically, seems to involve people who are not playing their hardest against each other.

For instance, I had my first really egregious case of seeing someone check it down with a friend the other day, where someone raised pre flop, V1 3-bet, V2 (V1's buddy) called, initial raiser folded. V1 flops top set and just checks all three streets with the effective nuts rather than betting into his buddy. I was surprised how offended I was by this, and when I mentioned it to the game host when the buddies went to smoke together, another player (who you definitely want at your table) felt exactly the same way.

Yea, that's terrible if it's two pros doing it. But my experience is checking it down is almost always done by two fish. Also, most "pros" are just fish on heaters, so it's likely true in this case as well.

I would like to think I would say something at the table. How big was the game, if you don't mind my asking? If it were 2 5 or larger, I'd definitely say something.

1/2 game but plays like 2/5 since it's a private game without a buy in cap so stacks get very deep.

I did say something to the host, though only obliquely to the players involved. In all honesty, one of the two buddies was a complete fish, so I don't think they're some brilliant colluders who were out to rob me of my money. However, it more illustrates the point that if you're someone who's livelihood depends on people who are generally intelligent coming to play a game with you that you're clearly better at than they are, you'd be well-advised to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. People can live with being beaten at a game and losing their money, especially if they can blame it on bad luck, but it's very different if they feel ganged up on or cheated.

I was very specific in my post, going as far as to quote and paraphrase your flawed logic. So uh yeah, I did what you are asking of me in your quoted response. There is a lack of reading comprehension on your part ("forgot how to read" is how you put it, I basically agree) Also not the best idea to lump two posters w completely different perspectives together in a 2 sentence response if you are trying to make a point. You want me to speak for him or the other way around lol?

Now, to be concise (I know you said you were tired or something at some point and we are kinda just debating for exercise) - you have no idea what the net effect on poker is based on the various things you've brought up, such as staking, coaching, running these grind houses, and most prominently, poaching.

Some are gaining from this arrangement and others (like yourself right?) are losing out on opportunities. What's the net effect on poker? We don't know. I'm arguing its not necessarily bad for the games, but it may be bad for your situation idk.

My position was not difficult to comprehend and I was open to further discourse if you had some good points; I'm open to being corrected. But I cant help you understand it any better if you don't already. If instead you lump two posters together w like a 10 word response expressing your lack of reading comprehension, I'm satisfied this is the end of our respectful debate.

Misdirection and fun stories (and people who just like to argue/troll purely for the sake of arguing/trolling) aside:

1. Plucking fish from the games at the casinos that are first come first serve and getting them to play with you in your chosen lineup at scheduled times in the casinos is bogarting. The notion that "if you are fun to play with you will get to play" is both insincere and ridiculous imo... You might get to play if the organizer has a spot for you and he knows and likes you (or the fish demand you play or whatever), but you will never get to play as much as he does obv- and if you are good and he doesn't get a sizable piece of you he will be less inclined to let you play no matter how much the fish like/would like you.<-- is just basic math/logic/common sense imo. Equal opportunity becomes one man's power (no pun intended) and he's going to look out for his best interests (obv).



2. Plucking fish from casinos and getting them to play in home games (mansions or hotels or whatever) is bogarting and illegal (almost everywhere) and often very dangerous, so even if people want to compete in that regard/join that particular race to the bottom, it's not exactly as equal opportunity as some itt have implied (some of us just can't risk the potential consequences for various reasons).

3. Having a stable of grinders you coach/teach/nurture is artificially and aggressively improving the player pool on several levels.

4. Horses playing at the same table (or with their backer) is bad for the game (see the testimonials itt). Perception is reality (even if actual reality is some miraculous scenario where all hands are played straight up).

---

Only #2 is technically illegal (IN MOST PLACES). Regardless, none of it has ever been deemed "wrong" by the poker masses (nor will it probably ever be imo). And even if all these things were deemed "wrong" or "bad" at some point, Chad and others can continue to do all this stuff if they want/so long as there is a market for it obv. Just like famous pros can coach and start training sites or make videos. We live in a capitalist society and these people are capitalists.

However, ^^^ does not mean that those of us who care about the long term health of poker and the community in general AND who think capitalism hurts both greatly because of poker's zero sum nature, its need for a spreading of the wealth (to keep games going), and its need for significant edge available (because poker is so ****ing slow) cannot speak up and call what we think is a spade, a spade. Nor do we have to tolerate/hush to wild misdirection and blatantly disingenuous responses by the poker capitalists and their fanboys.

Just say, "I don't care about poker long term or how my actions might negatively affect the community or my peers. Most of my peers are bad for the game in their own way anyways (insert your "mute nit" generalization here). Regardless, I'm gonna get mine however I want and however I can."

^^^ is the more respectable approach/response imo. And it's not like your peers/the community has the fortitude to speak out against you-- much less actually try to do anything to stop you-- anyways. Let's just call all this what it is and move on imo.

Lol, home games are legal in almost all states as long as you aren't taking the games.

Where I play there is a bracelet winner who is a top mix games specialist. He rarely comes in and rarely plays the regular games. But when he does come in, he'll sit at an open table waiting and very often a couple whales will show up and they will start a 100/200 or 150/300 together.

Nothing wrong with being friends with players who like to play games bigger than the room usually spreads. You need to learn how to get them to text you too when they get the itch to play.

My view is that capitalism and greed and short cuts don't work in poker. Those things kill the game over time (especially when they become contagious). Poker only stays healthy if we all just play our game and let the cards fall as they may (wrt actual hands, the games we get in, the seats we get sat in, who our opponents are, etc). Poker needs as many significant winners as possible to start and keep games going, and it needs its biggest winners/profiters to be selected somewhat randomly- in order to keep the dream alive/the poker train rolling down the tracks at full speed.

The crazy amount of variance associated with all things poker (more than just actual hand distributions and run-outs) allows -EV players to win often enough to keep coming back (so long as the experience is positive enough to justify their degree of negative expected value- if they aren't delusional), yet the mind-numbing pace and general laziness of poker players/gamblers keeps games very beatable for those who have the will and capacity- until the good players start artificially improving the player pool by writing strat books, opening training sites, making videos, coaching, backing +EV players who wouldn't be able to play otherwise, etc.

I think it is only logical for anyone who wants to play poker in the future to protect the game they love/need AMAP by opening eyes and taking a stand whenever and wherever they feel necessary. That has been my motivation for posting itt- I don't know Chad so I have nothing against him personally, and some of the biggest poker capitalists are actually people I'm friendly with (if not actual friends with). I have my views (I think the capitalists are often misguided/haven't considered the long term effects of what they are doing enough/sometimes are just greedy and don't care) and they have their views (whatever they might be).

I have no "proof" aside from deductive reasoning and the history of poker. And no, I am not just looking out for my own profitability with all this. If I was looking out for my own profitability I would stfu and out bogart everyone. I have the charisma and wisdom and common business sense and contacts and reputation to do it imo. I choose not to. I choose to do what I think is "right", not because I wanna be poker's savior or whatever, but because being able to look in the mirror without cringing is a lot more important to me than financial success.

What % take no rake?

And I play bigger than is normally spread all the time/I have a huge rolodex of recs/fish/whales.

100% of legal games. If you can get sone bad players to play 25-50NL with you, why would you need rake?

And if you have so many whales as friends why aren't they calling you when they want to play?

Only #1 here seems really wrong to me. Games that are run by a public, state-licensed casino need to be equally open to all members of the public. If the poker room wants to run a particular game at a specific date and time, that's fine, but they should make that information available to everyone, with everyone having the opportunity to get on the list.

#2 is definitely illegal in Maryland, but I don't necessarily think it is unethical if they aren't taking a rake.

#3 is a truly silly complaint. The same couple be said about publishing poker books, training sites, or even posting strategy on this forum.

With respect to #4, I think it is ethically dubious for a backer to play at the same table as his stakee. But I don't see any problem with two stakees from the same backers playing with each other. Given a normal staking arrangement, these two players have no financial incentive to collude.

My own view is that poker, like most markets, is built on capitalism and greed. Poker is in much much better shape now than it was in, say, 1997 -- and in worse shape than it was in 2007. The market, like many, is becoming more efficient. Knowledge has spread and margins are thinner. Unless there is some structural reason to believe the market isn't operating correctly -- such as macroscopic collusion or a common pool problem -- there are not likely to be better solutions. Nitty tankers seem to me to be a subspecies of a common-pool type problem: their behavior benefits them slightly and externalizes high degrees of pain to others. A shot clock would seem to be a good solution. Not so much for its direct impact, but more because it is likely to create a culture shift.

Its truly amazing to me to read some of the responses in this thread.

Just goes to show you the decline of 2p2 and who is posting these days. Serious hobbyists who don't understand the poker economy, along with wanabees, and trolls mixed in. Its no coincidence that very few good players are actually posting.

Any serious professional would see how Chad is fleecing his peers, the casino, and even his horses, all while pretending to bat a blind eye and proclaim ignorance. Its greed at its finest. Its unfair to the professionals that have grinded their way from the bottom and are now in the position to play high stakes game only to have guys like Chad kill the games.