OT: Farewell Blackjack, hello Texas Holdem Poker

[Vegas Vic]

Until recently, my forays into casino gambling had been limited to blackjack and sports betting. While sports betting remains an enjoyable and profitable pastime for me, I can’t say the same about blackjack (at least not the enjoyable part). I can no longer tolerate being treated like a criminal and cheater for being a proficient blackjack player. After the most recent tap on the shoulder and the obligatory “Your play is too strong – you’re welcome to play any other game in the house except blackjack”, I’ve decided to take them up on their offer.

Texas Holdem poker is probably the most popular of the poker games. If you’ve ever watched the Word Series of Poker from Binion’s Horseshoe, that’s the game they play.

My first step was buying several books on the subject, along with an excellent computer program, “Turbo Texas Holdem”. I figure that I’m now ready for the low limit rooms after reading the books and spending 40 or 50 hours with the training program. Practice is one thing, but it is no substitute for real-life playing conditions. I figure the low limit rooms will offer me a safe haven as I become acclimated to real life action.

I suppose what intrigues me about poker is the combination of math and psychology. In blackjack, there are no choices to be made – there is only one correct way to play each hand against the dealer’s upcard. A card counter is basically a robot, grinding out a mathematically certain profit over the course of thousands of hands. In poker, there is often no “black and white” decision making. While math plays a vital role in one’s playing decisions, it’s only the tip of the iceberg when you factor in the playing styles and personalities of your opponents. I’d say blackjack is to physics as poker is to economics.

I’d be interested in hearing from any fellow poker players in the forum.

Good cards to you.

[Airhog]

I have done some reasearch on Hold'em. Probably not near as in detail as you. I surmised one major point. Dont play really low-limit games if your looking to get good at cards. From what Ive head on the newsgroups is your best to start out at the 1 dollar limit or the 5 dollar limit. Now I asked them about online poker rooms, but im sure this applies to the real tables too. They surmise that most people are playing for fun at anything less than 1 dollar, and are usually playing really loose and aggressive. Now thats not always a problem, but at low limits your not going to be making much cash. They reccomended someone like me to start out at 1 limits and play from there...

[NoMyths]

Vic: Used to be in your shoes when it came to blackjack, and got into poker for the same reasons. Never studied it nearly as seriously, though--didn't have time. Still, once I'm finished here I may be going back to the table -- the money was too good to pass up for what really is not all that tough if you're built for it. ;)

[CK#12]

I've played poker for about 10 years now in various casinos in the UK and Europe. I would say that I am a good but not great player.
I've won a few local tournaments (about £5,000 prize money) but I know my limits.
Each time I've played in any major events I was out pretty quickly.

I would suggest you stick to the low level games to familiarise yourself with the play first then enter a few small tournaments.
I learnt by entering small tournaments with limited/low cost buy-ins (about £20).
If you were careful you could play a tournament which used to last a few hours and only spend between (£20 and £60).

If you can get to the final table of the tournament regular (and pick up some prize money) then you are probably ready for the next level.

I found that the problem was the higher the stakes got, the less fun it became.
A lot of the people I was playing at the bigger tournaments were professionals and although they may have talked & joked with you, it was there job to knock you out as soon as they could.
Some of them were real assholes.

Some friendly word of advise, if you stick to small tournaments and don't play in too many cash games then you will lose a lot less.
Personally, I do not play cash games any more. It is a completely different type of game from a tournament.
I learnt that lesson when I lost £10,000 in one very bad night.

I don't know how relevant any of the above is to you but good luck.

Why am I giving poker advise to a guy from Vegas?

[QuikSand]

The thing that can be awfully alluring about the poker tables is that your grind can be pretty solid, if you keep your wits about you. I have only played for about six or eight sessions myself, but I generally (one exception) have been able to grind out winnings for a pretty good return per hour. Playing at fairly low stakes games (mostly $3-$6, then $5-$10) I've been able to stay up by something like $30-50 per hour, and feel like that is my reasonable expectation.

And although it's more than a little cliche, just make sure you have read David Sklansky on the subject. There are plenty of decent poker books out there, but for my money Sklansky (or Sklansky and Malmuth) offers the best combination of genuine insight and well-written, easy-to-absorb advice. I think he's rightfully considered the best there is.

[NoMyths]

And Caro for tells

[Vegas Vic]

I appreciate the advice and feedback.

Quiksand, you are right on the mark regarding Sklansky's work. It has been very insightful, especially his rankings of starting hands.

The computer program has also been a very powerful tool, and I would also strongly recommend it.

I'm really looking forward to focusing and improving my game without worrying about being asked to leave "because my play is too strong".

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by NoMyths
And Caro for tells

I have mixed feelings about Caro, or anyone who purports to be able to instruct a reader in divining tells. I think there's a lot to that part of the game, but I never felt that I (personally) got much more out of a book than I could get from spending the same amount of time at the tables.

Especially at low-limit games, the tells are often so blatant as to be absurd. You can pick out the style of play of about 2/3 of your rivals within the first round of watching, waiting for the blind.

[panerd]

#1 rule of Texas Hold-em...

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker. "

[Logan]

"You know what always cheers me up when I'm feelin down?"
"What's that?"
"Rolled up aces over kings. Check-raising stupid tourists and taking huge pots off em. Stacks and towers of checks I can't even see over. Playing all-night, high-limit hold em at the Taj, where the sand turns to gold..."
"F*ck it, lets go."
"Don't tease me!"
"Let's play some f*ckin cards."

...sorry about that...force of habit whenever I hear/see a Rounders quote.

[jefflackey]

Sounds like you already have figured out the first major difference in blackjack and Hold'em - in BJ you're playing against the cards and the deal. In Hold'em you're playing against another person.

I've used the Wilson Software, the Hold'em and the Tournament Hold'em, and I played some online for small stakes. But I was surprised at how much different it was sitting at a table with a group of strangers and a dealer. Suddenly worries that have never bothered me, such as looking stupid if I made a dumb play, came into my mind. Can you push your chips all in with a good hand, or are you going to me marked as someone who can easily be bluffed out? The really good Hold'em players can win no matter what cards they get dealt - they may not win as much if they get bad cards - because they can figure out the other players at the table and how to play those folks. I've been on the good end of that - figuring out a couple of the folks at the table and taking their money - and I've been on the bad end, with a guy that I was convinced could read the backs of my cards because he was absolutely uncanny at when to call and when to raise and when to fold.

One thing for sure - it is a lot more fun than BJ. With the house takes in a lot of casinos, it can be a challenge to come away cash positive in the long run if you're playing with folks about the same skill level.

[Vegas Vic]

Well, here's a brief summary of my first live action.

I played a few sessions at the Texas Station, 4/8 dollar tables.

I was surprised at the general stupidity of most players, especially the lack of simple basic strategy on which hands are even worth playing. I saw a couple of very sharp players, but the vast majority were just plain pathetic.

I've still got a lot to learn about the game -- actually, much more before I move up to higher stakes -- but I really overestimated what the talent level would be like at the lower stakes tables.

So far, 11 hours, +$360 ($32.72 per hour).

[NoMyths]

Jebus, I'm getting that jones again...guess I know what I'll be doing come summer... :)

Quik: Yeah, time at the tables will definitely educate you about tells, but I figure that for fifteen bucks or so Caro gives you a great head start (with pictures!). Not a bad price, which you'll make up in the first half hour or so having the info.

[SackAttack]

What I wanna know is how it can even be legal for the casinos to restrict you from a game because you're playing too well. That just seems tantamount to thievery with a wink and a nod to me. "If the house can't take your money, we don't want you playing this game."

I mean, I can understand the whole 'right to refuse service bit,' but it seems to me that would be universal throughout the casino, not implemented on a piecemeal basis to try and force you to only play the games where they can rake you over the coals.

Josh

[NoMyths]

Sack: Yup -- they have the right to bar anyone they feel like, for any reason, as a private establishment. It sucks, but they feel it works out for them (which it generally doesn't).

[SackAttack]

NoMyths - that much I understand. What I don't understand is how legally they can pick and choose what you can do in there. "You can't play blackjack because you're not losing, but feel free to try our slot machines"? That seems fishy.

[QuikSand]

"p-r-i-v-a-t-e" is the key word in the explanation, Sack.

[NoMyths]

:)

[sjshaw]

How did you guys get so good at blackjack? Counting cards?

[BishopMVP]

Do any of you know of any downloadable shareware/freeware Texas Hold'em games at all? Or are their just on-line ones available?

[NoMyths]

Shaw: It's not hard to count cards at all, really, although nowadays the games are bad enough that it's barely worth your while.

[Radii]

Do any of you guys have any experience playing on any online sites? Is there a good one you'd recommend? And how do the strategies in the various books that have been brought up here carry over into an online environment when you can't see the people you're playing against?

[Radii]

dola, and bumping for the work week since an early saturday post gets pushed so far down :)

also, the question of how the strategies in the books work in an online environment is a dumb one, that I realize :) But I am curious to see if people here have ever seriously played in any sort of online environment and what they'd recommend.

I ordered a couple of Sklansky's books off of Amazon and bought "Winning Low Limit Hold'Em" by Lee Jones which is proving to be a very good read as well, though the topics covered might be pretty intuitive to a more experienced player.

[ctmason]

I just wanted to make a comment in addendum to Quik's post. I think we should be clear that a reasonable hourly win rate is probably in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 2 big bets an hour, for a consistently winning player.

The number of sessions that both Quick and Vic are talking about are not nearly enough to accurately gauge hourly rate.

You'll find that as you play more that with the rake at 4-8 and 3-6 games, it is incredibly difficult to make a worthwhile profit at those limits, over the long haul.

I'm still waiting for someone to start talking about Omaha. : )

[QuikSand]

Todd, are you well versed at casino Omaha? I think that's my next venture, but I have yet to play at the tables.

I think Omaha is the best game at dividing up those who understand and those who don't. However, I have heard that Omaha simply doesn't attract nearly as many total fools as does Hold 'em, and thus the attraction for the latter game.


Thanks for your comments about long term ROI expectations. My experience, as you may have gathered, has come in short time periods, while I was well-prepared and rested. I have yet to play under anything sub-optimal, and I'm sure that extending my hours would bring down my win rate considerably. You think 2x the big bet is a fair target, though?

[AnalBumCover]

Originally posted by Radii
But I am curious to see if people here have ever seriously played in any sort of online environment and what they'd recommend.

One popular one is http://www.pokerroom.com/index.php

but one I discovered recently and frequent a lot is http://www.truepoker.com

Good Luck
ABC

[ctmason]

Quik, and just to lend a little credentials for others interested.

I've been playing poker both live and online for a little over 4 years now. I began playing Hold 'Em, but have spent the majority of my playing time playing Omaha Hi-Lo over the past two years. I play mostly in Mississippi cardrooms and home games here in the Atlanta area. I have recorded a net profit for each of the past three years, and play typically at 10-20 limits in both games both live and online.

the perception with Omaha is that it is somehow an easier game to learn or play profitably with. My experience was "yes," for lower limits, but at higher limits the converse actually becomes true. Omaha is a game that can be exploited at lower limits with a fairly rigid playing style, simply due to the fact that most players at Omaha (and in truth, all poker games) are extraordinarly bad players.

As far as popularity, Omaha is gaining in popularity again, and that is good. To be honest, I've never found any difference over the long haul in quality of player at each game, there are as many bad players playing Hold 'Em as there are playing Omaha. It's just that the nature of Hold 'Em tends to promote more action, and thus more money, and thus more gamblers. That's one of the main reasons why you'll see a kill in Omaha, because there's less action in the game.

A lot of it is regional, though. There are more bad players in Las Vegas than in Mississippi, but you'll find the most overall action in Los Angeles, in my experience. I've never played up North, but I would imagine Atlantic City to be along the lines of Mississippi card rooms. Without question the worst players and most profitable games are online...by far.

To answer Quik's other question. Far better players than me, (Doyle Brunson, Phil Hellmuth, Sklansky, Malmuth, et al) have spoken at length about the benchmark of two big bets per hour win rates, as an ideal profitable position to be in. I would imagine most of them average more, and at lower limits would absolutely destroy the games.

By the way, what happened to the attempts at online poker night? I'm so bad about checking up on things like that.

[SplitPersonality1]

Do any of you poker "experts" watch the World Poker Tour program on the Travel channel. I just caught it last night and it is an interesting study of how the professionals play the game.

Just wondering what your thoughts were on the program.

[sabotai]

"but I would imagine Atlantic City"

(forget exact quote.) "You had a glorious Las Vegas, and you turned it into a scanty Atlantic City."

Little info tidbit, Atlantic City is actually the biggest tourist destination in the US (by US citizens). Little food for though.

"Without question the worst players and most profitable games are online...by far."

I'm so tempted to play for money online, but I know I'm not good enough yet. I have a few of Sklansky's books that I'm reading through now and I hope to at least make a few trips to Atlantic City this summer to test out how good I really am.

On question though. Since poker is more playing against other players and not your cards, wouldn't playing online be harder? I mean, since you're online and not seeing the people, doesn't that make it impossible to read tells?

[Radii]

Originally posted by sabotai

I'm so tempted to play for money online, but I know I'm not good enough yet. I have a few of Sklansky's books that I'm reading through now and I hope to at least make a few trips to Atlantic City this summer to test out how good I really am.

On question though. Since poker is more playing against other players and not your cards, wouldn't playing online be harder? I mean, since you're online and not seeing the people, doesn't that make it impossible to read tells?

From my minimal forays into it so far(This is something I'm undertaking seriously, a ton of reading and 5-10 hours of time w/ Turbo Texas Hold Em so far with a lot more to come), it's obvious that there's a lot in terms of reading tells that you can't do online, but some things you can do anyway. The online sites usually have buttons that let you select your bet before it's your turn to bet, like a "call anything" button, so the second it gets to you you automatically, and instantly, call. I NEVER use that button, I always wait til it's my turn, wait 4-5 seconds and make my decision even if it's an obvious fold on the deal.

People that always use the auto call and even worse the auto raise buttons I pay attention to. When one of those players doesn't use that auto button, and thinks about his move for awhile, he is probably telling me something about his hand.

You can also learn basic tendencies, raise frequency, and whether a player is likely to get into hands with crappy cards, if they often try to bluff people out with nothing, things like that.


One thing I can tell you, though it seems obvious, is that playing at play money tables mean jack. People are just so much more agressive that it's pathetic. I am still very much a novice. I am not even an average hold 'em player yet, but I can go on a play money table with what little disclipline I have so far and roll in $200/hr on a $5/$10 table. I went from that to a $2/$4 real money table and it was a totally different experience, and my lack of disclipline cleaned me out really fast. I shouldn't have done it but it was a good learning experience :)

I'll followup with more details about my online expereinces in a few weeks. All the books I've ordered have come in now though, and I know what I want to do with Turbo Texas Hold Em(which I HIGHLY recommend, btw), but in a couple of weeks to a month I plan on putting up a bankroll on an online site and seeing how I do.

[sabotai]

I know what you mean with play money games. The betting there is just completly unrealistic. And you get people who just screw around by betting a ton of money regardless of what they have.

Thanks for the tips for when I grow some balls and play for real money.

I downloaded the demo or Turbo Texas Hold'em. It's a sweet program and all, but I'm not sure if I want to spend $90 for it. At least, that's how much it costs when you order from them. Anyone know of a cheaper place to get it?

[SunDancer]

I was curious, how can I learn to become a good blackjack player. I am interested, I know how to play, but I want to be good.

[Mustang]

Anyone have any recommendations on online poker sites. (Either positive or negative?)

I'm hoping that the new Indian gaming compacts in Wisconsin bring in poker rooms. I think the nearest (legal) ones that I know of are in the Upper Penisula, MI and over in Minneapolis...

[Airhog]

Mustang: check out the newsgroups rec.gaming.poker I believe you can find a wealth of information about them there.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'd get in on these online poker rooms, but online gambling is a no-no in Louisiana. Chute.

[Radii]

I'm playing on partypoker.com with some success. There are some weird personal wars going on over what online sites are better... I can say, so far, I have not had any trouble with partypoker.com. But that's about it myself :) I actually had great success tonight, playing in 3 1 table tournaments, winning 2 and finishing 2nd in 1 to begin to help to make up for the money I threw away when I was first getting adjusted to the game :P

rec.gambling.poker (or gaming, as Airhog said, I don't remember) is full of spam but there is a lot of interesting information there. I use it during the day to pass the time at work a lot lately. There are some very good discussions on "how should I have played this specific hand", mainly for hold 'em that i really enjoy reading.

[Radii]

dola, when I say "weird personal wars going on over what online sites are better" I actually meant, "whenever the question comes up on the rec.gam*.poker newsgroup"

[MJ4H]

I have gotten into playing poker online. I have a rule for myself about gambling with real money, though: Ill never do it. So I play the Fake money tables only. As far as online sites, I play at 4 different ones, and I like them in this order:

1. True Poker
2. Poker Room
3. Party Poker
4. Poker Stars

Poker Stars was the first site I tried. I loved it. Now I just get frustrated at how silly it is. People raising everyone to all-in before the flop when they have 72o. It's just dumb. Very tough to get a good game there.

I found Poker Room next. The betting is limited there so you don't get as many crazies. It's much easier to get a more realistic game there, but the interface is kind of silly -- Your "avatar" is chosen based on where you sit at the table: you sit in the upper right corner, your avatar is this blonde with enormous hooters, everytime. Seems silly to me.

Then I found True Poker. True Poker has exactly what Im looking for: mostly realistic play, and PLAY MONEY TOURNAMENTS. OFTEN. The avatars are full-motion, 3d and you can choose your own. Some of the characters you can be are pretty funny, and when you do a lol, or a nh, they actually talk and the others can hear you. The robot guy cracks me up because when you do a lol, he says "ha ha ha" in a robotic monotone. too funny. and he says "crap" when you do 'arg.' I think there are 15-20 characters you can choose from. Anyway, what really matters here is the play money tourneys and realistic games. Another nice feature is you can get a little more "tell" info because you can only look at your cards by clicking them. This will make your 3d character pick up the cards and study them until you click again and put them back on the table. The other players can see this action. It tells you a little something about what they are thinking. Maybe.

Party Poker Ive recently found. It seems pretty active and solid. I think it has the same avatar problem as poker room, and the party poker graphics are very cartoony. The games there have been pretty good so far. Anyway, I will be playing some at this site since it seems to be done very well.

As far as in-person poker, I play with family from time to time, and Im trying to set up a poker night with some friends. All play money of course. I know that takes away from it, but it's a personal rule of mine.

Im very interested in an online poker night with the FOFC guys. Ill do it at any of those sites, or even another if someone has a preference. Lets do this!

[SunDancer]

Anyone have advice on learning to get good at blackjack. Thanks

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Radii
dola, when I say "weird personal wars going on over what online sites are better" I actually meant, "whenever the question comes up on the rec.gam*.poker newsgroup"

those have been going on for some time in the professional community. However it is still a great place to read and post, because you have several pro players that frequent the forums.

[SunDancer]

bump

[sabotai]

Vic, any updates on your progress at the poker tables?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by SunDancer
Anyone have advice on learning to get good at blackjack. Thanks

Getting good at blackjack is a matter of brute strength. There are, I'm sure, countless web sites that can give you all you need in terms of "basic strategy" (i.e. a grid telling you what to do in every meaningful circumstance). Your first thing to do is to not only memorize this, but understand it - understand that a dealer showing six is weak, and why you always split eights - that sort of thing.

Once you are able to master basic strategy, you can at least play for real money without shame. Then, you will want to learn some basic card counting strategy - the idea here is to monitor the cards remaining in the deck, and their relative "richness" based on what has already been seen. It's not that tough. Once you can do this well, you then need to get a feel for how effectively you can alter your betting during your session - that's the only way to get the odds in your favor, which I presume is what you want.


Do a little web search, you'll find gobs of site that can help you out with the first phases.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/05/26/poker.world.ap/index.html

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- It was only fitting that an accountant named Moneymaker would put down $40 and ultimately walk away with $2.5 million and the title of champion Saturday in the 34th annual World Series of Poker.

Known to his friends as "Money," Chris Moneymaker, 27, also became the first person to win the prestigious tournament by qualifying on the Internet.

"I got lucky along the way," Moneymaker said. "I bluffed a lot during this tournament, but somehow I got away with it."

Players and experts said Moneymaker's win will revolutionize poker, solidifying the merger of the Internet and big-name casinos and boosting the game's popularity.

"This is the sonic boom of poker," said Nolan Dalla, media director for the World Series of Poker. "This means anyone in their home can become a poker player."

Amid cheers of "Go Money," the Spring Hill, Tennessee, resident faced off against Ihsan "Sam" Farha in a final round that began Friday afternoon and ended early Saturday, at Binion's Horseshoe Hotel & Casino.

After seven other players had been eliminated, $2.5 million in cash was placed on the green-felt table and the final hands were dealt. Moneymaker, with his metallic wraparound shades, clutched a small crystal in his hand for good luck. Farha of Houston, Texas, had an unlit cigarette in one hand and a tiger figurine by his side.

The game was No-Limit Texas Hold'em, in which the players are dealt two cards each and share up to five additional cards that lie face up on the table.

Moneymaker drew a five and a four to Farha's jack and ten.

After the dealer laid out a jack, a four and a five on the table, Moneymaker stood holding two pairs to Farha's pair of jacks.

Without knowing Moneymaker's cards, Farha wagered it all -- more than $1 million in chips.

Moneymaker matched the bet and watched the dealer draw the final shared cards, an eight and a five.

The cards gave him a full house (three fives and two fours) and the victory. He threw up his fist and hugged his father, Mike Moneymaker of Knoxville, Tennessee.

"I saw the four-five come up and I think my heart did a double-take," said the younger Moneymaker, who said he only began playing poker three years ago.

In his first "live" poker tournament, Moneymaker beat a handful of former World Series of Poker champs, including Dan Harrington, who was at the final table and finished third with $650,000.

The tournament began Monday with a record-breaking 839 players. A surge in online gambling and a rise in the game's popularity drew dozens of unknowns and a 33 percent increase in attendance over 2002.

For more than five weeks, Binion's had been a hub of excitement as players who couldn't afford the $10,000 buy-in vied for spots in the final by winning side tournaments with entry fees as low as $50. Of the 839 players, only 63 paid the buy-in price.

Others, like Moneymaker, qualified on such sites as ParadisePoker.com, ultimatebet.com and PartyPoker.com.

Moneymaker, a father of a 3-month-old girl, was among 37 players sent to the tournament after paying $40 and qualifying at PokerStars.com.

Dan Goldman, vice president of marketing for PokerStars.com, credited Moneymaker's win to his natural card sense and the experience he gained while playing online.

"We've proven that people who play on the Internet are just as good as those who play in casinos," Goldman said.

Moneymaker, who donated $25,000 of his winnings to cancer research, said being an unknown worked to his advantage.

"I was a little underestimated because no one knew who I was," he said. "If I can win it, anybody can."

[Vegas Vic]

Originally posted by sabotai
Vic, any updates on your progress at the poker tables?

My apologies for the delayed reply, but here's an update.

I've been playing a lot of 15/30 at the Bellagio, and during the week the games are pretty tough. I'm averaging about 2/3 of a big bet per hour profit. However, on weekends the games are much better, and I'm cranking out about 2 big bets per hour on Friday and Saturday. Quite frankly, there are a lot of tourists on the weekend who play very poorly. They play WAY too many hands, and frequently overbet. Some of them haven't played much at all -- i.e. "I was watching the Travel Channel, and saw the World Series of Poker. Thought I'd give it a try." They see some maniac like Gus Hansen open raise with 10-5 offsuit, and can't understand why it doesn't work in a ring game with a full table.

I'm very pleased with the results so far, and I will continue to work hard to improve my game.

Two books that are must reads IMO: "The Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky, and "Texas Holdem for Advanced Players" by Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Both of these guys are regulars at the Bellagio, and I usually see them two or three times a week in the high limit room. Fortunately, they don't waste their time playing 15/30.

[QuikSand]

Glad to hear things are working out well. In my readings, I too find Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker" the single most illuminating work I've read. He has a gift for expressing subtle issues pretty clearly - he's the best I've read.

[sabotai]

Sounds like a lot of tourists have too much money to throw away. I'd never just start at a 15/30 table where my only exposure is "I just watched a bit of the World Series of Poker on the travel channel.."

That's like trying out for a AA or AAA baseball team because they saw a little baseball on ESPN and thought they'd give it a try...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by sabotai
Sounds like a lot of tourists have too much money to throw away. I'd never just start at a 15/30 table where my only exposure is "I just watched a bit of the World Series of Poker on the travel channel.."

That's like trying out for a AA or AAA baseball team because they saw a little baseball on ESPN and thought they'd give it a try...

And that's the beauty of poker. We give saps like these the chance to play and lose.

If you've got to make bets "against the house" or against the other bettors... choose the latter. (Duh)

[sabotai]

*sigh*...if only I didn't suck at poker...*thinks of Atlantic City*