tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post8681438513004489501..comments2023-09-07T06:01:31.574-07:00Comments on That's Not Poker: Stakes and Chips IIIMarshallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026007603250510224noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-23889995241200222332009-03-01T23:12:00.000-08:002009-03-01T23:12:00.000-08:00Holy fucking crap I'm glad I stayed out of this di...Holy fucking crap I'm glad I stayed out of this discussion.royalbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161270363498369220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-86343544525810495842009-02-26T10:33:00.000-08:002009-02-26T10:33:00.000-08:00Well if you want to start buying crack, my neighbo...Well if you want to start buying crack, my neighbors can hook you up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243539428500320760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-72219414950277067132009-02-25T17:30:00.000-08:002009-02-25T17:30:00.000-08:00Consensus among a group of whining poker players. ...Consensus among a group of whining poker players. Something is wrong. But I agree with the Adam post, the .25/.5 stakes with $100 max buyin as a good structure with the side game of higher stakes on nights where we have enough participation. <BR/><BR/>Woody, since I don't really drink anymore, I'll have to take some of my poker winnings and begin a drug habit. Sounds like fun.jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011372040805515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-56368948552054807192009-02-25T15:50:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:50:00.000-08:00To be fair Ryan, I think I am probably a blind gam...To be fair Ryan, I think I am probably a blind gambler more interested in cock size than poker.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026007603250510224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-51245290536877767592009-02-25T15:47:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:47:00.000-08:00I just want to let everyone know, that no matter i...I just want to let everyone know, that no matter if the stakes are low or high, if the blinds are normal or wacky, whether the play is good or bad, I just want you all to know that no matter what, I will always, always spend every last time dime I win on drugs. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading.Woodrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02873139228776006403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-82197137822819179072009-02-25T15:33:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:33:00.000-08:00100. woo hoo!100. woo hoo!Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13386697710828406050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-37193294177188430202009-02-25T15:32:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:32:00.000-08:009999Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13386697710828406050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-56060934930427657252009-02-25T15:22:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:22:00.000-08:00Brant, hopefully we can talk tonight, but I want t...Brant, hopefully we can talk tonight, but I want to cop publicly to overreacting based on a misinterpretation of your intentions. <BR/><BR/>The extreme nature of my response was due in large part to the fact that I thought you intended to splinter off without discussion and start a new $60 game. That got me steamed enough as it was. Then I read that WNP regulars were welcome, but apparently needed instruction to not be "gamble-wieners" at our standard stakes. This further suggested to me that you were again dismissing the aggro players at $60 as a bunch of blind gamblers more interested in cock size than poker.<BR/><BR/>The realization that you were talking about a smaller-than-$60 game doesn't erase *all* the hard feelings I expressed, but it certainly reduces their intensity by like a factor of 10. I apologize for my overreaction, and I hope to give you a more appropriate reaction in person. (It doesn't involve neck punches.)Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-64676345563427860502009-02-25T15:15:00.000-08:002009-02-25T15:15:00.000-08:00@BrantNo "manaise" jokes please.@Brant<BR/>No "manaise" jokes please.Sushi Cowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753872848839415763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-21730685232857287272009-02-25T14:57:00.000-08:002009-02-25T14:57:00.000-08:00please, for the love of all that is holy, HOLD THE...please, for the love of all that is holy, HOLD THE MAYOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-70718419341892333402009-02-25T14:40:00.000-08:002009-02-25T14:40:00.000-08:00I want to make a sandwich tonight.A Brant sandwich...I want to make a sandwich tonight.<BR/><BR/>A Brant sandwich. Ryan and I are the bread. Guess who the meat is?Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026007603250510224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-72785081616918555822009-02-25T14:22:00.000-08:002009-02-25T14:22:00.000-08:00@ MarshMarsh said: "BTW this sentiment (mainl...@ Marsh<BR/><BR/>Marsh said:<BR/> "BTW this sentiment (mainly from Brant) about people just wanting to get more money on the table or trying to measure our "gamble-weiner" is fucking tilting the shit out of me. What a fucking bullshit thing to say. I don't come to WNP to win money, I come to get better at poker."<BR/><BR/>Sorry for my offensive gamble-wiener comments. This was in reference to a single short handed night where the rest of the table was basically shut out by two players who were betting $20 (at least) each hand blind, that night can categorically be excluded from a "learning game". Again, for those who took offense, sorry.<BR/><BR/>@Ryan<BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting the "secret" out that my problem is simply that I am a shitty player. I don't think this comes as a shocking revelation to anyone who has played with me regularly. I find myself in a bind at times in our game trying to walk the line between playing hands and being called a "nit" at the table (which is openly thought of as being a decent way to play but delivered as an insult). For the record, I don't gamble my rent, it was a poor illustration of the difference in 3X buy-ins at each stake, which Adam was able to state better.<BR/><BR/>So, now that I have offended two of my favorite players in the game, I'll go to work on Marty and Jeh next, JSola is after that, then back to Marsh, then Woody.<BR/><BR/>Guys, my sense of humor does not allow me to make a blog post that is entirely serious. I won't post anymore so I don't unintentionally offend those who are taking this WAY more seriously than I am. you know, dumb people with British last names, or worse...<BR/><BR/>I will be available at WNP for those who want to neck-punch me, just keep the line orderly please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-47470671375666139412009-02-25T13:59:00.000-08:002009-02-25T13:59:00.000-08:00Woody, Marsh: make some more snide comments or int...Woody, Marsh: make some more snide comments or introduce strong dissent--we are almost at 100 comments!Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-50745545463907896812009-02-25T13:55:00.000-08:002009-02-25T13:55:00.000-08:00I'm cool with .25/.50 $100 buyin with occasional ....I'm cool with .25/.50 $100 buyin with occasional .50/$1 second table.jtrey333https://www.blogger.com/profile/06702556464073696564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-27632699371530587762009-02-25T13:09:00.000-08:002009-02-25T13:09:00.000-08:00It's certainly my second favorite solution and mor...It's certainly my second favorite solution and more than acceptable.Woodrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02873139228776006403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-46881041586690703852009-02-25T13:06:00.000-08:002009-02-25T13:06:00.000-08:00.25/.50 $100 max with the occasional .5/1 game is ....25/.50 $100 max with the occasional .5/1 game is my favorite solution thus far.chuck mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07049939493074327769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-77198604682922930452009-02-25T12:11:00.000-08:002009-02-25T12:11:00.000-08:00He said "bang".He said "bang".Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026007603250510224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-71858582201433413752009-02-25T11:29:00.000-08:002009-02-25T11:29:00.000-08:00If we can agree to inject .5/1 in every third or f...If we can agree to inject .5/1 in every third or fourth session, I say bang the gavel on .25/.50, $100 max as the standard.<BR/><BR/>Occasional .5/1 is still the cleanest, simplest way to provide .5/1 at WNP without sending anyone permanently packing. I don't think anyone who is against .5/1 as the New Standard would be against .5/1 intermittently.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-80329097344503150912009-02-25T11:16:00.000-08:002009-02-25T11:16:00.000-08:00I am +1 on Adam's post. I couldn't write my views ...I am +1 on Adam's post. I couldn't write my views better than that.jtrey333https://www.blogger.com/profile/06702556464073696564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-8880433857418328602009-02-25T11:15:00.000-08:002009-02-25T11:15:00.000-08:00Ryan, thanks for your input. I was not aware of yo...Ryan, thanks for your input. I was not aware of your opinion on SB=BB. It isn't my first choice either but I'm indifferent about it.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like the group is gravitating toward .25/.50 $100 buy in as a structure that would be acceptable to the group in general.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone strenuously object to having .25/.50 $100 be the default structure? I believe we can address the requests for higher stakes by adding on a second .50/1 table when we have a sufficient amount of players to likely keep both tables running all night. I also think weekend games will help address that request.<BR/><BR/>If we can reach general consensus on .25/.50 $100 then I think we should make that the new standard and build from there.Sushi Cowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753872848839415763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-86226813869566645072009-02-25T10:00:00.000-08:002009-02-25T10:00:00.000-08:00Of course, now I can't find "20" plaques online, t...Of course, now I can't find "20" plaques online, the smallest I see are 100s. I thought 20s were out there...am I wrong, Martin?<BR/><BR/>http://www.europokerchips.com/magento/index.php/dal-negro-poker-chips-jetons?mode=gridRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-16408347248155364962009-02-25T09:55:00.000-08:002009-02-25T09:55:00.000-08:00I'm telling you" chip-bloat solution = 20- or 25-u...I'm telling you" chip-bloat solution = 20- or 25-unit plaques, and any one of us would chip in for that. <BR/><BR/>I know you've considered them before, Martin, and they would be perfect, don't you think? It would preserve use of the rad straps and blue Bellagios as the only chip on the table, but create space and a new highly-functional betting unit in the 20 plaque.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-57480546239718291372009-02-25T09:46:00.001-08:002009-02-25T09:46:00.001-08:00Ok, this is try #3 to post this (not sure why it k...Ok, this is try #3 to post this (not sure why it keeps getting ignored - I assume Marsh did something to censor me).<BR/><BR/>If it's the majority/consensus opinion that we should change from .25/.50/$60, after reading the various proposals, I support going to .25/.50/$100. That allows those who are priced out of the market at .50/1 to play without being terribly short stacked. It better preserves Surreal as a location. And, it permits those who want to play deeper stack poker (reducing, at least theoretically, the donkeyness factor) to buy in for 200 BB. <BR/><BR/>I only see two arguments against it, neither of which are compelling TO ME. (1) it doesn't satisfy anyone looking to significantly increase the stakes (unsure if that's the primary motivation of anyone, except maybe Woody/Jason -- can't tell if that's actually the PRIMARY motivation for either). (2) it doesn't help (and in fact exacerbates) the "chip bloat" issue. Still seems that "chip bloat" could be eliminated by introducing a second denomination (e.g., 5 "unit" chips). Make 'em red and it'd be like any casino.<BR/><BR/>As to .50/.50, I'm mostly indifferent. I'd err on the side of keeping it .25/.50 because of the realism factor, but it's not something I'd fall on my sword about (no, Marsh, you fire penguin, that was not a Magic reference - so relax). The only upside of .50/.50 is it would "solve" the chip bloat thing, but of course that could similarly be "solved" by introducing a bigger demonination chip. To Woody's earlier point, I too would be happy to contribute to the cost of some red chips.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13386697710828406050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-27657072160444575352009-02-25T09:46:00.000-08:002009-02-25T09:46:00.000-08:00I've stated my willingness to try anything rea...I've stated my willingness to try anything reasonable--and I still will--but Martin I feel strongly that a 1-1 blind system is simply not the best option for satisfying the desire for increased stakes or chip bloat. 1-1 blinds were *always* an undesirable compromise at the lunch game that we put up with to eliminate nickels and dimes, but without going to $50. We never liked it, we tolerated it for some very specific things it did for that game.<BR/><BR/>So...a bunch of people would like to play $100, but it is a deal breaker for enough regulars that it seems like it can't be the WNP standard without unacceptable losses. Solutions offered up:<BR/><BR/>1) Split tables on crowded nights into $100/$60 tables<BR/>2) Raise the buyin cap at from $60 to $100 and keep live straddles on<BR/>3) Make an effort to have more higher-stakes games on weekends<BR/>4) Mix things up: some WNP nights are .5/1, some .25/.50 (<--STILL MY FAVORITE)<BR/>5) Some combination of 1-4<BR/>6) Fuck those guys. Lose a couple of players, but let majority rule (<--pretty much unacceptable to lose Sola, Brant, or anyone else "forever")<BR/>7) Implement a non-standard blind structure in the $60 game to get 33% more dead money in the pot preflop as a way to throw an "increased stakes" bone to the $100 crowd, even though none in that crowd have indicated they think it's a great idea, and in fact the most vocal members of the $100 crowd are dead set against the thing that is supposed to be their "bone"<BR/><BR/>If you really want to try it Martin, you have the clout. You can certainly play your, "Please give this a shot, guys" card, and we will give it a shot, even if I have to gag Marsh and Woody for the evening. However, I simply can't see it being such a revelatory experience that it changes any minds when all of those other fine options are on the table. In fact, again, having played 1-1 at the lunch game and *never* truly liking it, I already have given this structure a shot, and long ago concluded that it was not ideal.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129622740872167902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7012366747492399470.post-66434997033164461702009-02-24T21:54:00.000-08:002009-02-24T21:54:00.000-08:00What I'm "pushing for" is a cash game structure th...What I'm "pushing for" is a cash game structure that is an improvement over .25/.50 $60 that works better for the group overall, whatever that may be. I don't mind offering up an unconventional blind structure where SB=BB. I don't think I would be doing a thorough job of exploring options if I didn't include that format.<BR/><BR/>What do people think of .50/.50? Obviously I'm willing to try. I brought up the idea in Chips and Stakes II where Jason said he liked it and thought it was a good compromise. Royal said he was in. Ryan didn't think there was much of an issue in trying it out. And as mentioned before the players from the lunch game have all played with SB=BB before. Btw, no one voiced fierce opposition of the format in the previous post.<BR/><BR/>So far the opinions from people who have played in that format is that it's not that big a deal. I'm not sure if you or Wooody have played in that format before but I think that opinions from people who have actually tried it before should weigh more than opinions from those who have not. I'm not saying that opposing opinions are being ignored but, really, isn't it reasonable to take experience with the format into consideration when listening to opinion?<BR/><BR/>Again, I was exploring the .50/.50 option partly to address the request to raise stakes. If people don't think feel that .50 chips will play bigger than .25 chips then I'm not going to go out of my way to lay out the .50/.50 option if it just is going to cause grief.Sushi Cowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753872848839415763noreply@blogger.com