tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post1487600371645968386..comments2024-03-05T08:25:01.029-05:00Comments on Poker Grump: Envelope PokerRakewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-33705709747701831332011-02-26T18:16:34.824-05:002011-02-26T18:16:34.824-05:00It builds large pots in multi-way hands. In small...It builds large pots in multi-way hands. In small stakes limit one is not "charging them" singular, you are often charging a very plural "them." In this case, I assume it gets more plural with the envelope people.<br /><br />In general in loose passively played small stakes limit games, one's individual percentage equity in the pot is reduced, but percentage cost of what you put in also drops, and not proportionately if one is not random about it. Commonly, comparing hands with identical cards dealt to each player and flopped, instead of something like 70% equity you may be looking at only 35%, but instead of putting in 50% of the money you are putting in 17% of the money as your bet or raise is called in five places.<br /><br />It is the sort of thing I do routinely. Though more selectively than one might for the purpose of screwing with envelope lovers. So, if I don't change my motivation and volunteer to play kamikaze poker just because I don't like the envelopers, I think it most likely tends to take more than just me to effectively mess with it, because I may not be in enough hands.Local Rocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-75494027650370928552011-02-26T17:25:55.397-05:002011-02-26T17:25:55.397-05:00I dunno, but it's an interesting question. Car...I dunno, but it's an interesting question. Cardgrrl asked me basically the same thing last night when I was chatting with her, before writing the post. What if, she mused, somebody decided to exploit the passive play by aggressively raising at every opportunity? You wouldn't be very popular, but is there profit to be made by trying to win the pots that nobody else is working hard to win? I'm not sure, since the most you can charge them is $4 pre, $2 on the flop, and $4 each on the turn and river. If nobody else is betting/raising, it might be hard to charge people enough to discourage chasing, and the rate of suckouts could be high enough to make it unprofitable. Would be fun to try it, though!Rakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-47312279903905893482011-02-26T17:11:55.222-05:002011-02-26T17:11:55.222-05:00Maybe someone well schooled in game theory could c...Maybe someone well schooled in game theory could consider how this "envelope poker" is affected with the presence of uncooperative people like me.<br /><br />You'll probably recall from elsewhere that I do like to play limit, including small stakes games. If I am in that game I will not be cooperating. I just won't. I don't have to, and don't want to. I will be hated within that kind of group. I don't care. Has happened before, and will again if the opportunity arises.<br /><br />So take the (perhaps hypothetical) collusive communication issue out of it, and let's say it is just a matter of the kind of "implicit collusion" that can legitimately occur in any multi-way poker hand, without cheating. But this particular kind of implicit collusion involved in "envelope poker" requires a degree of trust. <br /><br />So then, how many non-cooperators (perhaps aggressively anti-cooperators like me) does it take for it to break down the reciprocal table cooperation and spoil the envelope party?Local Rocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-73887671579027050032011-02-26T16:34:19.670-05:002011-02-26T16:34:19.670-05:00"What if these five friends had explicitly ag..."What if these five friends had explicitly agreed in advance--in an arrangement that they did not disclose to the other players--that they would play this way and after the game make an even split of the profits? Would that be cheating?"<br /><br />So.<br /><br />"What if the employees of a certain casino with a Globally Entertaining theme had agreed to just split up the promo fund in the middle of the night when nobody else was around, would that be stealing?"<br /><br />Yes. <br /><br />The five hypothetical colluders are not agreeing to divy up their own funds or some free money that falls out of the sky from Mars in a sack. With this communication and agreement they are explicitly colluding to take those funds from everyone else who will be playing in the room, at their table and all others. The promo fund is more analogous to a tourney prize fund, one that is multi-table and multi-day, in this respect, IMO. Their agreement to cooperate will affect what is available for others who would be paid from that fund, and the explicit communication about it makes it cheating.Local Rocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-9279491786351126202011-02-26T10:02:29.438-05:002011-02-26T10:02:29.438-05:00This isn't the most odious promo out there, ju...This isn't the most odious promo out there, just another promo that can be gamed. It actually is functionally equivalent to the TI "wheel spin" promo, and a close analogue to any HHJ or (as you noted) an Aces cracked promo. The main difference is that the house made it far too easy to qualify.<br /><br />The nice thing is that, at least in NL games, promos will often influence play incorrectly. In other words, players will chase the promos and alter their play in a -EV manner in terms of the pot, which lets good players make more money. <br /><br />Still, I hate promos.Grange95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-26039896749869108142011-02-26T04:41:35.865-05:002011-02-26T04:41:35.865-05:00I think it is unethical play, but it is not cheati...I think it is unethical play, but it is not cheating. Same thing for the other scenarios posted.<br /><br />It would be different if they were soft playing each other but raising and battling with everyone else to prevent them from drawing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com