What's new
By:

I hope you are ready...

lauriandres said:
Do you play usually with real money i.e every player gives a la 10 USD and then you divide all the chips and the last survivor collects the pot? When i played that way with friends about ten years ago, then it took about 2-3 hours to finish one game. All-in was not allowed i.e the bets started 10/20, then 20/40 etc. Our starting money per player was about 2 USD :) so the winner received about 10-14 USD.
What i discovered - when we played without money at all, then it was not fun or tense at all; even the tiny amount of money made the process much more interesting. I.e it was very interesting to observe who is bluffing, who plays only when it is 101% chance to win the round etc.
Click to expand...

I run what is a pretty standard No Limit Texas Hold'em tournament. There is a real money buy-in and each player gets a set amount of chips to start. The blinds start low and gradually increase, putting greater pressure on players to make a move or get eliminated. With a single table I pay top three, usually 50%/30%/20% of the money collected from buy-ins. With two tables I will pay top 4 or 5. I like for the last person to win money to at least double the buy-in or very close to that.

I completely agree that having a little money on the line is what makes poker poker. Without it it basically becomes "let's flip our cards over and see who wins."
 
Siro said:
I'll obviously be there. But i don't know if I'll play poker as I'd like to focus on the Jazz game.
Click to expand...
I completely sympathise. We'll have to see the schedule, I can really only host Saturday or Sunday unless I take time off, then I could do a Friday evening. If we start a few hours before the game we could record the game and start watching a little behind and FFW through commercials until we catch up. We did that for the first game James came to and it worked pretty well. We'll have to see. I mean Jazz have to make the playoffs first.
 
Bulletproof said:
I completely agree that having a little money on the line is what makes poker poker. Without it it basically becomes "let's flip our cards over and see who wins."
Click to expand...

I've heard people make similar arguments about bridge, runny, chess, etc. It depends on your level of competitiveness, I think. I play as fiercely for matchsticks as for money.
 
One Brow said:
I've heard people make similar arguments about bridge, runny, chess, etc. It depends on your level of competitiveness, I think. I play as fiercely for matchsticks as for money.
Click to expand...
Poker is a game designed specifically to be played for money. There is strategy to those other games that is seperate from betting money. Poker tournaments are a little different, in that you have "no cash value" chips standing in as the scorekeeper in place of real money. But I assure you, poker plays very differently, tournament or traditional cash game, depending on money being involved and the amount of money involved.

I've played poker at stakes that didn't matter to the people involved and it basically removes folding as a viable option in anyone's strategy. They basically open up their range of hands 3-4x what it would be if they were playing for an amount of money that meant something to them.
 
Bulletproof said:
Poker is a game designed specifically to be played for money. There is strategy to those other games that is seperate from betting money. Poker tournaments are a little different, in that you have "no cash value" chips standing in as the scorekeeper in place of real money. But I assure you, poker plays very differently, tournament or traditional cash game, depending on money being involved and the amount of money involved.

I've played poker at stakes that didn't matter to the people involved and it basically removes folding as a viable option in anyone's strategy. They basically open up their range of hands 3-4x what it would be if they were playing for an amount of money that meant something to them.
Click to expand...

I feel like you misunderstood me more than we disagree.

I agree that betting dominates poker strategy. I agree the game only works if you care about what you are betting. I'm agreeing with you on the behavior when poeple don't care; I have seen that firsthand. I played with friends when I was young, they were more worried about being embarrassed by being bluffed than were trying to get the best score on the night. I'd didn't lose often to that group, because I cared about winning, even though it was nickels and dimes and they occasionally bluffed me out of a pot.

I have also seen bridge/hearts/euchre players who played differently, depending upon whether the final score mattered to them or not (money, tournament, etc.). Some people care every game, and some need an external motivator, regardless of game. Poker is not unique in that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top