Moose: Article about counters playing poker - what to say

[Moose]

Gentlemen,

I am finishing off an article about poker, where I attempt to tell possible ways of figuring out what sort of poker player your opponent might be, based on how they play blackjack.

Obviously, I want to include a brief section on if they are a very good blackjack player (IE if they are spreading 8:1 in lockstep with the count, odds are good that they are a solid ABC-by-the-book poker player).. but I don't know what would be "safe" to use as a way of telling if they are a counter - you know, without giving away too many state secrets.

Any ideas about what's a good way to tell that a player is "good" without giving too much away? Did my request make sense? Please email for more details, or with suggestions.

Thanks!

M.

[Brick]

"Any ideas about what's a good way to tell that a player is "good" without giving too much away? Did my request make sense?"

No,to me it's unclear what you're asking.

If you're asking is a card counter a better poker player than a ploppy. I'd rather challenge a loose casino ploppy at the poker tables any day of the week, than an experienced card counter who has an understanding of bankroll and money management.

If you're asking... can you tell if a poker player is also a card counter by watching his poker game and not give too much away? Then what's your point and what's the deal with the details and secrets you have for us? Could you just ask a question in plain english instead of code words?

> Gentlemen,

> I am finishing off an article about poker,
> where I attempt to tell possible ways of
> figuring out what sort of poker player your
> opponent might be, based on how they play
> blackjack.

> Obviously, I want to include a brief section
> on if they are a very good blackjack player
> (IE if they are spreading 8:1 in lockstep
> with the count, odds are good that they are
> a solid ABC-by-the-book poker player).. but
> I don't know what would be "safe"
> to use as a way of telling if they are a
> counter - you know, without giving away too
> many state secrets.

> Any ideas about what's a good way to tell
> that a player is "good" without
> giving too much away? Did my request make
> sense? Please email for more details, or
> with suggestions.

> Thanks!

> M.

[Moose]

The article is about finding out how good a poker player might be based on the mannerisms and skill levels he shows on the blackjack tables.

I got the idea to write it when I was playing blackjack while waiting to play in a poker tournament. This guy came to my table and was accusing me of "not knowing how to play basic strategy" when I was doing things like splitting 4-4 vs 6 (DAS game) and doubling A7v2 (H17 game).

As he sat down at my table, I thought of our blackjack experience, and I realized that this guy probably knows a bit about the game, but not much, and that most of his plays would be "textbook plays", which allowed me to steal more than one pot from under his nose.

So, the article describes several types of blackjack players, and what types of poker players they might well be.

Obviously, the "card counter" is one of the types of blackjack players. So, my question to the board is, what "counter mannerisms" are safe to include in my article - IE, what do you think is widely known enough that including it in my article won't give away the state secrets? (IE 8-1 spread, jumping bets, 75% of bets at the table mininum)

M.

[Contrail]

I'm not sure that one read makes an article, particularly since it is not clear to me that you gleaned anything more than a good player would quickly discover anyway. But I must admit that I'm not a strong poker player.

Additionally, while it might be straightforward to list what some might consider tells of a counter, translating that into useful information is a little difficult for several reasons. This is especially valid for stonger BJ who players who, if they play poker, would be less likely to provide you with the information and data you would need.

In the specific example you cite, I would tend to figure the guy as weak BJ player, but you could have been up against a completely different person at the poker table and your assumption (based on his BJ knowledge) that most of his play would be textbook may have been wrong.

Having encountered several poker players while playing BJ at the Bellagio recently, I would tend to think that gaining information about their poker weaknesses/strengths from their BJ play would rely on more subtlety than you describe.

Imo, the tell, in this instance, was not his limited BJ knowledge but his behavior which was far from subtle. You don't need to know anything about whether or not he's a counter to use that information. For example, he might tend to overestimate (or at least not accurately evaluate) his strengths and ignore his weaknesses, he might tend to be aggressive and overplay his hands, he might have a tendency to go on tilt easily and more often, you might have the ability to control him more, etc. At least those are some of the weaknesses that I would consider based on his behavior.

These are just my thoughts and it is not my intention to disparage your idea for an article which I'm sure could be interesting. As for your specific question, it a little hard for me to suggest ways that I might be identified as a counter so that someone else can beat me up more at poker:-).

> The article is about finding out how good a
> poker player might be based on the
> mannerisms and skill levels he shows on the
> blackjack tables.

> I got the idea to write it when I was
> playing blackjack while waiting to play in a
> poker tournament. This guy came to my table
> and was accusing me of "not knowing how
> to play basic strategy" when I was
> doing things like splitting 4-4 vs 6 (DAS
> game) and doubling A7v2 (H17 game).

> As he sat down at my table, I thought of our
> blackjack experience, and I realized that
> this guy probably knows a bit about the
> game, but not much, and that most of his
> plays would be "textbook plays",
> which allowed me to steal more than one pot
> from under his nose.

> So, the article describes several types of
> blackjack players, and what types of poker
> players they might well be.

> Obviously, the "card counter" is
> one of the types of blackjack players. So,
> my question to the board is, what
> "counter mannerisms" are safe to
> include in my article - IE, what do you
> think is widely known enough that including
> it in my article won't give away the state
> secrets? (IE 8-1 spread, jumping bets, 75%
> of bets at the table mininum)

> M.

[Fred Renzey]

> Gentlemen,

> I am finishing off an article about poker,
> where I attempt to tell possible ways of
> figuring out what sort of poker player your
> opponent might be, based on how they play
> blackjack.

> M.

I play with several good competitive poker players who are poor blackjack players. How can that be? It turns out that blackjack is virtually all numbers, but what separates poker boys from poker men is psychology. To win at blackjack, you must play virtually mistake-free, where poker is in fact a game of mistakes. Nobody, but nobody plays perfect poker.

Survivors in poker arrive at reasonably sound mathematical play through beating and getting beaten by their opponents. You can get that from a book, or you can get it from the school of hard knocks. Then -- those who rise above learn to transcend beyond the math and figure out what's going on right now, in this hand right here; whether it conforms to the math or not. That's why a truly good player can throw away a flush when it's no good and earn two extra bets with it when it is good.

These players understand next to nothing about random walks, bankroll requirements, etc., but they can spin you around sideways with their hand management when you're in a pot with them. That involves much more art than skill and would be totally unapparent at the blackjack table.

The closest poker comes to blackjack is Texas Hold'em, where there are only 169 individual starting hands and the players share the rest of the cards. The other pokerforms are much more complex.

[Don Schlesinger]

> The closest poker comes to blackjack is
> Texas Hold'em, where there are only 169
> individual starting hands

Are you sure about that? Seems to me that the suits matter, no??

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Are you sure about that? Seems to me that
> the suits matter, no??

And if they didn't, wouldn't it be 91 starting hands?

BJStats

[Magician]

There are 13 paired starting hands and 13*12/2 = 78 non-pair starting hands. The latter may be either suited or not, for a total of 13 + 2*78 = 169 different starting hands.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Should'da known better