Controversial Chip & Poker Opinions (45 Viewers)

[Cowthulhu]

Pocketing chips is not okay in large amounts or denominations.

I should clarify - I don't do it because it's frowned upon, it's often against the rules, and I don't want to be "that guy". I play poker for fun and don't want to be the asshole at the table.
I'm more saying that I don't understand the objection to it, and it's so weird to me that it's everyone's hill to die on - don't lose money you don't want to see other players keep IMO.

 

[Mandos]

I should clarify - I don't do it because it's frowned upon, it's often against the rules, and I don't want to be "that guy". I play poker for fun and don't want to be the asshole at the table.
I'm more saying that I don't understand the objection to it, and it's so weird to me that it's everyone's hill to die on - don't lose money you don't want to see other players keep IMO.

I tend to agree with you. I think it was @CrazyEddie that changed my mind on this one (from a different thread, but fits in well here):

Letting people take money off the table ("ratholing") is universally derided, but it shouldn't be. There are three different parties to consider, and all three dislike ratholing, which is why it's usually not allowed. The first party is the casino. Casinos want as much money in play as possible because that increases their profits. The second party is the winning players. They want as much money in play as possible because that increases their profits as well. The third party is the losing players. Because these players are degenerate gamblers and are mathematically illiterate, they want a chance to "win their money back". In truth, these people shouldn't be sitting at the table at all, but luckily for the rest of us they sit anyway and fund our hobby.

Accordingly, casinos forbid ratholing and both types of players applaud, both the smart and the stupid.

From a sportsman's perspective (rather than a professional's perspective or a degenerate's perspective) there's absolutely nothing wrong with ratholing. Deciding how much money to risk is an important part of wagering, and every player should have every opportunity at the start of every hand to decide how much money they are willing to risk at that point in time. Cries of "you have to give me a chance to win my money back" are fundamentally misguided; the first rule of poker that anyone should learn is that money ceases to be yours as soon as it goes in the pot. Money in someone else's stack belongs to them; you have no claim over it, and not a single person at the table owes you anything, let alone the obligation that they keep risking as much as you would like them to.

 

[ktran]

I should clarify - I don't do it because it's frowned upon, it's often against the rules, and I don't want to be "that guy". I play poker for fun and don't want to be the asshole at the table.
I'm more saying that I don't understand the objection to it, and it's so weird to me that it's everyone's hill to die on - don't lose money you don't want to see other players keep IMO.

Imagine the whole table doing that. It would change the whole table dynamics. No deep stack play really. It's kind of pointless, just play limit if you want to be so incremental.

If someone lucks out on you and then pockets it lol then you lose the max potential to win it back. It's not good for the game.

 

[upNdown]

I'm more saying that I don't understand the objection to it

It's pretty simple. There needs to be money on the table to have a game. And the more money that's on the table, the more interesting the game is.

 

[ktran]

It's pretty simple. There needs to be money on the table to have a game. And the more money that's on the table, the more interesting the game is.

The deeper stacks allow more strategies can come in play. Short to mid stacks it's not much wiggle room. Not a good environment when everyone pockets.

Also your capping your maximum gains if you keep pocketing. If you know how to play it right it and lose the minimum, it really doesn't change much and just limits your gains. It just means you probably have a limited buy in. @Cowthulhu

 

[Cowthulhu]

Imagine the whole table doing that. It's kind of pointless, just play limit if you want to be so incremental.

If someone lucks out on you and then pockets it lol then you lose the max potential to win it back. It's not good for the game.

I'm not the greatest player, so what happens when I'm running really hot at a casino - I play until I'm at 200-300bb, then I just play super tight for a few orbits and leave.
If I keep playing with my stacks - I'm going to lose that money! I'm probably not an above average player, and I definitely don't know how to play 300bb deep (heck, I barely know how to play 100bb deep!). So I just take the money and run (after playing super tight for a bit so I'm not hit-and-running).
I guess you can argue this and that about what's best for the game, but it's not really my job to do what's best for the game, I just want to have some fun and win some money. It would be good for the game for the sharks to punt every now and then, but I don't see them doing that.

 

[Cowthulhu]

The deeper stacks allow more strategies can come in play. Short to mid stacks it's not much wiggle room. Not a good environment when everyone pockets.

Also your capping your maximum gains if you keep pocketing. If you know how to play it right it and lose the minimum, it really doesn't change much and just limits your gains. It just means you probably have a limited buy in. @Cowthulhu

I'm not an amazing player, I don't think I'm a winning player at 100bb and I'm certainly not at 300bb. So I yeah if I was a really good player I could crush everyone with my stack advantage, but I'm not so more likely I'll just get stacked myself. I'm learning more and more every time I play, but it's a slow process!

 

[ktran]

I'm not the greatest player, so what happens when I'm running really hot at a casino - I play until I'm at 200-300bb, then I just play super tight for a few orbits and leave.
If I keep playing with my stacks - I'm going to lose that money! I'm probably not an above average player, and I definitely don't know how to play 300bb deep (heck, I barely know how to play 100bb deep!). So I just take the money and run (after playing super tight for a bit so I'm not hit-and-running).
I guess you can argue this and that about what's best for the game, but it's not really my job to do what's best for the game, I just want to have some fun and win some money. It would be good for the game for the sharks to punt every now and then, but I don't see them doing that.

And it's an advantage to have more chips than other to some degree to. Depends on blinds and stacks.

 

[Eriks]

I'm not the greatest player, so what happens when I'm running really hot at a casino - I play until I'm at 200-300bb, then I just play super tight for a few orbits and leave.
If I keep playing with my stacks - I'm going to lose that money! I'm probably not an above average player, and I definitely don't know how to play 300bb deep (heck, I barely know how to play 100bb deep!). So I just take the money and run (after playing super tight for a bit so I'm not hit-and-running).
I guess you can argue this and that about what's best for the game, but it's not really my job to do what's best for the game, I just want to have some fun and win some money. It would be good for the game for the sharks to punt every now and then, but I don't see them doing that.

Hit n run in a casino is one thing and imo not that big of a deal since there be people waiting to fill up their seats. But do it in a homegame and you’ll probably not get invited back.

 

[Cowthulhu]

And it's an advantage to have more chips than other to some degree to. Depends on blinds and stacks.

Fair enough! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm glad my opinion was suitably unpopular . Like I said - I don't pocket chips since I don't want to be a jerk, it's just my unpopular take on the game.

 

[ktran]

I'm not an amazing player, I don't think I'm a winning player at 100bb and I'm certainly not at 300bb. So I yeah if I was a really good player I could crush everyone with my stack advantage, but I'm not so more likely I'll just get stacked myself. I'm learning more and more every time I play, but it's a slow process!

Table selection is important. You want to be at a table where you can win. At that point you want your stack to be bigger than theirs to bully a little bit.

 

[Cowthulhu]

Hi - I regret to inform ya'll that per the PCF bylaws (Title 71 § 4.8.1), you are required to react to my unpopular opinion.

 

[Mandos]

I'm not the greatest player, so what happens when I'm running really hot at a casino - I play until I'm at 200-300bb, then I just play super tight for a few orbits and leave.

You could even argue that in this scenario, it would be "better for the game" to let you take off your initial buyin and keep playing with the rest of it. I think it's a fair assumption that most people will play a lot looser when they feel like they're playing with house money (likely punting it off), whereas a self-aware worse-than-average player will tighten up when they're up enough that they've reached the "I don't want to lose this anymore stage" and are just waiting long enough to leave without being an ass about it.

 

[ktran]

Hi - I regret to inform ya'll that per the PCF bylaws (Title 71 § 4.8.1), you are required to react to my unpopular opinion.

Capping losses by taking off chips also in turn caps profits. May be fine if you're still learning, but eventually you'll realize you want more chips when you're at a winning table to save time too.

 

[ktran]

You could even argue that in this scenario, it would be "better for the game" to let you take off your initial buyin and keep playing with the rest of it. I think it's a fair assumption that most people will play a lot looser when they feel like they're playing with house money (likely punting it off), whereas a self-aware worse-than-average player will tighten up when they're up enough that they've reached the "I don't want to lose this anymore stage" and are just waiting long enough to leave without being an ass about it.

Playing to break even and getting a free roll is probably not what most people are trying to achieve. And you're not going to play looser bc taking your buy in back will make you shorter stack. Shorter stack will tighten up and jam with decent hands.

 

[Mandos]

Playing to break even is probably not what most people are trying to achieve. And you're not going to play looser bc taking your buy in back will make you shorter stack.

I'm not saying i would do it myself, just saying I understand the logic of wanting to do it from a habitually-losing player's perspective. Plenty of people play for fun and to have a good time and would be more than happy to have a freeroll for the rest of the night. As for stack size, it's only an advantage to have more chips if you know what to do with them, otherwise they're just more that you can lose. And a losing player is normally not adjusting their play well based on stack size (granted i'm assuming that they rathole after doubling up, which would make them a normal stack size at the table, not super short stacked).

Of course if you're among the better players at the table you want to cover everyone else and inflict maximum damage when possible, not going to argue with that.

 

[lewan]

i think you can take money out if you switch tables, if you don't, you should keep it all on the table. if you want to play more conservative ask for a colour up. get some higher denomination chips for the money you don't want to lose.

 

[CrazyEddie]

[steps up to the mike]
[clears throat]
[feedback]
[pauses, looks around]

Freitez did nothing wrong.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

I'm not saying i would do it myself, just saying I understand the logic of wanting to do it from a habitually-losing player's perspective. Plenty of people play for fun and to have a good time and would be more than happy to have a freeroll for the rest of the night. As for stack size, it's only an advantage to have more chips if you know what to do with them, otherwise they're just more that you can lose. And a losing player is normally not adjusting their play well based on stack size (granted i'm assuming that they rathole after doubling up, which would make them a normal stack size at the table, not super short stacked).

Of course if you're among the better players at the table you want to cover everyone else and inflict maximum damage when possible, not going to argue with that.

Unless you’re phil hellmuth playing at a table filled with rich you tubers who barely know hand rankings.

A skeptic may take this as a sign of him being nearly busto / making appearances for promotional compensation. Definitely not that. Phil just knows when to hold em and knows when to fold em.

 

[upNdown]

Unless you’re phil hellmuth playing at a table filled with rich you tubers who barely know hand rankings.

A skeptic may take this as a sign of him being nearly busto / making appearances for promotional compensation. Definitely not that. Phil just knows when to hold em and knows when to fold em.

He's just a cheap bastard. He knows he can make a career out of trapping people and hero folding, so he can't see any reason to actually put money at risk. I mean, he wouldn't even straddle. He's very much an idiot in these regards, but there is no way he's anything close to busto.

 

[Josh Kifer]

I'm generally against thread crapping but I do get a slight urge when a post has over a page of "thread fluffing" when it's clearly not even close to a decent deal. I'll never do it, but I'd be lying if the thought didn't cross my mind once or twice.

Wait. You are against me?

You sonofa....

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

He's just a cheap bastard. He knows he can make a career out of trapping people and hero folding, so he can't see any reason to actually put money at risk. I mean, he wouldn't even straddle. He's very much an idiot in these regards, but there is no way he's anything close to busto.

Not suggesting he’s close to actual zero, but the idea that a guy who made it” binking a large field 10ks before dropping out of college (which adjusting for inflation is closer to a 25k high roller) is is now too timid to play against the softest lineup imaginable for a tiny fraction of his net worth is pretty far fetched.

I could understand it if he had only a few million. But helmuth having a few million is closer to busto than not considering how much he made shilling for absolute poker / ultimate bet.


Not a particularly controversial opinion : phil hellmuth is down money from poker/gambling lifetime.

 

[upNdown]

Not a particularly controversial opinion : phil hellmuth is down money from poker/gambling lifetime.

I don’t know if it’s controversial, but I disagree. FWIW, Google searches suggest his estimated net worth is between 20 and 75 million. Not that that’s really relevant.

My point is, Phil Hellmuth is not a gambler. From what I’ve heard on various podcasts, his home game is a $5/10 game. If you listen to him, he’s very proud about his career long bankroll management. I remember watching him on some stream and when the guys wanted to double the blinds, he only agreed to it when he got Dwan or somebody to take half his action. He’s just a very cautious guy.

He has no interest in winning cash. He’s only interested in winning sessions. So he plays like a nit and still sells his action, just in case. I know it sounds crazy to say about one of the most prolific poker players of the past 30-40 years, but Phil Hellmuth is not a gambler.
Maybe Krish has some thoughts - surely he’s crossed paths with the guy in the past year - @Windwalker is Hellmuth a nit because he’s a losing gambler or because he’s just a cautious non-gambler?

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

“I don’t know if it’s controversial, but I disagree. FWIW, Google searches suggest his estimated net worth is between 20 and 75 million. Not that that’s really relevant.”

It’s a completely made up number. They have no way of knowing. It’s the same number that’s been floated for nearly a decade and it may well have been true ten years ago. May still be true now but his actions suggest otherwise.

“My point is, Phil Hellmuth is not a gambler. From what I’ve heard on various podcasts, his home game is a $5/10 game. If you listen to him, he’s very proud about his career long bankroll management.”

Everything he has is on the back of slamming down 10k (inflation adjusted 20kish) on a multi table tournament while in college. I don’t agree at all that he’s nitty or conservative. Paying 2% vig to Ivey on small all-ins isn’t prudent financial decision making. If buying insurance makes sense then you’re playing too big. Playing in games you’re not comfortable in is not a sign of a conservative, risk averse player.

if 100k is a meaningful percent of his net worth then completely understandable why he wouldn’t want to play in it. But there’s no world where you play in it, where short stacking also makes sense.

The fact that he sells action at usurious prices doesn’t mean he’s not a gambler, it means he’s aware that the terms are very favourable. I know guys who have done this who are massive degens, it means nothing.

“He has no interest in winning cash. He’s only interested in winning sessions. So he plays like a nit and still sells his action, just in case. I know it sounds crazy to say about one of the most prolific poker players of the past 30-40 years, but Phil Hellmuth is not a gambler”

If he has no interest in winning money why play? To complain and insult people who are playing for funsies when they “suck out” for an amount of money that doesn’t matter to you? Does that make any sense? I mean if you’re there anyways you might as well make more money rather than less. Unless 100k is a significant percent of your net worth, in which case why the hell are you there in the first place?

 

[Eriks]

Not sure if controversial but I’m sure there are disagreements: I don’t like playing with 2 decks in cashgames.

My game usually have at least a few of not very experienced players. I feel that always having a new deck instantly ready for a new hand makes is too mechanical; like we’re forcing the action, trying to get max opportunities to stack people. I think the down time inbetween hands provides a nice little breather. Some can’t focus on both playing and conversation at the same time (I like to shut up too and focus if I’m in a big pot) and unless they fold pre it’s a non stop flow of action.

I guess if I’m at a table full of likeminded only, I’d feel different about it. I also think it makes sense in a tourney.

 

[mipevi]

I have never, ever used two decks in my game. Not even for tournaments. More hands ≠ having a better time, for me it’s more about the people around you.

 

[Rieguy]

Wait. You are against me?

You sonofa....

I don't remember what inspired that comment roughly a month ago, but it wasn't you. Or did I post about murdering the Kings?

 

[Josh Kifer]

I don't remember what inspired that comment roughly a month ago, but it wasn't you. Or did I post about murdering the Kings?

Prob the kings. I enjoyed that one. Ruffled some feathers.

 

[buffalojim]

I don’t like playing with 2 decks in ANY games.

FYP, and I agree sir.

 

[Marius L]

Not sure if controversial but I’m sure there are disagreements: I don’t like playing with 2 decks in cashgames.

My game usually have at least a few of not very experienced players. I feel that always having a new deck instantly ready for a new hand makes is too mechanical; like we’re forcing the action, trying to get max opportunities to stack people. I think the down time inbetween hands provides a nice little breather. Some can’t focus on both playing and conversation at the same time (I like to shut up too and focus if I’m in a big pot) and unless they fold pre it’s a non stop flow of action.

I guess if I’m at a table full of likeminded only, I’d feel different about it. I also think it makes sense in a tourney.

Definitely controversial haha, I don't agree. Much prefer two decks even with somewhat less experienced players.