How do you explain to someone why they weren't invited to a game? (2 Viewers)

[exodus]

Someone chimed in with the example of someone who is good at tennis only wanting to play with people who can return their serve. I think what OP is getting at is similar to someone who is learning to snowboard for the first time. It's painful to try to teach someone brand new how to snowboard. You have to stay with them the whole time and make sure they don't get hurt and learn correctly. You paid good money to enjoy the mountain but can't since you are liable for that person. Personally, I do not go snowboarding with newbies at all. It ruins the experience since I'm always the one staying by their side and trying to teach them how to snowboard. If you are trying to create a specific experience for your players, I don't see anything wrong with that. If your friend understands the type of experience you are trying to have and wants to be a part of that then by all means invite him or give him lessons. If he doesn't care, but just wants to be invited I would probably not invite him to those types of games.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Sure, but there’s unconventional and then there’s totally clueless. The adjustments to be made to the latter can be learned in 1-2 sessions. I wouldn’t make a clueless player who never learns the game a reg… it’s really not that interesting a challenge.

So is it that the adjustments aren't as easy to make as adjustments to an unconventional player, or that it's so easy that it's not enough of a challenge?

The more I read, the more it seems like it just irritates some folks on a personal level, and y'all are just rationalizing.

Seems barely distinguishable from a "They won't respect my raises!" complaint.

 

[Machine]

Guess it's time for some self-reflection and apologizing. Thanks for the advice

Not just this comment, but I wanted to say, that I'm excited about a lot of your responses and its difficult to be open minded, even when someone posts a similar question, its more like they are looking for affirmation on their bias. It seems you're serious about reconsidering it, and personally I'm appreciative.

I can name 2 or 3 things that I am an elitist at, with good reason (No @RocAFella1 I'm not talking about our VPIP).

Here is thing that really chafe's my ass. People (including you ) make assumptions that when they say 'poker' they mean specifically NLH (no limit holdem). No limit Holdem wasn't design to be played with small amounts of money. I'm not rich, and I wouldn't advocate for someone to play with their net worth, even if they were getting 2to1 on even odds (this is a reference to a Doyle quote) - but as such you shouldn't exclude people based on how they play the game. If they are an asshat, exclude them, if you're concerned they are playing above their means, or have a problem, exclude them. By letting go of your bias, you're improving the diversity of your experience and hopefully its a positive experience for him/her, increasing the number of players in your pool.

While you may or may not enjoy other forms of poker, my bias would be to not invite you to my game because you're a 'hold'em player', not a poker player, or gambler. I've heavily invested in chips, tables, chairs, dealer, shufflers, and my next game I'm fixing a brisket, (I'm some what of a lowkey elitist when it comes to BBQ) Some of my players are Chippers, and I vary the sets we put into play. (it is Micro+ stakes) I would hope that if you did join us, you'd enjoy despite your handicap (not being a PLO player ) to exclude you I would likely be shorting myself with my given goals for my game. You're an adult and sure there is money in play, bring the craZy, who likes normals?

So yeah, It seems you're serious about reconsidering it, and personally I'm appreciative, so now lets talk about your selection of game, have you heard of the circus?

Happy chipping and welcome!

 

[BigJackJones]

Seems barely distinguishable from a "They won't respect my raises!" complaint

 

[3ars]

Not just this comment, but I wanted to say, that I'm excited about a lot of your responses and its difficult to be open minded, even when someone posts a similar question, its more like they are looking for affirmation on their bias. It seems you're serious about reconsidering it, and personally I'm appreciative.

I can name 2 or 3 things that I am an elitist at, with good reason (No @RocAFella1 I'm not talking about our VPIP).

Here is thing that really chafe's my ass. People (including you ) make assumptions that when they say 'poker' they mean specifically NLH (no limit holdem). No limit Holdem wasn't design to be played with small amounts of money. I'm not rich, and I wouldn't advocate for someone to play with their net worth, even if they were getting 2to1 on even odds (this is a reference to a Doyle quote) - but as such you shouldn't exclude people based on how they play the game. If they are an asshat, exclude them, if you're concerned they are playing above their means, or have a problem, exclude them. By letting go of your bias, you're improving the diversity of your experience and hopefully its a positive experience for him/her, increasing the number of players in your pool.

While you may or may not enjoy other forms of poker, my bias would be to not invite you to my game because you're a 'hold'em player', not a poker player, or gambler. I've heavily invested in chips, tables, chairs, dealer, shufflers, and my next game I'm fixing a brisket, (I'm some what of a lowkey elitist when it comes to BBQ) Some of my players are Chippers, and I vary the sets we put into play. (it is Micro+ stakes) I would hope that if you did join us, you'd enjoy despite your handicap (not being a PLO player ) to exclude you I would likely be shorting myself with my given goals for my game. You're an adult and sure there is money in play, bring the craZy, who likes normals?

So yeah, It seems you're serious about reconsidering it, and personally I'm appreciative, so now lets talk about your selection of game, have you heard of the circus?

Happy chipping and welcome!

I've been known to advocate for some PLO or even indian poker when the player count drops to 5 or less. I wouldn't call myself a gambler at heart since I don't play slots or bet on sports, but when it comes to poker, no gamble no future baby!

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'd only really do that to protect someone I think would be taken advantage of (e.g., someone in cognitive decline)

Either you have never known someone in cognitive decline, or you just really hated them.

Poker isn't always about making a profit. It's about having fun. Period. You can have fun with a bunch of friends on a regular basis. Sure, it may cost you $40 (the cost of the OP's tournament), but isn't that a fair price to pay to just be "like everyone else", at least for a little while?

Your exclusive snobbery makes me more sick than the OP's. I pray your spouse never suffers from dementia, as you would surly shove her in a home an be away with them.

I have friend that’s pretty good in golf. He won’t play with people who slow down the game. Same with a snobby tennis player I know. He was ranked in the state and he’s a nice guy, but he won’t just play with anybody because it’s not enjoyable when his opponents cannot return any of his serves.

Poker and other games/sports really cannot be compared. One of the beauties of Poker is that a rank amateur can jump right in with the best players in the world.

As for the OP, I would be more likely to exclude a player from a cash game than a tournament. In the tournament it is normal to regulate rebuys. The first shoving 1/2 stack pre in a tournament has 1 life (if you so choose). I assume his cash play is the same, so why would the tournament be the no-go? Tournament's can teach stack preservation, a skill this guy may desperately need.

...or are you just keeping him in the cash games because you enjoy conning your "friend"?

 

[Taghkanic]

So is it that the adjustments aren't as easy to make as adjustments to an unconventional player, or that it's so easy that it's not enough of a challenge?

The more I read, the more it seems like it just irritates some folks on a personal level, and y'all are just rationalizing.

Seems barely distinguishable from a "They won't respect my raises!" complaint.

Not what I and others have been saying at all. Seems barely distinguishable from “I like to get mad at the Interweb.”

But my bad. I wrongly assumed that the challenge of countering an unconventional player (who uses experience to think out of the box and make creative plays and reads adapted to specific situations) would be readily distinguishable by most PCFers from a newbie who has no idea what he is doing (making random plays with any two cards every hand).

 

[Taghkanic]

One of the beauties of Poker is that a rank amateur can jump right in with the best players in the world.

And, if he stays more than a few orbits, lose his money.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Le Sigh...

Not what I and others have been saying at all. Seems barely distinguishable from “I like to get mad at the Interweb.”

My bad. I wrongly assumed that the challenge of countering an unconventional player (who uses experience to think out of the box and make creative plays and reads adapted to specific situations) would be readily distinguishable by most PCFers from a newbie who has no idea what he is doing (making random plays with any two cards every hand).

In the post I quoted, you said that adjusting to the unconventional player should only take 1 or 2 sessions, suggesting that the clueless player would be harder to adjust to, or that you can't adjust to that player at all, which conflicts with what you said about it not being a challenge.

Frankly the whole mindset doesn't make sense to me in the first place, so maybe there's a subtext I'm missing in some of these statements.

 

[3ars]

Either you have never known someone in cognitive decline, or you just really hated them.

Poker isn't always about making a profit. It's about having fun. Period. You can have fun with a bunch of friends on a regular basis. Sure, it may cost you $40 (the cost of the OP's tournament), but isn't that a fair price to pay to just be "like everyone else", at least for a little while?

Your exclusive snobbery makes me more sick than the OP's. I pray your spouse never suffers from dementia, as you would surly shove her in a home an be away with them.

Poker and other games/sports really cannot be compared. One of the beauties of Poker is that a rank amateur can jump right in with the best players in the world.

As for the OP, I would be more likely to exclude a player from a cash game than a tournament. In the tournament it is normal to regulate rebuys. The first shoving 1/2 stack pre in a tournament has 1 life (if you so choose). I assume his cash play is the same, so why would the tournament be the no-go? Tournament's can teach stack preservation, a skill this guy may desperately need.

...or are you just keeping him in the cash games because you enjoy conning your "friend"?

while it is true that tournaments can help cut losses, the real stakes in tournament for us is the lack of being able to re enter. We don't play for crazy amounts, usual cash games are like 25$ buy ins where some people spend up to 200$, and tournaments are 50$ buy in, unlimited rebuys till end of level 8, and a 50$ add on.

Anyways, my point is that for us at least, the stakes are higher when you have the potential to be eliminated after less than 3 hours, where in a cash game you can play for 6+ hours. Hence the added seriousness in playstyle. people just don't want to be eliminated from tourneys

 

[TheTrout]

while it is true that tournaments can help cut losses, the real stakes in tournament for us is the lack of being able to re enter. We don't play for crazy amounts, usual cash games are like 25$ buy ins where some people spend up to 200$, and tournaments are 50$ buy in, unlimited rebuys till end of level 8, and a 50$ add on.

Anyways, my point is that for us at least, the stakes are higher when you have the potential to be eliminated after less than 3 hours, where in a cash game you can play for 6+ hours. Hence the added seriousness in playstyle. people just don't want to be eliminated from tourneys

My question is this: if he is playing suboptimally, why is anyone upset? The idea is to win. If he plays stupid, he gets knocked out and you all continue except with more money in the prize pool.

 

[Taghkanic]

In the post I quoted, you said that adjusting to the unconventional player should only take 1 or 2 sessions, suggesting that the clueless player would be harder to adjust to, or that you can't adjust to that player at all, which conflicts with what you said about it not being a challenge.

Pretty sure I said the precise opposite—the clueless player would not take long to adjust to:

Sure, but there’s unconventional and then there’s totally clueless. The adjustments to be made to the latter can be learned in 1-2 sessions.​

(“The latter” means the second item in a list of two. “The former” means the first.)

 

[joeyshin]

Either you have never known someone in cognitive decline, or you just really hated them.

Poker isn't always about making a profit. It's about having fun. Period. You can have fun with a bunch of friends on a regular basis. Sure, it may cost you $40 (the cost of the OP's tournament), but isn't that a fair price to pay to just be "like everyone else", at least for a little while?

Your exclusive snobbery makes me more sick than the OP's. I pray your spouse never suffers from dementia, as you would surly shove her in a home an be away with them.

Poker and other games/sports really cannot be compared. One of the beauties of Poker is that a rank amateur can jump right in with the best players in the world.

As for the OP, I would be more likely to exclude a player from a cash game than a tournament. In the tournament it is normal to regulate rebuys. The first shoving 1/2 stack pre in a tournament has 1 life (if you so choose). I assume his cash play is the same, so why would the tournament be the no-go? Tournament's can teach stack preservation, a skill this guy may desperately need.

...or are you just keeping him in the cash games because you enjoy conning your "friend"?

Our tournament Buyin is $120. Our cash game min buy is $20. Playing slow, not knowing what’s going on, tanking every decision affects tournament play and creates more player frustration than in a cash game.

 

[3ars]

have you heard of the circus

I have not. Judging by the name i'm afraid to know lol

 

[KHarp1]

I've only gotten through the first page, but, I have to call BS here...I can't tell you how many times I've read in these types of threads that you need to keep your core group of players happy for fear of losing them. If all the players are telling the host that they don't want this guy in that ONE PARTICULAR GAME, then should the host just tell them to F off and play heads up with the new guy? Seriously?

He needs to protect his guys that play regularly in his game. Perhaps greater tact could be used in explaining to the new guy why, but, what good is it to ignore the core groups request of bypassing this guy for the higher stakes tourney, and it was just this one game, and risk alienating them?

You motherfuckers love to get indignant and then start preaching this holier than thou crap, when in reality your talking out of both sides of your mouths. Do you protect your core group that has spoken their concerns, or, do you run them of and play heads up. Y'all need to make up your minds!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Either you have never known someone in cognitive decline, or you just really hated them.

Poker isn't always about making a profit. It's about having fun. Period. You can have fun with a bunch of friends on a regular basis. Sure, it may cost you $40 (the cost of the OP's tournament), but isn't that a fair price to pay to just be "like everyone else", at least for a little while?

Your exclusive snobbery makes me more sick than the OP's. I pray your spouse never suffers from dementia, as you would surly shove her in a home an be away with them.

I play poker with a group that includes several elderly players.

One of them is an experienced card player in her 80s. Been playing poker longer than I've been alive, including many variants aside from Hold'em.

Over the fall, she started forgetting how to play Omaha, which she has been correctly playing every week for years. At first it was just the occasional hand where she'd get to the end and try to play, say, a naked for the flush, or play three cards from her hand for a full house. We figured maybe she was just tired because we play at night, or something.

Fast-forward a couple months, and she's constantly flushing all her money on these kinds of mistakes. It gets worse and worse by the week. Every other hand she gets to showdown, she forgets she can only play two hole cards. The game is low-stakes, but she is on a fixed income and does not have money to burn. She had been able to hold her own at poker for a long time, but now she's just lighting money on fire hand after hand. Multiple players expressed concerns about this, including her weekly cribbage partner and a long-time friend. We all want to win, but not like this. It's like robbing her.

If not wanting to beat her up like that every week makes us snobs, then I guess we're just snobs. Thankfully she stopped coming on her own, so we were never put to the decision of whether to exclude her. But I suspect we would have had to confront it at some point.

To contrast: Another friend in his 40s/50s got diagnosed with advanced brain cancer in late 2019. He was a regular player for many years in our game, and despite what he was going through—eventually losing his memories, including our names—he wanted to play with us when he had the energy.

We played with him like always, no soft play (at least none from me), but it was a different situation than the story above. His wife and/or brother were there looking after him. He was just there to have fun with us, and the money was of no consequence. No one objected to him playing, certainly not me.

I hope you can see that my heart is in the right place with this. I'm not itching to kick people to the curb because their condition has become inconvenient. I want to treat people in the same way I'd hope they would treat me, including protecting them when they've become extremely vulnerable.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Pretty sure I said the precise opposite: The clueless player would not take long to adjust to:

Sure, but there’s unconventional and then there’s totally clueless. The adjustments to be made to the latter can be learned in 1-2 sessions.

(“The latter” means the second item in a list of two. “The former” means the first.)

*looks around sheepishly*

I … may have misread.

But to spare my ego, I leave open the small possibility that you manufactured this whole thing just to make me look foolish.

There is about a 0.002% chance that we are bitter enemies now.

Watch yourself.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I've only gotten through the first page, but, I have to call BS here...I can't tell you how many times I've read in these types of threads that you need to keep your core group of players happy for fear of losing them. If all the players are telling the host that they don't want this guy in that ONE PARTICULAR GAME, then should the host just tell them to F off and play heads up with the new guy? Seriously?

He needs to protect his guys that play regularly in his game. Perhaps greater tact could be used in explaining to the new guy why, but, what good is it to ignore the core groups request of bypassing this guy for the higher stakes tourney, and it was just this one game, and risk alienating them?

You motherfuckers love to get indignant and then start preaching this holier than thou crap, when in reality your talking out of both sides of your mouths. Do you protect your core group that has spoken their concerns, or, do you run them of and play heads up. Y'all need to make up your minds!

This is fair. I agree that he should structure and curate the game however it makes his players happy. That's basically rule #1 of hosting.

I just find the specific preferences here silly and illogical, to the point it makes me want to endlessly argue.

 

[Taghkanic]

*looks around sheepishly*

I … may have misread.

But to spare my ego, I leave open the small possibility that you manufactured this whole thing just to make me look foolish.

Heh. But you’ve caught me out… I’m playing a very long metagame here on PCF.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Heh. But you’ve caught me out… I’m playing a very long metagame here on PCF.

I KNEW IT!

Y'bastard.

 

[ChipFinderSK]

Someone chimed in with the example of someone who is good at tennis only wanting to play with people who can return their serve. I think what OP is getting at is similar to someone who is learning to snowboard for the first time. It's painful to try to teach someone brand new how to snowboard. You have to stay with them the whole time and make sure they don't get hurt and learn correctly. You paid good money to enjoy the mountain but can't since you are liable for that person. Personally, I do not go snowboarding with newbies at all. It ruins the experience since I'm always the one staying by their side and trying to teach them how to snowboard. If you are trying to create a specific experience for your players, I don't see anything wrong with that. If your friend understands the type of experience you are trying to have and wants to be a part of that then by all means invite him or give him lessons. If he doesn't care, but just wants to be invited I would probably not invite him to those types of games.

I like the snowboarding analogy.

I’ve been exactly once, wiped out repeatedly for like 3-4 hours (and accidentally took out a little girl), but eventually got it.

If I was actually good at snowboarding, I would not want to go with a complete newb.

 

[joeyshin]

Someone chimed in with the example of someone who is good at tennis only wanting to play with people who can return their serve. I think what OP is getting at is similar to someone who is learning to snowboard for the first time. It's painful to try to teach someone brand new how to snowboard. You have to stay with them the whole time and make sure they don't get hurt and learn correctly. You paid good money to enjoy the mountain but can't since you are liable for that person. Personally, I do not go snowboarding with newbies at all. It ruins the experience since I'm always the one staying by their side and trying to teach them how to snowboard. If you are trying to create a specific experience for your players, I don't see anything wrong with that. If your friend understands the type of experience you are trying to have and wants to be a part of that then by all means invite him or give him lessons. If he doesn't care, but just wants to be invited I would probably not invite him to those types of games.

^^^^this


And there have been some people who told me they’d like to learn so I would hold a separate microstakes game just for those that want to learn. I just teach them basic rules and etiquette.

 

[joeyshin]

^^^^this


And there have been some people who told me they’d like to learn so I would hold a separate microstakes game just for those that want to learn. I just teach them basic rules and etiquette.

This basically what Forest @inca911 does at every meet up. Lol. I think meetups should hire him to come and teach mixed games and cover his accommodations.

 

[BPTDirector]

Cognitive decline is another matter all together. I have great sensitivity to this.

 

[Preditor]

I am going to echo @Taghkanic and say I think OP's concerns warrant some validity, and it's not "elitist" for him to be concerned.

I also - as per a prior post - had a similar issue in my home game last Sunday. I didn't go into all the details in that post, but we actually invited two people who said they had "played poker" in the past, but were really complete newbs: needed hand sheets, no strategy, etc.

Among the core players, it DID cause some disturbance, i.e. Everyone loved them personally and no-one outright complained, but it did create a "This game runs so smoothly usually... and this slowed it down" mentality. It was a bit jarring, and I don't believe it is "elitist" to say so.

I learned from last Sunday this: with any home game, you need to placate your core members. The ones who attend regularly, get the basics, and have a general good spirit to be around. If OP's core members are feeling this? Then this isn't just OP being elitist. Something is going on that needs to be corrected for the integrity and longevity of this home game.

Having said that, I would stick to your guns, OP. Don't let people here tell you you're being elitist. You know your players, and you were there; we weren't.

I would recommend four things:

1. Take 2-3 of the other players you are closest to at the last game and ask them what they think, and see if you can brainstorm a solution.
2. If they echo your concerns, stick to your guns, but leave the door open for this player to return. Tell him "We have a level of skill we're looking for for this particular game, and we just ask you to practice more. But when you get there, we'd be happy to have you back."
3. Be more judicial about who you invite to various games. Once that door is open, it is hard to close (as I am learning myself).
4. Add some lines in your HOUSE RULES about invites.

OP, I am working on some house rules right now, and am going to include the following and post them at the top of every invite from now on. Maybe this will help you:

Skill Level: None of us are pros; but if you’re not sure what-hand-beats-what or think “big blind” is a tall person with glasses; we suggest sticking to Uno for now. But don’t worry: Poker is easy to learn with a bit of study and online practice. When you know the basics, we'd love to have you! If you do come, know we’re here to make friends first; money second (though making money is awesome).​

​

Guest-List: If you've received an invitation, it's because we think you're pretty cool (or you wouldn’t have been invited). But note we sometimes trim the guest list due to space constraints, experience levels, different personalities; or simply because hosting big groups of people every month is work and sometimes we want smaller nights with our long-time regulars.​

​

In short, if you’re invited to one game but not the next? It's not personal.​

 

[3ars]

Skill Level

ive learned after this long thread that this phrase will trigger a lot of people in here

 

[TheTrout]

I am going to echo @Taghkanic and say I think OP's concerns warrant some validity, and it's not "elitist" for him to be concerned.

I also - as per a prior post - had a similar issue in my home game last Sunday. I didn't go into all the details in that post, but we actually invited two people who said they had "played poker" in the past, but were really complete newbs: needed hand sheets, no strategy, etc.

Among the core players, it DID cause some disturbance, i.e. Everyone loved them personally and no-one outright complained, but it did create a "This game runs so smoothly usually... and this slowed it down" mentality. It was a bit jarring, and I don't believe it is "elitist" to say so.

I learned from last Sunday this: with any home game, you need to placate your core members. The ones who attend regularly, get the basics, and have a general good spirit to be around. If OP's core members are feeling this? Then this isn't just OP being elitist. Something is going on that needs to be corrected for the integrity and longevity of this home game.

Having said that, I would stick to your guns, OP. Don't let people here tell you you're being elitist. You know your players, and you were there; we weren't.

I would recommend four things:

1. Take 2-3 of the other players you are closest to at the last game and ask them what they think, and see if you can brainstorm a solution.
2. If they echo your concerns, stick to your guns, but leave the door open for this player to return. Tell him "We have a level of skill we're looking for for this particular game, and we just ask you to practice more. But when you get there, we'd be happy to have you back."
3. Be more judicial about who you invite to various games. Once that door is open, it is hard to close (as I am learning myself).
4. Add some lines in your HOUSE RULES about invites.

OP, I am working on some house rules right now, and am going to include the following and post them at the top of every invite from now on. Maybe this will help you:

Skill Level: None of us are pros; but if you’re not sure what-hand-beats-what or think “big blind” is a tall person with glasses; we suggest sticking to Uno for now. But don’t worry: Poker is easy to learn with a bit of study and online practice. When you know the basics, we'd love to have you! If you do come, know we’re here to make friends first; money second (though making money is awesome).​

​

Guest-List: If you've received an invitation, it's because we think you're pretty cool (or you wouldn’t have been invited). But note we sometimes trim the guest list due to space constraints, experience levels, different personalities; or simply because hosting big groups of people every month is work and sometimes we want smaller nights with our long-time regulars.​

​

In short, if you’re invited to one game but not the next? It's not personal.​

I understand the sentiment here and this is really well thought out and stated. Kudos.

HOWEVER…by “practice more” what you really mean is “you need to make calls, folds, and raises like we do.”

And that strikes me as not right. Of course your game, your call. But it sounds weird to me

 

[Preditor]

This is fair. I agree that he should structure and curate the game however it makes his players happy. That's basically rule #1 of hosting.

I just find the specific preferences here silly and illogical, to the point it makes me want to endlessly argue.

I think it's really hard - as a host who posted a similar thread - to explain the entire issue when a player doesn't seem to jive.

It is difficult to explain that over a text to strangers. So give OP some credit.

 

[3ars]

I think it's really hard - as a host who posted a similar thread - to explain the entire issue when a player doesn't seem to jive.

It is difficult to explain that over a text to strangers. So give OP some credit.

i tried my best

 

[Preditor]

I understand the sentiment here and this is really well thought out and stated. Kudos.

HOWEVER…by “practice more” what you really mean is “you need to make calls, folds, and raises like we do.”

And that strikes me as not right. Of course your game, your call. But it sounds weird to me

I am still working on the exact wording of this. In my House Rules, those words will be linked to "What hand beats what" sheets.

That's what I mean by "practice more". I am trying to weed out people who need a hand sheet to tell if they have a flush or not. If you have suggestios, please give!