[Mook]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the nitty replies here are only thinking of poker on a simplistic level.

All this "I don't play poker to have fun, so don't care if the game has a fun atmosphere or not. I only play to make money" is just totally the wrong way of thinking about being a winning poker player. A 'fun atmosphere' where the players are wanting to gamble allows you to make much more money than a tight, unfriendly, cut-throat game where every player is wearing sunglasses and tanking on every decision. Sometimes doing little things - like straddling - to promote 'fun' in a game will lead to your EV increasing.

I get frustrated when I see some of these young kids come and play live. They have mainly played online and they read 2+2. They think they are maximising their EV at all times, and look down their noses at other players. And they do all sorts of things which actually make the game they are playing in much less profitable. They wear sunglasses. They dwell on EVERY decision. They talk to their friends about poker at the table, using terms like 'EV' or 'fold equity'. They insist on every little technicality, like calling a string bet when a half-drunk fish does not put his chips in quite correctly. And they do all these things thinking they are maximising their profit. But by making the game less fun and more cut-throat they are actually reducing their profit.

Meanwhile, an old time pro is winning twice as much as them and has been doing so for years. He seems to get on with everyone, especially the weak players. He tries to avoid pulling people up on minor technicalities because he realises this spoils the flow of the game and antagonises the weak players. He does everything he can to prevent the game having a cut-throat atmosphere because he knows that this will reduce his profits. And he sometimes straddles.

The young internet kids may see him occasionally make the odd play that is 'technically incorrect', but he'll continue to win more in the live games than they will. One of the reasons is that he understands that a winning poker player is in the entertainment business, and that the PR stuff is really important. Live poker is not like the internet. Games have to be nurtured and fed in order to keep them as good, profitable games.

Straddling may not normally be 'profitable' in and of itself (although Mississipi straddling from the button has to be different). But it sometimes can be profitable in a variety of indirect ways: It stimulates action in future hands; It helps promote a friendly, gambling game; It encourages others to straddle; It prevents you getting an overly tight image etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I normally hate posters who quote a several-hundred-word post in its entirety just to add a sentence or two at the end, but Curry's whole response is so spot-on and so well-stated that I can't help myself.

It's really getting to be child's play to pick out the 2+2'ers / serious Internet players at the local 10-20 and 1-2NL games in AC these days. And not because they aren't accustomed to the rules or pace of B&M play (though that's often the case), but for all the reasons Curry listed above.

A significant percentage of those who haunt low-limit B&M games (I know and work with several) are people who might head to AC 3 or 4 times a year and whose only other exposure to poker is their monthly home game. They play not because they expect to win (in fact they usually see it as just another casino game where "the house always wins"), but (a) because they're generally social folks who don't mind "paying" 300 or 400 bucks to have a few hours' fun and (b) they can't make that kind of money last that long at the $25-and-up blackjack tables that seem to be the new norm on Saturday evenings.

What do you think a person in that frame of mind will think if, in his first hour at the table, his chips are migrating to someone who acts like he does this poker thing for a living? Who spends 3 minutes agonizing over every play, makes pointed references to things like "implied odds", and mumbles under their breath about equities and percentages for ten minutes after he wins a big pot? I'll tell you what he's thinking: "Meh, maybe if I try I can find a $15 blackjack table somewhere in this place to drop my money at instead."

How about if his neighbors are instead laughing, joking with each other and the dealers, and saying things like "What the [censored], I'm here to gamble!" as they slap a blind straddle onto the table? Are you telling me you can't make 2 or 3 extra BB an hour in profit at the latter table vs. the former?

I'm somewhat surprised Aaron Brown hasn't chimed in here yet and I'd encourage anyone who hasn't to read his book, in which the notion of utilizing quote-unquote "negative EV play" to hugely profitable effect features prominently.

Mook