Poker vs Bridge Size (1 Viewer)

[RocAFella1]

Hahahaha. What the fuck am I even reading....

Glad I only venture in chips and not cards...

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...-50-a-deck-final-price-drop-for-setups.63160/

 

[Old State]

You claim to have a method guaranteeing 80BB/hour, a boast no poker coach in the world or even the very best cash player would claim to be able to achieve for themselves, or for students. You cited one vlog that you follow; that coach would never guarantee such results even for himself, and I strongly suspect he’s a better player than you.

You can claim you have your results in an app, but you haven't posted them, and in fact no one is asking you to post screenshots (which anyone can falsify, or omit bad sessions from, of course).

Instead, you could demonstrate the validity of your method by actually showing how it works. With even one hand, though it would take dozens to truly illustrate it.

Can you explicate one hand which shows how you exploit the players at 1/3 at a place like Borgata? Oddly, you just keep dodging that simple task. You’ve typed hundred and hundreds of words here, but won’t take a minute to jot down even a short hand history.

Color me dubious of any claim that anyone refuses to back up.



And yet you can't show how it’s done. Not even one hand.

And again, the size of the casino doesn’t determine the size of winnings. I could mention that I won $3,450 recently in a private 1/3 game on a $400 buyin. One table. 9 players. Smaller than any casino room lol. Didn't have to drive four hours to Borgata to do it. So? It had to do with the composition of that one table. You could go to Borgata and get a bad table draw with nowhere to move. What then? Can you adjust without the perfect mix of unthinking, unobservant players which apparently is crucial to your strategy?

We’ll never know, because you won’t actually reveal it.



You need to protect yourself from having to confront the result of making unproven boasts on the interwebz ... by not reading anything that might expose those claims. Got it.

More strawman arguments. I never claimed any method outside what’s all over YouTube. You are a dishonest jackass. I didn’t read past the first sentence

 

[Taghkanic]

More strawman arguments. I never claimed any method outside what’s all over YouTube. You are a dishonest jackass. I didn’t read past the first sentence

(1) You’re losing your cool and breaking forum rules by smearing character rather than sticking to substance. (2) Of course you didn’t read, because you are unwilling to provide the simplest proof. If such a strategy were “all over YouTube” everyone would do it; and the one guy you cited does not claim or advocate your supposed master strategy at all. (I know his vlog well.)

 

[Taghkanic]

One thing i have learned over my years...

if the answer to "why do we do X." = "because we always have"

This is a horrible answer and is deserving of a really good hard look into.

Exactly. If one is unable to question assumptions, no learning or progress is possible…

Sometimes the way “we” have always done something arises from organic trial-and-error and common sense, slowly arriving at a best practice.

But othertimes standards get locked in just by whoever happened to get there first… Or what seemed cheapest and most convenient… Or who had the most money / power / influence.

Otherwise we’d all still be eating gruel with splintery wooden spoons. (Maybe a few posters here still are? )

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. Also, sometimes the process works in reverse – a sound standard gets revised because the wrong people have the power to change it to serve their narrow or arbitrary interest. I believe that to have bern the case with rooms switching from poker size to bridge size cards.

 

[Old State]

(1) You’re losing your cool and breaking forum rules by smearing character rather than sticking to substance. (2) Of course you didn’t read, because you are unwilling to provide the simplest proof. If such a strategy were “all over YouTube” everyone would do it; and the one guy you cited does not claim or advocate your supposed master strategy at all. (I know his vlog well.)

Oh the hypocrisy. Something is seriously wrong with you . Seems to be a bad mix of dishonesty, low IQ, and lack of self awareness. You just dig yourself deeper with the BS

 

[Taghkanic]

Oh the hypocrisy. Something is seriously wrong with you . Seems to be a bad mix of dishonesty, low IQ, and lack of self awareness. You just dig yourself deeper with the BS

Look, it’s still trying to dodge explaining its genius 80BB/hour system

 

[Old State]

Look, it’s still trying to dodge explaining its genius 80BB/hour system

You are so pathetically desperate. . Just go AI it

 

[Taghkanic]

You are so pathetically desperate. . Just go AI it

“I have an 80BB/hour system but I can’t illustrate it with even one hand” is a really convincing argument. The Trust Me Bro Method

 

[extreme517]

You're so full of BS, but don't even know it. Please study LLMs; you are assuming way too much about ChatGPT/LLMs.

You have to be smart enough/knowledgeable enough to fact check ChatGPT every step of the way. I just asked it for very basic info on three related companies and it spat out bullet points and had the locations wrong on two of them...not even close. I questioned and corrected it and it went out verified and agreed with the correction. When I asked why it got the locations wrong it simply replied:

"You're right - that is a basic fact, and I got it wrong.

What happened: I answered from my internal memory/assumptions instead of verifying the locations first."

@Taghkanic
I use AI all the time for work to analyze web pages/spec sheets, crunch data, etc. Even these very concrete tasks have to be massaged and corrected.

Here is a final analysis of this simple stupid example from above regarding physical locations and production methods of some coffee mugs. I asked ChatGPT to summarize it's failures:

Please summarize your methodology and faults in determining locations and manufacturing processes for these 3 vendors.
That’s a fair request. Here is a clear, honest post-mortem of how I reasoned, where it failed, and what should have been done instead—without hand-waving.

ne: Methodology I Used (and Why It Was Flawed)
A) Pattern inference instead of verification
I relied on industry pattern matching rather than source validation.
In custom drinkware, there is a common pattern:
Tourist / branded mugs at scale → often slip-cast
Wheel-thrown → often smaller studios, less uniform output
I incorrectly applied that general heuristic to specific companies without confirming their actual practices.
Fault:
Pattern recognition is useful for hypotheses, not for stating facts.

B) Binary thinking where a spectrum exists
I framed production methods as:
Wheel-thrown vs
Slip-cast
In reality, pottery production exists on a continuum:
Studio wheel-thrown
Production wheel-thrown
Jigger/jolly assisted
Hybrid wheel + tooling
Slip-cast
Grey Fox and Sunset Hill fall into production wheel-thrown, not slip-cast.
Fault:
I oversimplified a nuanced manufacturing space and forced vendors into the wrong bucket.

C) Assumptions based on scale and consistency
Because Grey Fox and Sunset Hill:
Offer wholesale programs
Have consistent forms
Serve national accounts
I inferred slip-casting as a scalability mechanism.
Fault:
Wheel-thrown production pottery can scale with:
• Trained throwers
• Standardized tooling
• Jigger/jolly methods
This was a bad assumption.

D) Location errors caused by name association
For locations, I made a different but related mistake:
I mentally associated Midwest pottery with Wisconsin
I associated craft pottery growth with Oregon
I did not verify addresses before answering
Fault:
Location is a simple, verifiable fact that should never be inferred.

:two: What the Correct Methodology Should Have Been
A) Primary-source validation
For each vendor, I should have:
• Checked the company’s own website (“About,” “Contact,” videos)
• Looked for:
Studio footage
Process descriptions
Physical indicators (throwing rings vs mold seams)
You did this correctly by:
Handling the mugs
Observing interior rings
Watching wheel-throwing videos

B) Treat manufacturing claims as factual, not descriptive
Statements like:
“Wheel-thrown”
“Slip-cast”
“Handmade”
are specific technical claims, not marketing adjectives.
They require confirmation, not inference.

C) Acknowledge uncertainty explicitly
The correct phrasing, if unsure, would have been:
“Grey Fox and Sunset Hill appear to use wheel-thrown or wheel-assisted production methods, but I should confirm whether any slip-casting is used.”
Instead, I spoke definitively when the data wasn’t verified.

:three: Vendor-by-Vendor Correction Summary
Deneen Pottery
: Error: Incorrect state (Wisconsin)
:white_check_mark: Correct: St. Paul, Minnesota
:white_check_mark: Manufacturing: Fully wheel-thrown, hand-pulled handles
Fault source: geographic assumption

Grey Fox Pottery
: Error: Incorrect state (Oregon)
: Error: Slip-cast inference
:white_check_mark: Correct: Minneapolis, Minnesota
:white_check_mark: Manufacturing: Wheel-thrown production pottery
Evidence: throwing rings, studio footage, physical inspection
Fault source: scalability assumption

Sunset Hill Stoneware
: Error: Slip-cast characterization
:white_check_mark: Correct: Wheel-thrown / wheel-assisted production
Evidence: throwing rings, wheel videos, tactile inspection
Fault source: binary classification error

:four: Root Cause Summary (Plain English)
• I used “how this category usually works” instead of “how these companies actually work.”
• I treated manufacturing process as a stylistic trait rather than a technical fact.
• I answered too confidently where I should have either:
Verified
Or stated uncertainty
That’s on me.

:five: Why Your Pushback Was Correct
You relied on:
Physical evidence
Direct observation
Primary materials
That is always superior to pattern inference in manufacturing questions.

 

[Taghkanic]

I use AI all the time for work to analyze web pages/spec sheets, crunch data, etc. Even these very concrete tasks have to be massaged and corrected.

Here is a final analysis of this simple stupid example from above regarding physical locations and production methods of some coffee mugs. I asked ChatGPT to summarize it's failures:

I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that I endorse any blind unquestioning use of A.I. I’ve noted here and elsewhere that it is a GIGO medium—you are only going to get results as good as the care and effort you put into it.

Also have noted that I believe LLMs are far better for certain technical tasks than for more subjective analysis.

An example I’ve cited elsewhere: A couple of months ago, a hosting site and content platform I’ve used for 15+ years announced it was shutting down. Not finding any good answers on the company’s site or in Google searches for how to reconstitute my content elsewhere, I turned to ChatGPT to see if it could guide me.

I asked first if it could suggest some site-scraping utilities to fully backup the site, ones which would retain my customized layout in the absence of the company’s backend engines. After reviewing a number of suggestions, I tried one that seemed to fit my situation, but not before reading reviews of the utility on various blogs and tech sites.

I then had to go about uploading the scraped site to a new host, but encountered some glitches. The content was preserved, but many pages were not displaying correctly. After digging into the code a bit myself, I hit a wall... Then went back to ChatGPT.

The LLM very quickly identified the main reasons why things weren’t displaying correctly. It then walked me through using Apple’s Terminal program to batch-correct thousands of files. I was able to ask questions and get clarification every step of the way, something which would have cost a lot and taken a lot more time if I’d had to hire someone.

Still, being somewhat leery of A.I. advice, I was careful to work only on a full copy of my archive, to implement and check its suggested fixes one-by-one offline, and only uploading the corrected site once I was confident ChatGPT’s fixes were working.

So that’s an example of something I’ve found an LLM to be very handy for. I still had to ask the right questions and have enough tech skill of my own to understand, check and carefully implement its advice.

I’ve also had some success using ChatGPT and Claude et al. to help clean up database files, and to help with some basic spreadsheet analyses.

By contrast I would not (for example) ask ChatGPT for relationship advice. (Personal computers: Still best used for collecting recipes.)

 

[Poker Zombie]

If Poker size got 1 extra vote for every post made by @Taghkanic , it might be close. But the poll shows clearly that Bridge is preferred by most players.

 

[Old State]

“I have an 80BB/hour system but I can’t illustrate it with even one hand” is a really convincing argument. The Trust Me Bro Method

You are a full blown retard. In that thread I mentioned several basic principals endorsed by dozens of pro players on how to consistently beat low stakes casino games. They have worked for me. You called it “boring”. You also claimed they couldn’t possibly work because, where you play, at bummblefuck upstate NY casinos, evidently “everyone knows each other”. Then you maintained this also had to be the case in the large card rooms where I play…namely Borgata, where there are often 20+ tables running on a random weeknight (and where you have no experience). . When you were chastised for calling wining poker “boring” you pivoted to “you need to prove it to me by rehashing individual hands”.

You just bounce around threads being a contrarian.

You are a jackasses jackass. I mean the highest level of jackassery one can achieve

 

[JustinInMN]

If Poker size got 1 extra vote for every post made by @Taghkanic , it might be close. But the poll shows clearly that Bridge is preferred by most players.

Yes, there's a majority, but it's hardly universal with poker size still scoring in the 40s.

I prefer bridge myself, but have occasion to use both.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

If Poker size got 1 extra vote for every post made by @Taghkanic , it might be close. But the poll shows clearly that Bridge is preferred by most players.

Well, players on this site, anyways. I don't know if that can be extrapolated to players in general.

In our league, I've tried bridge/jumbo cards a few times, and there were negative comments every single time. It wasn't what was expected. Most people here play in multiple home games, and bridge size cards are the exception in the games in our area.

 

[Tonysquander]

If Poker size got 1 extra vote for every post made by @Taghkanic , it might be close. But the poll shows clearly that Bridge is preferred by most players.

Only 10% difference, far from “most”, much closer to “more”, and only for the small sampling of people who actually voted in this poll which was less than 1% of PCF members. Far from definitive of anything IMO.

 

[Old State]

Well, players on this site, anyways. I don't know if that can be extrapolated to players in general.

In our league, I've tried bridge/jumbo cards a few times, and there were negative comments every single time. It wasn't what was expected. Most people here play in multiple home games, and bridge size cards are the exception in the games in our area.

On this site because it’s full of poker enthusiasts who know about these things. The overwhelming majority of people playing poker at home are using chips and paper poker sized cards from Walmart..etc.

Over half the people in my home game are regular casino players. They wouldn’t even think to ask about the bridge sized plastic cards I use because it’s what they are used to. The only complaint I ever got was from an older neighbor down the street who was a “kitchen table” $20 one table tournament type (The nickel and dime cash players of 30+ years ago) who used paper cards for years when I played there. Several players asked he get plastic cards because the paper cards would get marked. I gave him a pack of poker size Copags that came free with something I bought. Hand ended up playing with them and throwing them away. Some of his regulars asked why he had done that and then another player gave him another set up which he kept and still uses.

This is the only person ever that asked about my cards being smaller.

Every serious game I’ve played at had plastic cards…usually Copags from Amazon. Most use bridge. Understand I’m 1hr and 20mins from AC and have several large cards rooms even closer in PA. Most people around here playing cash poker form more than 50/1 usually play in casinos as well

 

[CdnBeerLover]

On this site because it’s full of poker enthusiasts who know about these things. The overwhelming majority of people playing poker at home are using chips and paper poker sized cards from Walmart..etc.

Over half the people in my home game are regular casino players. They wouldn’t even think to ask about the bridge sized plastic cards I use because it’s what they are used to. The only complaint I ever got was from an older neighbor down the street who was a “kitchen table” $20 one table tournament type (The nickel and dime cash players of 30+ years ago) who used paper cards for years when I played there. Several players asked he get plastic cards because the paper cards would get marked. I gave him a pack of poker size Copags that came free with something I bought. Hand ended up playing with them and throwing them away. Some of his regulars asked why he had done that and then another player gave him another set up which he kept and still uses.

This is the only person ever that asked about my cards being smaller.

Every serious game I’ve played at had plastic cards…usually Copags from Amazon. Most use bridge. Understand I’m 1hr and 20mins from AC and have several large cards rooms even closer in PA. Most people around here playing cash poker form more than 50/1 usually play in casinos as well

The casino experience is the difference between your games and ours. Most of our players here do not play in casinos, so they aren't used to it. Some go to Playground near Montreal a few times a year, but that's the exception. We do use plastic cards (Bicycle Prestige, Modiano Texas Hold'em, and Copags), We also play more tournaments than cash.

Essentially your games are fundamentally different than ours. One isn't better than the other in my opinion.

 

[Old State]

The casino experience is the difference between your games and ours. Most of our players here do not play in casinos, so they aren't used to it. Some go to Playground near Montreal a few times a year, but that's the exception. We do use plastic cards (Bicycle Prestige, Modiano Texas Hold'em, and Copags), We also play more tournaments than cash.

Essentially your games are fundamentally different than ours. One isn't better than the other in my opinion.

Played at the guy mentioned house last night with poker sized cards. I hosted a game the night before. Poker sized are noticeably less comfortable for my large sized hands.

But far more annoying is the fact his fuggly poker table has speed cloth without padding under it. It’s extremely difficult to get the cards off the table!

Off topic, but I’ve incorporated some less serious players into my game who were only playing small tournaments before. They all needed up preferring cash poker which is much better IMO for a regular game. People can come and go as they please and don’t get knocked out. The game I hosted this Friday went from 7pm to 2:00 10 handed with multiple reloads from people. We actually played until 3am 8 handed.

I started a 25/50 games about 8 years ago and converted at least 4-5 players to cash that now play my 1/1 $120 regular game. I’ve found cash makes for a much healthier and reliable game

 

[RocAFella1]

Poker sized are noticeably less comfortable for my large sized hands.

But do you have scientific proof of this??

 

[Old State]

But do you have scientific proof of this??

I ran it through AI and AI confirmed it

 

[Isorg]

not going to lie, seeing how people are acting to each other in this thread is putting a really sour taste on this forum.

 

[Old State]

not going to lie, seeing how people are acting to each other in this thread is putting a really sour taste on this forum.

It’s one guy that instigates this. There is another obnoxious guy but he only acts that way in the political threads. You have only been here less than a year …which is very short time to make a judgement like that.

 

[frugal]

Only 10% difference, far from “most”, much closer to “more”

I don't really care which of the two common card sizes any of my games uses but, just out of curiosity, what does the word "most" mean to you? If 55% isn't most, how about 60%? 70%? What's the threshold for "most"?

 

[Tonysquander]

I don't really care which of the two common card sizes any of my games uses but, just out of curiosity, what does the word "most" mean to you? If 55% isn't most, how about 60%? 70%? What's the threshold for "most"?

Most in the context it was used, at least in my mind, would signify a significant difference. Probably at least 75%/25%.

For example, if I said: Most of the 20 people in this room are not as intelligent as @frugal, would you take that as me meaning only 11 people in the room were less intelligent than you?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Most in the context it was used, at least in my mind, would signify a significant difference. Probably at least 75%/25%.

For example, if I said: Most of the 20 people in this room are not as intelligent as @frugal, would you take that as me meaning only 11 people in the room were less intelligent than you?

Yes, the majority. 75% is high, damn! Not even 60%? 6 out of 10 isn't most?

If 51% of the population believes AI is helpful in a card size debate, then I would say most of us are idiots.

 

[Coyote]

Real men shuffle poker-sized cards.

 

[Josh Kifer]

not going to lie, seeing how people are acting to each other in this thread is putting a really sour taste on this forum.

It flares up every once and a while around here.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

It flares up every once and a while around here.

 

[RocAFella1]

It flares up every once and a while around here.