• PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Everything you thought you knew about poker is wrong...* (1 Viewer)

Round tables or octagon are the best 56 “ is preferred tough 60 “ are ok. 48 are a little tight is you have large players. 4 color decks are for children. Denoms are preferred but if you don’t know the value of the chips after being told what they are you shouldn’t be playing. Only real rule I have is that my seat is always mine so that I can get up and attend to anything. When we draw for seats my seat is the 3 or whatever seat I draw and everyone else fills in around me according to what seat number they drew. Bring cash to play with.
 
Last edited:
Taghkanic said:
  • Four-color decks are vastly superior to two-color decks.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/love-for-4-color-suits.137424/post-2798762
And: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/4-color-decks-yay-or-nay.109333/post-2326533

To me, this ought to be the least controversial of all the items listed. But nooooo...

Card games like poker require players to be able to “read” their cards and the board clearly. It’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes.

Mistakes can be increased via typographical blunders (for example, choosing a font where the A and 4 look too much alike). More common is misreading suits, especially spades and clubs (which are formally more alike than hearts and diamonds).

Using a distinct color for each suit doubles the chances of eliminating such errors. It’s just obviously and objectively better. You are less like to confuse a blue diamond with a green club with a red heart or a black spade.

Sure, colorblind people may still have issues. But they already have this issue with two colors. (Nothing looks more like red... than red. And nothing looks more like black... Than black.)

So why have two-color decks remained a standard for so long? Doesn’t that suggest that they have survived a test of time? Two main reasons:

(1) My research indicates that two-color decks became a standard thing literally centuries ago, mainly due to the limitations and cost of producing cards in a pre-industrial, let alone pre-desktop context.

It was understood that you needed to differentiate suits, but running four different colors on an old-fashioned press was very labor and ink-intensive. So they just used two, either hand-coloring the face cards, or doing one separate sheet with all the facecards to limit the number of passes necessary. With the advent of modern printing, especially 21st Century printing where adding colors is rarely even a cost increase, this compromise is no longer necessary.

(2) The other reasons are convention, habits, familiarity. People hate design changes in almost anything they have grown accustomed to. Change the design of a popular soda’s can? Your favorite cereal? The layout of the front page of the local newspaper? Those daring to do so had better be ready for a firestorm of complaints, at least at first.

Even if the new design is vastly superior.

Then pretty soon people get used to the change... And like it. Then it gets changed again, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
I have lots of 4-color setups. I agree they are much more readable. Every online thing I play is 4-color. I have recently changed my tune on 4-color…continue at your own risk. Ignorance was bliss.
More readable might be BAD. Cards can flash at dealing a lot. Lots of dealers have sloppy pitches if you’re not doing the euro slide thing. 2 color decks are more secure.
 
Stop tanking. You're not counting combos you're having a funeral for your hand. Fold and move on. And so help me God if you raise after an excessive tank.

And I don't want to hear “bytbit was a big spot” It was preflop open or a small cbet on the flip that scrambled your motherboard. That is unacceptable. Play faster.
 
Highli99 said:
Stop tanking. You're not counting combos you're having a funeral for your hand. Fold and move on. And so help me God if you raise after an excessive tank.

And I don't want to hear “bytbit was a big spot” It was preflop open or a small cbet on the flip that scrambled your motherboard. That is unacceptable. Play faster.
Click to expand...
I don't tank, I just have ADHD. :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Poker nor chipping/hosting are worth this much thought.

At some point it all becomes arguing for the sake of arguing.

You really just said the numbers on chips are pointless and then in the next post say it’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes - you’re arguing against your own points.
 
BarrieJ3 said:
Poker nor chipping/hosting are worth this much thought.

At some point it all becomes arguing for the sake of arguing.

You really just said the numbers on chips are pointless and then in the next post say it’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes - you’re arguing against your own points.
Click to expand...
He couldn’t get any arguments going in the controversial topics thread so he made his own arguing thread.

Engage at your own risk
 
Highli99 said:
Stop tanking. You're not counting combos you're having a funeral for your hand. Fold and move on. And so help me God if you raise after an excessive tank.

And I don't want to hear “bytbit was a big spot” It was preflop open or a small cbet on the flip that scrambled your motherboard. That is unacceptable. Play faster.
Click to expand...
pulse changes are reliable

Sure use sparingly, big spots only, can’t tank every time then you’re a problem

Can’t beat all the bluffs then you kinda do have to raise and it looks STRONG

Some food for thought
 
Last edited:
Frogzilla said:
pulse changes are reliable

Sure use sparingly, big spots only, can’t tank every time then you’re a problem

Can’t beat all the bluffs then you kinda do have to raise and it looks STRONG

Some food for thought
Click to expand...
I fluctuate my pulse as a reverse tell. I get tripped up sometimes because some opponents think it means strength and some tjinknit means weakness.
 
Taghkanic said:
Housemolds and oversized inlays are usually hideous.
Click to expand...
Appreciate that you left some room in there. I always strongly disliked oversized inlays - until I laid eyes on the exception:
I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Vineyards are ugly. (Ok, except my wife)

vineyards.webp
 
BEANO52 said:
This, I do not care for oversized inlays. Hideous fits (most) perfectly.

But, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and if it's not yours, it stinks.
Click to expand...
Dude...

1000006473.webp


1000006474.webp




Baldeagle9 said:
I need Denoms, I need to see NUMBERS, I need them!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Denoms are important. Maybe if you play the exact same game with the exact same stakes and the exact same players week in and week out. But we don't... and there's a different set for each cash game occasion.

Taghkanic said:
That wasn’t my rationale, but it’s a good one I hadn't even considered. I’ll get to this in more depth when I return (have posted about it before), but briefly:

In the games I play with a dedicated dealer, the usual practice is to use two decks. The deck out of play gets pushed to the button, which the button shuffles as best as they can. When the hand is over, the dealer takes the amateurishly-shuffled deck and gives it 1-2 more shuffles/cuts to ensure a better mix.

This is usually very quick and efficient operation, typically performed while other business is being taken care of by players (passing in their cards, collecting chips, etc.). I find it moves along briskly, and provides plenty of shuffling, even if the button is a bad shuffle. It still means the deck gets mixed/cut multiple times before reaching the dealer.

A card shuffler by contrast requires the dealer to stack the cards carefully, place the cards precisely in the machine, and later remove them, then put deck #2 in. Often the dealer will then give the shuffled deck yet another cut and/or riffle. I find that this at best takes roughly the same amount of time as the button method.

And then you have the delays when the machine jams or has some other error message. In a casino, this can result in a major delay if the dealer has to call the floor, as is often the case.
Click to expand...
We play with a dedicated, non-player dealer and we got the Shuffletech around 18 months ago.

It lives in a drink table to the right of the dealer.

I figured it'd be a time saver for the dealer, but in practice it didn't really turn out to be. When he/she has to reach down to retrieve the readied deck, then carefully place the used deck in the machine, that adds more time than anticipated.

I don't think it's any slower than a manual shuffle, but it isn't any faster.

But there are other benefits that make the group and our dealers glad we got one. Fatigue.

Shuffling and dealing cards for 6+ hours straight can be straining on the hands and wrists. Plus, players can relax without having to shuffle the cards.

It also benefits game security - not that it was ever an issue but the fact that it produces a truer shuffle is a good thing for the game.
 

Attachments

  • 1000006475.webp
    1000006475.webp
    231.1 KB · Views: 70
Eriks said:
Not needing denominated chips to tell denoms apart but needing stupid suit colors to tell suits apart, seems contradictory to me.
Click to expand...


It’s pretty simple. It is easier to make mistakes about suits when peeking quickly at cards while trying to hide them from neighbors than to mistake a pile of chips out in the open.
 
legend672 said:
Round tables or octagon are the best 56 “ is preferred tough 60 “ are ok. 48 are a little tight is you have large players.
Click to expand...

Correct.

legend672 said:
4 color decks are for children.
Click to expand...

*are for people with eyes, FYP

legend672 said:
Denoms are preferred but if you don’t know the value of the chips after being told what they are you shouldn’t be playing.
Click to expand...

Correct.

legend672 said:
Only real rule I have is that my seat is always mine so that I can get up and attend to anything. When we draw for seats my seat is the 3 or whatever seat I draw and everyone else fills in around me according to what seat number they drew. Bring cash to play with.
Click to expand...

Same. At my game I am always in the 7 seat because it is (a) closest to the chips, and also the wood stove which needs stoking during the game in winter; and (b) it has its back to my projection screen, and I want guests to have the opportunity to see it.
 
  • Poker-sized cards are preferable to bridge-sized cards.
Sigh. Y’all can check out this bonkers thread if you like, in which a bunch of people lose their minds because of a single dissenter... And because I mentioned A.I. https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/poker-vs-bridge-size.115498/

My basic arguments here are:
  • Shuffling: In terms of ergonomics, poker-sized cards are a little easier to shuffle for most players, except those with unusually small hands. By the same token, bridge sized cards are a little harder to shuffle for players with unusually large hands. So hand size is a wash. The slightly wider width vs. bridge size allows for a better grip for most, especially for amateur shufflers in home game.
  • Strain: As for related claims that poker sized cards tire out your hands shuffling in a home game... I dunno, maybe if you have some degenerative muscle disease? But be real. In a self-dealt game, you shuffle once every orbit. If a quarter-inch of extra cellulose cardstock is giving you carpal tunnel, maybe do something to strength your fingers between games besides scrolling social media...
  • Pitching: Some defenders of bridge size claim that they are easier to pitch, but this is not actually supported by physics. In truth there is little difference between the two sizes as far as the likelihood of cards flipping. Dealer technique is far more determinant for this, along with the condition of the deck, since any warp/cupping of the card will contribute to more flips.
  • Board spacing: While the 1/4" difference in width does mean that the board can be spread across a slightly narrower area in the middle of the table, this is hardly a problem in any game I’ve ever played in. There is plenty of room for the board, and the difference across five cards is 1.25". So c’mon with that.
  • Legibility: A slightly wider card allows for better spacing and overall clarity of design of the faces of cards, since there is more room. I personally prefer jumbo indexes, since the age of my regs ranges from 24 years old all the way up to 70. Unless everyone in your game has terrific eyesight, even small improvements in legibility matter.
Some of the more vehement and even vituperative arguments I’ve heard in defense of bridge size have little to do with the actual card sizes themselves. These include the claim that since U.S. casinos have almost completely shifted to bridge size in poker rooms, this must mean that bridge is the correct choice.

My simplest rejoinder to that is: Are we to believe that the casino industry is infallible? I’m sure we all can think of choices that casino poker rooms make which are actually sub-optimal for players, though they may be positive for the casino’s bottom line or making management’s job easier. Just saying “I do everything the same as how casinos do it” is not how I run my own game.
 
Frogzilla said:
More readable might be BAD. Cards can flash at dealing a lot. Lots of dealers have sloppy pitches if you’re not doing the euro slide thing. 2 color decks are more secure.
Click to expand...

So by that logic one-color decks would be even better, right?
 
  • GTO applies to all stakes, teaching how to better exploit villains.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/did-gto-change-your-game.99314/

This was another one where the mere mention of the topic (Game Theory Optimal play) unexpectedly sent at least a couple of people off into paroxysms of rage.

Whenever GTO poker comes up, a common deflection is “OK maybe in theory, but that doesn’t work in my games.” Meaning, as far as I can tell, “low stakes limpfests and shovefests.”

It’s true that a lot of early GTO “solvers” and theory were largely focused on heads up. As computing power keeps increasing, there is a steadily-improving ability to address, apply, or at least adapt solutions to 3-way situations, or even bigger multiway pots. Some solvers are also able to take into account other factors like ICM. I doubt it will ever be able to fully solve 9-handed NLHE, given the number of variables; but in reality the goal isn’t absolute perfection for humans wanting to apply the concept to live/online games.

And being able to sit at a table and perfectly deploy millions of memorized solutions was never actually the point. I have yet to hear any serious advocate of GTO study say that it ought be applied robotically, in its purest form.

GTO is, after all, a strategy for being unexploitable, rather than one for maximizing profit. This means in theory you could never lose money, but you would not necessarily win much either... If you played 10,000 hands with a perfect GTO strategy against someone who played near-perfectly, you would almost certainly come out ahead—very slightly. Game theory is about forcing your opponent into situations where they have no particularly good let alone better options. It’s about making yourself hard to play against, because you are balancing your play, rather than always going for the highest- or lowest-variance options. It was, after all, largely developed or at least popularized in the context of Cold War exercises, where the goal was not to win but to deter and and avoid mutually-assured destruction.

Rather, the coaches and pros I’ve heard talk in depth about GTO advocate something quite different. They say they aim to understand balance and how to appxoimate GTO in order *to better see how they should exploit specific villains or the population of their games.* Against a new table of unknowns, some of whom might be terrible but some might be great players, these pros are likely to start out trying to be unexplainable—until they start to observe how the villains at their table are deviating from optimal, which they allows them to tighten or expand ranges and manipulate bet sizes to profit more.

So even if you are in a low-stakes limpest, or a splashy game where people are shoving light almost every hand, knowledge of GTO is still going to be useful. It’s just a question of replying that knowledge correctly to better exploit any game’s particular dynamic. I don’t pretend to have mastered it, but reading and experimenting with some of the more basic concepts has made me a stronger, less exploitable and more profitable 1/3 and 2/5 player, and also helped out in tournaments.
 
Last edited:
Taghkanic said:
Y’all can check out this bonkers thread if you like, in which a bunch of people lose their minds because of a single dissenter...
Click to expand...
Yes, you were very much off the rails and killed the whole discussion. But people are learning….
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Four-color decks are vastly superior to two-color decks.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/love-for-4-color-suits.137424/post-2798762
And: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/4-color-decks-yay-or-nay.109333/post-2326533

To me, this ought to be the least controversial of all the items listed. But nooooo...

Card games like poker require players to be able to “read” their cards and the board clearly. It’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes.

Mistakes can be increased via typographical blunders (for example, choosing a font where the A and 4 look too much alike). More common is misreading suits, especially spades and clubs (which are formally more alike than hearts and diamonds).

Using a distinct color for each suit doubles the chances of eliminating such errors. It’s just obviously and objectively better. You are less like to confuse a blue diamond with a green club with a red heart or a black spade.

Sure, colorblind people may still have issues. But they already have this issue with two colors. (Nothing looks more like red... than red. And nothing looks more like black... Than black.)

So why have two-color decks remained a standard for so long? Doesn’t that suggest that they have survived a test of time? Two main reasons:

(1) My research indicates that two-color decks became a standard thing literally centuries ago, mainly due to the limitations and cost of producing cards in a pre-industrial, let alone pre-desktop context.

It was understood that you needed to differentiate suits, but running four different colors on an old-fashioned press was very labor and ink-intensive. So they just used two, either hand-coloring the face cards, or doing one separate sheet with all the facecards to limit the number of passes necessary. With the advent of modern printing, especially 21st Century printing where adding colors is rarely even a cost increase, this compromise is no longer necessary.

(2) The other reasons are convention, habits, familiarity. People hate design changes in almost anything they have grown accustomed to. Change the design of a popular soda’s can? Your favorite cereal? The layout of the front page of the local newspaper? Those daring to do so had better be ready for a firestorm of complaints, at least at first.

Even if the new design is vastly superior.

Then pretty soon people get used to the change... And like it. Then it gets changed again, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
Two words.

So much better.
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Poker-sized cards are preferable to bridge-sized cards.
Sigh. Y’all can check out this bonkers thread if you like, in which a bunch of people lose their minds because of a single dissenter... And because I mentioned A.I. https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/poker-vs-bridge-size.115498/

My basic arguments here are:
  • Shuffling: In terms of ergonomics, poker-sized cards are a little easier to shuffle for most players, except those with unusually small hands. By the same token, bridge sized cards are a little harder to shuffle for players with unusually large hands. So hand size is a wash. The slightly wider width vs. bridge size allows for a better grip for most, especially for amateur shufflers in home game.
  • Strain: As for related claims that poker sized cards tire out your hands shuffling in a home game... I dunno, maybe if you have some degenerative muscle disease? But be real. In a self-dealt game, you shuffle once every orbit. If a quarter-inch of extra cellulose cardstock is giving you carpal tunnel, maybe do something to strength your fingers between games besides scrolling social media...
  • Pitching: Some defenders of bridge size claim that they are easier to pitch, but this is not actually supported by physics. In truth there is little difference between the two sizes as far as the likelihood of cards flipping. Dealer technique is far more determinant for this, along with the condition of the deck, since any warp/cupping of the card will contribute to more flips.
  • Board spacing: While the 1/4" difference in width does mean that the board can be spread across a slightly narrower area in the middle of the table, this is hardly a problem in any game I’ve ever played in. There is plenty of room for the board, and the difference across five cards is 1.25". So c’mon with that.
  • Legibility: A slightly wider card allows for better spacing and overall clarity of design of the faces of cards, since there is more room. I personally prefer jumbo indexes, since the age of my regs ranges from 24 years old all the way up to 70. Unless everyone in your game has terrific eyesight, even small improvements in legibility matter.
Some of the more vehement and even vituperative arguments I’ve heard in defense of bridge size have little to do with the actual card sizes themselves. These include the claim that since U.S. casinos have almost completely shifted to bridge size in poker rooms, this must mean that bridge is the correct choice.

My simplest rejoinder to that is: Are we to believe that the casino industry is infallible? I’m sure we all can think of choices that casino poker rooms make which are actually sub-optimal for players, though they may be positive for the casino’s bottom line or making management’s job easier. Just saying “I do everything the same as how casinos do it” is not how I run my own game.
Click to expand...
They obliterated you. That was savage. Enjoyed the thread. Unsure why you’re promoting it but thanks
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

S
Will No Limit Hold'em always be king?
Replies
21
Views
809
suitedpair54
suitedpair54
acezag
Why do you love poker?
Replies
19
Views
763
Rodog123
Rodog123
GoJo_Dingo
For Sale Majestic Card Room Poker Chips
Replies
5
Views
746
GoJo_Dingo
GoJo_Dingo
David251999
Automatic shuffler for home game – worth it if you use bridge cards?
Replies
9
Views
623
Coyote
Coyote
demax51
What kind of lighting is best?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
demax51
demax51
Back
Top Bottom