Tips on finding pleasant players? (2 Viewers)

Ok, I think he's talking about us here, right @Cowthulhu :unsure:
@Kyle @ruskba @pokerplayingpisces

Seriously though, you should stick with us PCFers in CO, you also seemed to hold your own at the Limit Game we ran at @ruskba 's ;)
We're a friendly group IMHO
But good luck if you're trying to run with a different crowd....
That's actually the problem - that game opened up my eyes to how much fun it could be to play for fun with nice people! Now I'm ruined, and struggle going back to my usual games.
 
Are you doing this? No one likes to be told how to play poker. The "advice" won't go over well and comes off as condescending. While it's possible these "poor fishes" will "get better and stop hemorrhaging money," they're more likely to stop going to your game because they don't feel welcomed.
That's fair. I guess one point of feedback in this thread is that the above might not be recieved as friendly... I guess I never really saw it that way, since when I started I really wish someone had told me to stop playing every hand. But it sounds like I'm in the minority here, and most people would *not* appreciate it!
It's tough, I feel somewhat guilty when a fish is bleeding? It feels sort of mean? But I really need to just suck it up and let them learn. Cicle of life!

To actually answer your question - only once, told a newbie after the game that he was playing really loose and would do better if he tightened up a bit and focused on playing fewer, higher quality hands... he didn't seem to mind, but it's hard to tell and he might just have been polite. Might also have still been in shock from losing a bunch of buyins. Got a stern "don't tap the glass" talk afterwards, and that was the first and last time!

There's my confession - before I get a bunch of mean messages, I've learned my lesson thanks to the input from this thread and will let people learn the way they want to learn.
 
Last edited:
That's fair. I guess one point of feedback in this thread is that the above might not be recieved as friendly... I guess I never really saw it that way, since when I started I really wish someone had told me to stop playing every hand. But it sounds like I'm in the minority here, and most people would *not* appreciate it!
It's tough, I feel somewhat guilty when a fish is bleeding? It feels sort of mean? But I really need to just suck it up and let them learn. Cicle of life!
I think poker for most casual home game players is about gambling for a night and trying to hit some big hands/make some big bluffs - having fun. They don’t think of it in terms of right and wrong decisions in the long run. Did they win the big hand? That’s all that matters.

Some will gradually pick up the interest to learn good strategy but unsolicited advice in real time isn’t going to come out well, no matter how good the intensions. I’ve got a guy in my group that has been going for over 20 years. He hasn’t changed his style at all in that time. He will gamble, he will make terrible decisions, on any given night he will win huge or lose it all. That’s the excitement for him, I assume. Giving him advice isn’t only going to be pointless, it’s would also be to tell him that he sucks and to stop having fun.
 
Last edited:
I think poker for most casual home game players is about gambling for a night and trying to hit some big hands/make some big bluffs - having fu
:D That's about sum up how all Micro Stake poker should be played, and the swing are huge & "Fun" or "F**ked" depending on the outcome
 
Last edited:
I was recruting in local casino during tournaments... You need to observe players in their natural environment.
And be very picky.... It's much easier to invite someone than to get rid of him if he turns out to be asshole. Do remember that you most likey to invite him to your own home, place you live and keep your valuable possessions
 
I'd say this is the main thing you're doing wrong: populating your game entirely from random internet people.

In poker, the types of people you are looking to get into your game—well-mannered, welcoming players who are comfortable with the game and don't chase off the fish—generally already have games they play in. These are the players everyone wants. When hosts find players like this, they invite them.

It's not that these players don't exist on the internet, but let's put it this way: if you take a handful of players from a decent game that's been running a while, and you compare it to an equal-sized handful of random internet people looking for a game, you'll find way more quality players in the first group. You'll also get to observe them in their natural habitat and take the time to decide if you want them in your game, before they're already at your table eating Cheez-Its.

Worse, the internet is a sort of poisoned pool, as it's the last resort where players rejected from other games can go to look for new one. Not only are there fewer high-quality players desperate for a game, but your risk of recruiting extreme low-quality players—including thieves, cheats, and people who wear sunglasses at the table—is much higher. Public cardrooms and casinos have this same weakness.

In other words, the best way to recruit quality players is to make your way around the local home poker scene and hand-select players there. In general, the host should always get the first invite, and you should ask if it's okay before inviting other players.

It's true that it will take longer, and it's a lot more legwork than setting up a Meetup account, but it will yield much better fruit. I say this as someone who moved to a new town and set up a game from all internet players, once upon a time. The first game brought a cranky old bat who only attended once, and then months later accused me and the other players of cheating her—out of $40 in quarters, I shit you not—before threatening to send the police to my next game. I rescheduled out of an abundance of caution, but no police ever arrived. You just never know what you're going to get.

I second what some other users have said about giving unsolicited advice. Unless they're asking for it, people don't want to be told how to play. This is particularly true of losing players who just want to gamble. Moreover, you shouldn't want your losing players to get better at poker.

I understand where you're coming from, but a healthy poker ecosystem has a variety of play styles and always needs a solid base of donators. They attract all the winning players who will form the consistent core of your game. You know the core players I'm talking about—the ones who are always there on time, ready to roll, because they're making money in the game. The trouble is that donators tend to drop off over time because they don't have the money-making motivation to keep them playing, and if they drop off—or get better at poker—the consistent core of winning players will start to dry up too. And trust me, high-quality donators can be hard to replace.
 
If I'm not playing to make money I play with friends, low stakes tournaments mainly where we can have a laugh, drink beer and have good food, winning or losing doesn't matter to anyone because the stakes are so low.

That's when I enjoy poker the most. My close friend group aren't big gamblers or poker players, I teach them a bit here and there but they are playing for the social element and I'm all for that.

100%. except even if its micro stake I still want to stack even my closest friends.

And still have fun drinking and hanging out.

Win or lose. All good fun.
 
I'd say this is the main thing you're doing wrong: populating your game entirely from random internet people.

In poker, the types of people you are looking to get into your game—well-mannered, welcoming players who are comfortable with the game and don't chase off the fish—generally already have games they play in. These are the players everyone wants. When hosts find players like this, they invite them.

It's not that these players don't exist on the internet, but let's put it this way: if you take a handful of players from a decent game that's been running a while, and you compare it to an equal-sized handful of random internet people looking for a game, you'll find way more quality players in the first group. You'll also get to observe them in their natural habitat and take the time to decide if you want them in your game, before they're already at your table eating Cheez-Its.

Worse, the internet is a sort of poisoned pool, as it's the last resort where players rejected from other games can go to look for new one. Not only are there fewer high-quality players desperate for a game, but your risk of recruiting extreme low-quality players—including thieves, cheats, and people who wear sunglasses at the table—is much higher. Public cardrooms and casinos have this same weakness.

In other words, the best way to recruit quality players is to make your way around the local home poker scene and hand-select players there. In general, the host should always get the first invite, and you should ask if it's okay before inviting other players.

It's true that it will take longer, and it's a lot more legwork than setting up a Meetup account, but it will yield much better fruit. I say this as someone who moved to a new town and set up a game from all internet players, once upon a time. The first game brought a cranky old bat who only attended once, and then months later accused me and the other players of cheating her—out of $40 in quarters, I shit you not—before threatening to send the police to my next game. I rescheduled out of an abundance of caution, but no police ever arrived. You just never know what you're going to get.

I second what some other users have said about giving unsolicited advice. Unless they're asking for it, people don't want to be told how to play. This is particularly true of losing players who just want to gamble. Moreover, you shouldn't want your losing players to get better at poker.

I understand where you're coming from, but a healthy poker ecosystem has a variety of play styles and always needs a solid base of donators. They attract all the winning players who will form the consistent core of your game. You know the core players I'm talking about—the ones who are always there on time, ready to roll, because they're making money in the game. The trouble is that donators tend to drop off over time because they don't have the money-making motivation to keep them playing, and if they drop off—or get better at poker—the consistent core of winning players will start to dry up too. And trust me, high-quality donators can be hard to replace.
Very well put
 
i moved to a new area where i knew zero people... i put up flyers in my area, and posted a want ad for players. i have a large list now and just text- invite the people that fit my personality. it makes for a very social fun night. took me a couple years to get the list where i want it , i keep the ad up and add a new player ever so often for fun.
 
That's fair. I guess one point of feedback in this thread is that the above might not be recieved as friendly... I guess I never really saw it that way, since when I started I really wish someone had told me to stop playing every hand. But it sounds like I'm in the minority here, and most people would *not* appreciate it!
It's tough, I feel somewhat guilty when a fish is bleeding? It feels sort of mean? But I really need to just suck it up and let them learn. Cicle of life!
Never provide actual, helpful advice while at the table, unless it's already established that it's a teaching game between close friends who are trying to get better at the game and want to discuss strategy. If it's a game where most people are in good spirits and aren't feeling hyper-competitive, some people might enjoy a short discussion about a hand that just completed, but it should always be initiated by someone asking or talking about their own play, and never be initiated by someone commenting on someone else's play, and it should never be couched as advice (i.e. don't say "You should have folded", let them first say "Should I have folded?" and you say "I probably would have, yeah").

Away from the table, though, it's a different matter. If you see a new player and think he's struggling and feeling bad about it, you could approach him on his own and ask him if he'd like any tips. If he's receptive, then help him out with some basics. If he turns you down ("Nah, man, I'm good") then let him figure it out on his own.

But on the other hand:
To actually answer your question - only once, told a newbie after the game that he was playing really loose and would do better if he tightened up a bit and focused on playing fewer, higher quality hands... he didn't seem to mind, but it's hard to tell and he might just have been polite. Might also have still been in shock from losing a bunch of buyins. Got a stern "don't tap the glass" talk afterwards, and that was the first and last time!

This is not the kind of game you are looking for. Quit this game, start your own, and don't invite those players.
 
I understand where you're coming from, but a healthy poker ecosystem has a variety of play styles and always needs a solid base of donators. They attract all the winning players who will form the consistent core of your game.
Do you think it's feasible to run a game where the good players aren't looking to consistently profit, and thus don't need a consistent base of donors (or a constantly refreshed supply)? One where the players all recognize that we keep score with money, but play just to be playing rather than to make an hourly net?
 
We started with a core group of 9 players back in 2003 during the poker boom. $20 tourneys to start so it was cheap and fun. From there we each invited a friend and the core group quickly grew to 16-18 regular players. Soon after people started inviting friends and we told them that they had to vouch for their friends and if they were a-holes then they would quickly be bounced. We kept the atmosphere fun and slowly started raising the entry fees to $40 then $50 and 20 years later we are only at $60. I now have 80+ people on the invite list and we get an average of 24 players and occasionally up to 32.

Some people play every month and some come 2-3 times a year, all depends on the person and the schedule. The thing we've kept consistent though is the atmosphere, we warm new people that the group is loud, we drink, we eat, we make fun of each other, and we have fun. If you can't handle that type of poker atmosphere then it might not be the spot for you. But most new people love it as it becomes entertainment and a fun night out instead of a grind.

When it comes to cash games, it's a whole different story. Out of that huge list there are maybe 8-12 players who would sit down and invest $100-$200 for a $1/$1 round by round cash game night.

We did get lucky though and found a solid core group that has always kept things going as players have come and gone over the years, that seems to be the most important thing.

Good luck!
 
Do you think it's feasible to run a game where the good players aren't looking to consistently profit, and thus don't need a consistent base of donors (or a constantly refreshed supply)? One where the players all recognize that we keep score with money, but play just to be playing rather than to make an hourly net?
Money or no money, games attract competitive people, and competitive people play to win. Once they've found a winning strategy, are they supposed to lose on purpose?

Even in the least serious, lowest-skilled games where everyone's bad, you'll have players who are less bad than others. They don't have to be playing "to make an hourly net" to fill the role of winning player in the game. They notice over time that they win more than they lose, and it makes them want to attend more often, especially with money being such a powerful motivator in the real world.
 
Money or no money, games attract competitive people, and competitive people play to win.
Well, yes, but the question is whether that competitive person who's "playing to win" is playing to win money or is playing to win a competitive game. Someone trying to make money will want to play against poor players and will want to keep them uneducated (and drunk). Someone who's competitive will want to play against good players so as to challenge their skill. Do you see any future for a home game that's populated by the latter sorts of people rather than the former - and in particular, do you think a game with such people can survive even if there's not a donator, someone to keep happy and dumb and losing so that the winners can stay profitable?

I'd like my home game to be filled with good players who want to get even better, and I'd rather not have anyone that the rest of us know we're taking advantage of because they're too bad to win and too dumb to stop. I'm curious whether you think such a game can be maintained, and what kind of troubles it might face.
 
Well, yes, but the question is whether that competitive person who's "playing to win" is playing to win money or is playing to win a competitive game. Someone trying to make money will want to play against poor players and will want to keep them uneducated (and drunk). Someone who's competitive will want to play against good players so as to challenge their skill. Do you see any future for a home game that's populated by the latter sorts of people rather than the former - and in particular, do you think a game with such people can survive even if there's not a donator, someone to keep happy and dumb and losing so that the winners can stay profitable?

I'd like my home game to be filled with good players who want to get even better, and I'd rather not have anyone that the rest of us know we're taking advantage of because they're too bad to win and too dumb to stop. I'm curious whether you think such a game can be maintained, and what kind of troubles it might face.
Every sustainable game needs a balance of good players, gamblers, and donators. Any poker ecosystem will fail without it. Too many of any category and the game dies.
 
Every sustainable game needs a balance of good players, gamblers, and donators. Any poker ecosystem will fail without it. Too many of any category and the game dies.
Why do you think that is?

Couldn't a group approach a weekly poker game the same way they might approach a weekly bowling league?
 
Why do you think that is?

Couldn't a group approach a weekly poker game the same way they might approach a weekly bowling league?
No, because poker is a betting game where the act of betting is part of the strategy. I used the term ecosystem because it’s the best metaphor. To over simplify, you need lions and gazelles and grass. Take out any of those and the African Savana fails. This has been explained in other threads pretty thoroughly by others, but the gist is;

Good players get the game started and keep it going. Mostly win.

Gamblers provide action and often keep good players in check. They have big swings and are often break even or small losers overall.

Donators mostly lose slowly, but provide liquidity to the game. They will stay as long as their bankroll and stakes allow. This is why whales are so sought after. If there are no donators the game will die because gamblers know they in trouble against just the good players.

While we’d love to live in a Eutopia where lions eat tofu, the truth is lions eat meat and somebody has to be lunch.
 
Every sustainable game needs a balance of good players, gamblers, and donators. Any poker ecosystem will fail without it. Too many of any category and the game dies.
I literally change my play style when my gamblers aren't there to become the table gambler for this exact reason.
 
Well, yes, but the question is whether that competitive person who's "playing to win" is playing to win money or is playing to win a competitive game. Someone trying to make money will want to play against poor players and will want to keep them uneducated (and drunk). Someone who's competitive will want to play against good players so as to challenge their skill. Do you see any future for a home game that's populated by the latter sorts of people rather than the former - and in particular, do you think a game with such people can survive even if there's not a donator, someone to keep happy and dumb and losing so that the winners can stay profitable?

I'd like my home game to be filled with good players who want to get even better, and I'd rather not have anyone that the rest of us know we're taking advantage of because they're too bad to win and too dumb to stop. I'm curious whether you think such a game can be maintained, and what kind of troubles it might face.
I get what you're suggesting, but money is an important part of the game for a reason. Like it or not, the ability to win money is what gives poker its appeal over a more social, lower-maintenance game like Spades or Bridge. Even to players who almost never win.

I propose that even if you find a pool of players to form this competitive, financially apathetic poker shangri-la, it will be short-lived. The better players will eventually (or quickly) sort themselves out from the weaker players, and after a while the game will appeal to them more than it appeals to the guys on the losing side of the transaction. There's nothing you can really do to change that aside from making it a money-free game, or making the game disproportionately about some other social thing, to the point that the poker isn't what people come for.

But then you're not really talking about a poker game anymore.
 
a more social, lower-maintenance game like Spades or Bridge
Have you met bridge players? :) Anything but "low-maintenance".

I propose that even if you find a pool of players to form this competitive, financially apathetic poker shangri-la, it will be short-lived. The better players will eventually (or quickly) sort themselves out from the weaker players, and after a while the game will appeal to them more than it appeals to the guys on the losing side of the transaction. There's nothing you can really do to change that aside from making it a money-free game, or making the game disproportionately about some other social thing, to the point that the poker isn't what people come for.

But then you're not really talking about a poker game anymore.
Thanks for your perspective! I hope you're wrong.

Also, I think that's what a lot of the home-game focus on tournaments is about. You pay a fee, you get to play poker for a while, you've got an incentive to play as well as you can, and if you get lucky you might go home with some extra money in your pocket (but you probably won't). Financially, it's like buying a raffle ticket; games-wise, it's like playing poker with play money.

I think @Poker Zombie hosts tournaments where the dinner costs more than the entire prize pool. But I'd be reluctant to say his guests didn't come for the poker.
 
Have you met bridge players? :) Anything but "low-maintenance".

Sure sure, I just mean the game itself. Only 4 players, less dealing involved, no gaming tokens required. ;-)

Thanks for your perspective! I hope you're wrong.

Also, I think that's what a lot of the home-game focus on tournaments is about. You pay a fee, you get to play poker for a while, you've got an incentive to play as well as you can, and if you get lucky you might go home with some extra money in your pocket (but you probably won't). Financially, it's like buying a raffle ticket; games-wise, it's like playing poker with play money.

I think @Poker Zombie hosts tournaments where the dinner costs more than the entire prize pool. But I'd be reluctant to say his guests didn't come for the poker.

This is a good point about tournaments. If ever there were a game where people stopped caring as much about the money and played more for the competitive spirit, it would be tournament poker over cash poker.

But really, if you want a game where money isn't an issue, you'll have a game without money. Otherwise monetary gain or loss will always be a factor for some people. We live in a world where it's the difference between eating or not. There's just no way around that.
 
I get what you're suggesting, but money is an important part of the game for a reason. Like it or not, the ability to win money is what gives poker its appeal over a more social, lower-maintenance game like Spades or Bridge. Even to players who almost never win.
This is why I advocate for shallow buy ins and cash games that only run a couple of hours. Overall losers can win some nights like that. If you're playing deep and 10 hour sessions, the losers are going to lose nearly every time they show up.
 
This is why I advocate for shallow buy ins and cash games that only run a couple of hours. Overall losers can win some nights like that. If you're playing deep and 10 hour sessions, the losers are going to lose nearly every time they show up.
Very fair point. I don't think you can ever quite squelch the desire of good players to win money, but you can sure as hell add a lot of variability to the picture with structural choices and short sessions.
 
The solution to the player problem..........


uWMb2yVc3PcfsIFSBP.gif
 
No, because poker is a betting game where the act of betting is part of the strategy. I used the term ecosystem because it’s the best metaphor. To over simplify, you need lions and gazelles and grass. Take out any of those and the African Savana fails. This has been explained in other threads pretty thoroughly by others, but the gist is;

Good players get the game started and keep it going. Mostly win.

Gamblers provide action and often keep good players in check. They have big swings and are often break even or small losers overall.

Donators mostly lose slowly, but provide liquidity to the game. They will stay as long as their bankroll and stakes allow. This is why whales are so sought after. If there are no donators the game will die because gamblers know they in trouble against just the good players.

While we’d love to live in a Eutopia where lions eat tofu, the truth is lions eat meat and somebody has to be lunch.
A7253A84-3C9F-44F6-9D80-6114C063C67B.jpeg
 
This is why I advocate for shallow buy ins and cash games that only run a couple of hours. Overall losers can win some nights like that. If you're playing deep and 10 hour sessions, the losers are going to lose nearly every time they show up.
I can't over emphasize what a good idea this is. I play in Eric's game and many of his players normally play higher stakes (I think) or are very splashy gambler types. If not for the shallow (80 BBs) buy-in, I would not be comfortable playing in his game with these players. But the way he has it structured, if I play poorly, I can limit my losses to an amount that I'm comfortable with. And when I play well, I can go home with a little extra money in my pocket.
 
I can't over emphasize what a good idea this is. I play in Eric's game and many of his players normally play higher stakes (I think) or are very splashy gambler types. If not for the shallow (80 BBs) buy-in, I would not be comfortable playing in his game with these players. But the way he has it structured, if I play poorly, I can limit my losses to an amount that I'm comfortable with. And when I play well, I can go home with a little extra money in my pocket.
Yep. I didn't used to appreciate this, and I'd insist on structuring all NLHE games with deep (at least 200 BB) max stacks by default.

Turns out that's not always as optimal as you might think. Despite my reservations about how annoying short-stack poker can be, sometimes the 40 BB donk-a-thon is the superior structure for the long run.
 
Meh, personally I don’t like it. I host different nights, different stakes instead. Having at least 200-300bbs is just way more fun.

I do see the advantage for the casual player though, but I’d just sooner go with tournaments in that case
 

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom