Who's the biggest loser at your games? (1 Viewer)

In my game there are a couple of really strong players who generally win around half the time. The rest of us pick up the scraps. There is one who is the fish however, much like @Josh Kifer guy, he comes for the beer and guy time not so much for the poker.
 
Darson said:
In my game there are a couple of really strong players who generally win around half the time. The rest of us pick up the scraps. There is one who is the fish however, much like @Josh Kifer guy, he comes for the beer and guy time not so much for the poker.
Click to expand...
We have three guys who come every week because there other three games a 1/2/5 with 2-3k per person. My game is the one they can have fun at and enjoy, as it doesn't matter what the end result is.

Me on the other hand, I want there 20 bucks goddamnit. Hahahaha
 
Don't track results. Also, don't track results. If you're thinking 'hey, it'd be cool if I tracked results' then immediately folllow that thought with 'Is it a good idea to remind my winners they are winning and remind my losers how much they are losing?' (No.)

We've been playing much more frequently since we moved to online. The act of having to send funds versus just pulling cash out of a wallet has caused some of our fish to stop playing all together - they miss the camaraderie and now know how much they are investing in 'just poker'.

My biggest losers used to be a mix of fish/calling station types as many have described and degenerate gamblers. Now it's just degenerate gamblers, and even one of those has been limiting their attendance more due to the constant and trackable hemmorhage. That we are getting so many more hands in in a single night online also limits variance - the big swings that a gambler can have and happen over say 100 hands live get worked out and normalized more over 300 hands online. And so patterns like WLLWLLL become LLLLLLLLLLLL.

To answer the original question - Live .50/$1 pre pandemic - biggest loser was like $100 a month playing twice a month.
Pandemic - .25/.50 BigO 3 times a week - biggest loser is losing $1000 a month.
 
MrCatPants said:
To answer the original question - Live .50/$1 pre pandemic - biggest loser was like $100 a month playing twice a month.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's like shockingly low to me. Every 0.50-1 game I have played in (including hosting) will have a few $100 losers every night.
 
As others have already said, don't share results. I have the stats on Tournament Director for at least the last 15 years. We used to play weekly but had to move to bi-weekly last year (and now weekly online).

$20 per week with a $20 rebuys adds up over 15 years. Even for a year it can add up to a big number for some of the donators. It's still good value from an entertainment standpoint, but $20 a week with rebuys and special events can be $2k+ a year and the sticker shock can push someone to question their poker playing abilities. I'd rather they reminisce about that one week they won recently (which was actually 3 months ago).
 
detroitdad said:
I'm not in the hole as a host.

The really big losers have moved on from cash games for the most part. Some (@Sprouty ) has used covid as an excuse, some just realized that they should stick to $40.00 tourney's.
Click to expand...
My calculations show me as up but then again I'm not even allowed to chop the pots anymore due to my math deficiencies. So boom, winner here.
 
I would say biggest losers in our games is 300-400 a month playing .25/.50 NLHE only. Our game is 2-3 times a week.
I try not to keep track, I'm the bank so I'm just estimating. We do have guys we lots of big swings multiple 80 bullets, but then will scoop 300 on a single buy in.
 
MrCatPants said:
We've been playing much more frequently since we moved to online. The act of having to send funds versus just pulling cash out of a wallet has caused some of our fish to stop playing all together - they miss the camaraderie and now know how much they are investing in 'just poker'.

My biggest losers used to be a mix of fish/calling station types as many have described and degenerate gamblers. Now it's just degenerate gamblers, and even one of those has been limiting their attendance more due to the constant and trackable hemmorhage. That we are getting so many more hands in in a single night online also limits variance - the big swings that a gambler can have and happen over say 100 hands live get worked out and normalized more over 300 hands online. And so patterns like WLLWLLL become LLLLLLLLLLLL.
Click to expand...
This 100%. What started out as a mix of 30 players and at least one full table at all times in April dwindled down to about 15 over the summer and now left with about six or seven degenerates (yours truly included), and most nights end up playing three or four handed. Actually prefer playing short handed, but not sustainable as an ongoing game.
 
JustinInMN said:
Wow, that's like shockingly low to me. Every 0.50-1 game I have played in (including hosting) will have a few $100 losers every night.
Click to expand...
Yeah....I mean maybe more like 150 a month, but my core guys play super tight/3 bet AA only and hang out for a bit after they lose their one buy in and then go home.
 
MrCatPants said:
Don't track results. Also, don't track results. If you're thinking 'hey, it'd be cool if I tracked results' then immediately folllow that thought with 'Is it a good idea to remind my winners they are winning and remind my losers how much they are losing?' (No.)
Click to expand...
I don't share the results, it's definitely a conflict of interest of some sort (probably). I think generally the more competitive players at my games track their own though.

Unfortunately, I can't not track results. I'm a slave to spreadsheets and just love numbers and plots. Call me a psychopath, but I've been doing it for the past 2 years and don't intend to stop tracking because of sunk cost fallacy.
 
It's always me. Even when I cash out ahead. My friends are that cool.
 
Josh Kifer said:
He could write a small novel in stacks about me eating dick.
Click to expand...

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, and Josh was eating dicks."

Phew. Alright, I finally ran out of Aztar $5s
 
I find it important to track my results, but I don’t bother to track others'.

Good points are made here. I don't track my friend's spending habits when it comes to beer/dinners etc, but I track mine. If someone was losing more than they could afford, that would be a different issue.
 
allforcharity said:
To answer the OP's question, probably me. Hate to admit it, but gotta recognize the truth.
Click to expand...
Damn, with poker losses + spending money on chips and tables, I hope your players bring some really good alcohol to your games!

JScott said:
Good points are made here. I don't track my friend's spending habits when it comes to beer/dinners etc, but I find it important to track mine. If someone was losing more than they could afford, that would be a different issue.
Click to expand...
Good point, it's definitely weird to keep track of your friends' cheeseburgers expenses, so why should it be different with poker expenses? Definitely something for me to think about. It's a little hard though, since we've always used venmo anyways for buy-ins (some use cash), and some players pay before chips, others prefer settling afterwards. I should probably set a hard rule on that, either everyone pays before, or settles after.
 
quintooo said:
Good point, it's definitely weird to keep track of your friends' cheeseburgers expenses, so why should it be different with poker expenses? Definitely something for me to think about. It's a little hard though, since we've always used venmo anyways for buy-ins (some use cash), and some players pay before chips, others prefer settling afterwards. I should probably set a hard rule on that, either everyone pays before, or settles after.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I'm not (and I don't think anyone else is) judging you for having this info. If you track numbers it can easily happen, but I'd probably just ignore the data if it's not for points for a league.
 
Josh Kifer said:
He could write a small novel in stacks about me eating dick.
Click to expand...
Josh deleted this post from the “What’s for Dinner” thread but in all fairness and transparency I thought it should be shared (the pic, not the meal, haha).

8411A595-DBB9-489C-8C84-222E48F9024F.jpeg
 
That's kind of a loaded question, because you obviously don't want to make that person feel bad for being a loser. They provide other means of entertainment (friendly banter, drinks, etc.) If they can afford it then you want to keep them in your games. Now, if they are playing beyond their means (playing with rent/bill money, etc.), THEN you should definitely let them know.
 
SixSpeedFury said:
That's kind of a loaded question, because you obviously don't want to make that person feel bad for being a loser. They provide other means of entertainment (friendly banter, drinks, etc.) If they can afford it then you want to keep them in your games. Now, if they are playing beyond their means (playing with rent/bill money, etc.), THEN you should definitely let them know.
Click to expand...
I live with this person, so I would definitely know if he can't make rent/bills. I agree that he does provide entertainment in the form of action and banter. I tell myself the money he loses to the game covers my cost of alcohol every week. And the cost of alcohol is great, since we play 2-3 times a week.
 
I find three sorts of players in my games; < mixtures of these types is common enough >

One wants to win money. Such players fold a lot. They try to find +ev situations. They don't tilt much. Not that every such player actually wins money, but that is their goal.

The second type of player wants to have fun. They play too many hands. The concept of ev is foreign to them. Playing lots of hand and winning hands is fun. Folding is not fun. Some nights they win, most nights they don't.

The third type of player wants to gamble. They seek glory and accept disaster as part of the cost. Such a player is happy to be a 40/60 dog if the stakes are high enough. Occasional nights they walk away from the game with everyone's money. Most often they go home broke or worse.

I didn't comment about aggression or bluffing or style of play. These are overlays to the list above.

Most games the gamble player is the biggest loser. That is certainly true for the highest stakes games I play.

As the amount of money at risk declines, the gamble players vanish from the game. At least for the most part. Then the the fun seeking player tend to emerge as the biggest loser - small stakes like a $20 or maybe $50 buy-in game.

Years ago I had a "want to win money" player who often lost the most. But over the years he has studied and turned into a modest winner. He still has bad nights due to poor play but rarely.

I have made adjustments to the structure of my games to protect the biggest losers in the lower stakes games. You can't play a hundred sessions a year and carve up the bad players - they can cumulatively lose a small fortune.

as others have said, don't track wins and losses. BAD for the game, really bad -=- DrStrange
 
DrStrange said:
I have made adjustments to the structure of my games to protect the biggest losers in the lower stakes games. You can't play a hundred sessions a year and carve up the bad players - they can cumulatively lose a small fortune.
Click to expand...
What sort of adjustments have you made? Some sort of fixed limit structure? I've thought about doing some fixed limit/PL games, but my players don't really like that.

I've thought about capping buy-ins, but that might not work because we don't usually have players waiting to be seated.
 
DrStrange said:
I find three sorts of players in my games; < mixtures of these types is common enough >

One wants to win money. Such players fold a lot. They try to find +ev situations. They don't tilt much. Not that every such player actually wins money, but that is their goal.

The second type of player wants to have fun. They play too many hands. The concept of ev is foreign to them. Playing lots of hand and winning hands is fun. Folding is not fun. Some nights they win, most nights they don't.

The third type of player wants to gamble. They seek glory and accept disaster as part of the cost. Such a player is happy to be a 40/60 dog if the stakes are high enough. Occasional nights they walk away from the game with everyone's money. Most often they go home broke or worse.

I didn't comment about aggression or bluffing or style of play. These are overlays to the list above.

Most games the gamble player is the biggest loser. That is certainly true for the highest stakes games I play.

As the amount of money at risk declines, the gamble players vanish from the game. At least for the most part. Then the the fun seeking player tend to emerge as the biggest loser - small stakes like a $20 or maybe $50 buy-in game.

Years ago I had a "want to win money" player who often lost the most. But over the years he has studied and turned into a modest winner. He still has bad nights due to poor play but rarely.

I have made adjustments to the structure of my games to protect the biggest losers in the lower stakes games. You can't play a hundred sessions a year and carve up the bad players - they can cumulatively lose a small fortune.

as others have said, don't track wins and losses. BAD for the game, really bad -=- DrStrange
Click to expand...
I keep reading this and nodding. I feel like there is a fourth category but I can’t articulate it. Actually, as I think through it’s just the “want to win money players” who slip into having fun or gambling mode.
 
Highli99 said:
I keep reading this and nodding. I feel like there is a fourth category but I can’t articulate it. Actually, as I think through it’s just the “want to win money players” who slip into having fun or gambling mode.
Click to expand...
This is me actually after a couple hours. But this would be due to a house rule I have: every time someone busts, we all take a shot (except for the person who busted, unless they want to take a shot with us).
 
There are two changes I implemented, shortening the stack sizes by having low rebuy limits and offering small bet games vs big bet games.

A low rebuy cap means the nights a weak player gets lucky, he/she is protected from getting carved up by the better players in one hand. For example, playing $1/$1 with a $100 max buy-in. Some lucky lady ends up with a $750 stack. But no one else has a stack nearly so large - when she felted them, all they could re-buy for was $100. That doesn't mean the big stack is safe, but it will take several bites to wipe the big winner out. At least there is a reasonable chance of such a player getting home with some of the winnings.

The better players HATE this. They are already grumpy about getting taken down by the weaker player. And now the host is keeping them from buying in deep. Expect no gratitude from the weaker player, they might even be grumpy too because they don't understand what is going on or that they are the prey for the rest of the night.

Small bet poker has high variance and small win rates. This means the weaker players are more likely to get on a hot streak once in a while and get home with some winnings. Getting people to play small bet hold'em is almost impossible. Hold'em is boring enough as it is playing no limit. But mixed games seem to work just fine for my group.

We play low stakes, spread limit mixed games. Mostly people are terrible at these new games, but the betting structure means luck is more important than skill. At least to some extent. The new games are fun, different. And no one gets stacked from making a single bad move, unlike big bet games. This is a "one ring circus" game. We only play "three ring circus" a couple of times a year. < three ring circus games are things like dramaha, omadugi, scrotum for example >

Remember, the goal is to make the game fun so people want to come back next time -=- DrStrange
 
Interesting, I've never enforced a max buy-in, because all my players, including the stronger ones and myself, always reload for 100 BB. Some nights we'll reload 200 BB, but these are usually for special occasions (someone got a job, someone finished exams, etc).

I would love to play mixed games, but I could barely get them to play omaha (a lot of them can't wrap their heads around needing to play exactly 2 hole cards, and being limited to betting pot), I think trying to get them to play circus games is gonna be impossible.
 
DrStrange said:
The third type of player wants to gamble. They seek glory and accept disaster as part of the cost. Such a player is happy to be a 40/60 dog if the stakes are high enough. Occasional nights they walk away from the game with everyone's money. Most often they go home broke or worse.
Click to expand...

Such a great way to describe this person. They don't mine being a dog at all - its the thrill of "hitting".
 

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

DZPoker
  • Poll
Poll: Home games friendly vs by the book
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
DZPoker
DZPoker
merkong
The Day has Arrived! Game One Hundred at The Godfather Club
Replies
14
Views
541
AceTheToxicBot
A
Aeternus
Do you play with a Bring In for Stud Home Games?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
JustinInMN
JustinInMN
maloviz
Home tournament before cash game?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
ekricket
ekricket
bergs
How was your 2023 Poker Year?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
jpoppaaa
J
Back
Top Bottom