Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Derek “Killingbird” Tenbusch is a founder and owner of Tournament Poker Edge, the video training site for which I now make videos, and a host of the Tournament Poker Edge Strategy Podcast. Tournament Poker Edge Live and The Chirp Herm Show round out TPE’s podcast offerings.
Congratulations to Vanessa Selbst for winning the $25K PCA High Roller. As Nate mentioned, you can watch her performance online. Nate’s top pick for best free strategy material on the internet is the final table of the 2011 $50K WSOP Players’ Championship. If you’re more interested in Minecraft strategy videos, check out xXidol’s YouTube channel.
Timestamps
0:23 — Hello! Brick-and-mortar game dynamics. The ethics of playing with drunks.
26:02 — Nate and Andrew discuss a 10-25 NL hand from the PCA.
50:04 — Derek talks about founding, running, and protecting the intellectual property of a poker training site.
1:40:44 — Good-bye!
Strategy Segment Hand
$10/$25 NLHE game, Hero straddles for $50 on button so action starts with SB. SB folds, BB calls $25 more, early position TAG raises to $150, drunk player calls, amateurish player calls, Hero calls $100 more with 9h 3h, BB calls $100 more.
Flop ($750) Jh 7c 4h Checks to amateur who bets $300, Hero calls, tough player in BB calls
Turn ($1650) Jh 7c 4h 2h BB checks, amateur bets $600, Hero raises to $1400, BB shoves $5400, amateur folds, Hero folds
Good episode and cool guest.
For what it’s worth I don’t think there is anything wrong with playing with the drunk guy, particularly given location and stakes. I don’t see any evidence from your description that the guy’s drinking was uncontrollable and as such is his personal responsibility. I say that having done many stupid things after a good drink.
So ethics can be a real challenge… and always interesting when two smart guys actually can see several sides of the issue.
The game:
There is a full table of players, one of whom is drunk (so drunk his judgement may be impaired).
A. A player is promoting alcohol to the drunk and appearing to be in more of a ‘loss of judgement’ mode than he really is.
B. A 2nd player, Andrew, wants to promote a congenial atmosphere, but has questions about the morality of inducing drunks to continue to play/drink more at the table
C. A 3rd player has hoodie, headphones, IPAD and cares less about how convivial the atmosphere is, or how bad he vexes the drunk, even risking the drunk’s departure from the game.
Andrew is ‘aggravated with [player C] who is failing to do his part’ in creating an environment attractive to others.
If this is a fair representation of the game…..
Who exactly is the ‘honest’ player at the game? Is player C not the least morally ambiguous player of the three? Is morality equated with honesty? It seems to me to be a decent place to start.
And then I find out that there are “life nits” and those who put the “principles of the game” ahead of their possible increased win rate. Wow, seems very condescending from players who are probably among the best at whatever stakes they sit down at (correct me if I am wrong here guys).
If my bankroll is close to the bone, and I am trying to avoid variance, I could see many reasons not to let drunks/bad players buy in with amounts not allowed by ‘rules’. What if I am the losing/break even player? Should my possible losses be disregarded due to Andrew/Nate’s possible increased win? (and really, wouldn’t you get the money eventually anyway?)
And, for hosts who just minutes ago spoke about morality and poker, would their willingness for bad players to buy in for greater amounts than allowe be influenced at all by their potential increased wins from these players? Perhaps, and this is just me, it is best for the bad player to buy in smaller, giving him the chance to NOT lose as much in his first buy-in, and perhaps having his decision to coninue playing or NOT buy in again come earlier, say at $500 instead of $600. The rules of the casino DO at times protect the players from themselves. Maybe there are good aspects of having a max limit to games (table as well as poker) and perhaps many families are greatful for them.
Morals are tough, interesting to watch y’all wrestle with them. Funny how quickly they diverge at times from my point of view. And not saying mine are right at all.
Tommy Angelo has a very intersting take on some issues. One of his is “Do no harm”. In a podcast with Bart Hanson he says, (my paraphrase) “there is really little difference between a player berating a fish for beating him in a pot the fish misplayed, with a professional berating another player for not being nice to the fish (not being enough of a professional)”
I always liked Tommy !
which