Episode 38: Zach “Private Joker” Ralston

32 thoughts on “Episode 38: Zach “Private Joker” Ralston”

1. Bovada probably has the most stallers in their tournaments i’ve ever seen. I was in a freeroll tournament where i got the ticket using the poker points (same as VPPs in pokerstars) to enter. The payout in the tournament was super flat but there’s one guy at my table was waiting for his timebank to run out before folding every single hand. It was brutal for everybody. He finally woke up with QQ and ran into AA, winning a little more than 2 dollars.

   I was then moved to another table and felt so relieved b/c I can finally play some poker, only to find two guys at the new table was stalling as well! One guy busted early and the other stalled all his way from sth. like $3.75 to $6.00 before losing all his chips. This particular tournament only runs twice a month and has a reasonably well structure but thanks to the stallers it eventually became a crapshoot b/c everybody was so shallow in the end.

   Too bad bovada give players poker points as rakeback which can only be converted to tournament tickets. With some many people stalling in the tournament it’s really a pain in the axx to play.

2. “prices were really high for direct flights, in the $400-range” – wow, what a Poker Baller!!! lol 😉

3. Looks like the 2+2 party is on Day 1a. Does that alter day choice equity materially?

   • I don’t know. It’s not going to change my decision because I’m only getting in Friday night and want to give myself a day to recover. But it’s a good question.

4. Thank you guys very much for spending so much time talking about my hand. It really means a lot to me.

   This particular satellite could fall into the category of “value outways bankroll management”. It’s actually a rebuy, where you get a starting stack of 2000 chips for $7 and unlimited (if you don’t have more than 2000 chips) 2000 chip rebuys for $7, then during the first break there’s a $7 add-on for 10,000 chips. Bottom line for whatever reason there’s a good amount of players not taking the add-on where they are getting 5:1 on their money in chips. This happens in normal rebuys on Bovada, but seems like more so on these satellites. I figured even if I was an average Bovada player (which I’m much better than) there’s a lot of value from just buying in and adding on during the first break. Plus the cheap shot for the value of the thrill of playing way above my bankroll far outweighs whatever small bank roll mistake I may be making IMHO. But I understand it’s really for the gamble more than optimal bankroll management.

   Also I didn’t realize it either at the time I was playing or when I wrote the email, but after the infinite increase of the money bubble the pay jump from 19th to 18th is actually the biggest relative pay jump of the tournament ($530 to $930, almost 80%). So I do think this particular pay jump merits special consideration. Of course that’s even more reason to fold my eights in that spot.

   I don’t feel the mistakes I made were a function of playing above my bankroll, I think it’s more a function of not having enough experience in those spots. So I decided after I get back from vacation at the end of the month I’m going to join TPE. Your constant TPE plugs started to wear me down, and you review of my hand was the final nail; I’m convince I could probably use some more help.

5. I play a lot of sats. It comes from not having the time to commit to an MTT and when Full Tilt used to let you convert your winnings to tournament dollars. The fields are extra soft and anyone that has SNG skills can make it profitable. I used to average about 25 SNGs a day but with the current state of online it might take 8 hours before the fields fill up for that amount. So I will light up a sat instead.
   I did win a $2500 sat for $30 on FT for my second WSOP experience back in 2008 plus FT swag that I can never wear in public again. With a BR of only $2K at the time I don’t think I would have gone without it. Of course I didn’t last 4 levels but the experience in itself was worth the $30 100 times over.

   • So if it’s worth $30 100 time over then there’s a $500 overlay then.

6. Poker situations like stalling were the first situations where I really understood the ‘act like your actions determine a universal rule’ (the Kantian imperative?) rule of ethics.

7. Kudos to Nate for dropping some economics on us. I agree that slowplay meets a lot of conditions of a Tragedy of the Commons, but it is not a pure case. there is no public good here. These tournaments are private and managed. In other words, the Tragedy of the Commons involves the ability for unlimited consumption up to the point of extinction of resources. In the prototypical example, one rancher can overgraze on public land, and this forces others to do the same or lose out, leading to complete consumption of all available land. In a poker tournament, players do not have an unlimited amount of time. There are limits, so the problem is that the lmits are not proper or properly enforced. There is a hardship imposed but a Tragedy cannot occur.
   What we see with the Doc Sands example is that others do not follow suit and there is no way to consume all of the resource (time). This suggest what is happening is Doc Sands and others like him are imposing a negative externality (a cost) on other players. They are essentially polluting.

   The economics literature also weighs in on Nate’s solution: shaming. In a classic Tragedy of the Commons, shaming works in small groups, but becomes ineffective in larger pools. In the example of the Hutterite communities (deeply religious clans in the Northwestern US who produce what they can and share based upon need), shame successfully keeps folks in check until the community grows to about 150 members. Beyond that level, shame is insufficient to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons. I suspect most poker tournaments are too large for shaming to be sufficient.

   As with polluting, the best solution is enforcement of rules. So the time limit and time bank employed by online sites works because technology makes it easy to enforce. In live poker, until clock technology is provided at every table to be enforced by the dealer, enforcement falls on the other players.

   Remember your ABCs. A, Always; B, Be; C, Closing.

   • I played with Doc Sands for an entire day at last year’s WSOP in a 1500 event and he didn’t stall that much. He did three-bet my UTG open in UTG+1 with pocket threes though, which got a third player to cold four-bet and me to fold a hand I should have gone with.

     In any case, I could see him stalling in the 25k WPT championship or what have you and not giving a shit about what other people think. I think lack of charm or diplomacy may be coming into play here. Just because the guy read Ayn Rand he gets singled out. I think its up to the rules to come down on him seeing as he has no reason to justify himself and nor should he. The idea that there are unwritten rules in situations like this (who wrote them? where are they? oh people on high horses who know them you say?) is kind of silly given the enormous structurality of the game. Like online, just one more structural wrinkle is necessary.

     What do I know though, I would have gone with (still would) the pocket eights.

     • Here’s a Bluff article that says when he first played high stakes poker he was very concerned about giving off tells, and he wanted to take longer to process information, and over the last 10 months or so he’s been one of the faster players at the table:

       http://www.bluff.com/magazine/shifting-sands-13973/

       I don’t buy it. I’m sure there is a comfort level factor, but I think him getting shamed was the major motivating factor in him speeding up.

       As far as the pocket eights, I think I may have taken too long (about 20 seconds), and that may have turned my hand face up in the villain’s eyes. I wonder if I insta-shoved if he folds tens there.

       • I guess that insidious peer pressure persists.

         re the eights. Folding tens for >20bb effective stacks is just not going to happen. So don’t worry about it in terms of timing. Taking 20 may weaken your perceived range on average, but it will spook some people as well. Either way I don’t think any 99 at the table is likely to ever fold given you and UTG’s stack sizes. It would be an error too at an 8 handed table on a US facing site, imo.

     • “I think its up to the rules to come down on him seeing as he has no reason to justify himself and nor should he. The idea that there are unwritten rules in situations like this (who wrote them? where are they? oh people on high horses who know them you say?) is kind of silly given the enormous structurality of the game.”

       Gareth, you seem to think that anything not codified by the rules is just something intoned by people on high horses. I think that’s a false view–all sorts of very necessary mechanisms in poker are left for the players to enforce, be it because it would be too complicated to put down in words or for any number of other reasons. It’s instructive to notice how complicated a good shot-clock/time-bank would be for brick-and-mortar play. This suggests that we don’t have explicit rules about this not because it’s just a matter of opinion or because it’s not important, but rather simply because it’s the sort of thing better left to the players to enforce.

       Anyway, it _is_ against the rules to take 15 seconds every hand. It’s against the rule barring players from behaving in unsportsmanlike ways, and it’s also punishable via the rule allowing the floorman to make determinations in the best interest of the game.

       I think we had a similar disagreement in the jackpot-tipping thread. The core of the disagreement seems to be that you think that there’s an exclusive dichotomy between what the rules explicitly tell you you have to do and what peer pressure dictates. I think, rather, that there are things that are neither of these.

       • Right. So if there is a rule barring unsportsmanlike conduct or what have you, then the 15s per hand thing can be kept in line. No need to publicly shame anyone. I don’t even like Doc fwiw, haha I find myself in the weird position of defending him. But it seems like there is recourse for those at the table by your latest post.

         I agree that there are things that are neither of these, that’s a fair point. The difference is I don’t think they are either agreed upon or enforceable (like the floor enforcing the best interest of the game rule) and they certainly aren’t justifiable. In other words they don’t matter.

         We just aren’t going to agree on a lot of things prima facie (I feel, but could be wrong) because you seem to believe ethics exist and/or morality exists. And I don’t. And often people are confused or assume I do because of the way I act. I think everything is lawful but not everything is expedient. I agree with Locke (among others) that the nonexistence of god dissolves the shackles of morality.

         You can have a personal ethic, but its a project you undertake for the improvement of your own lot (which could of course include the lot of those around you), and certainly shouldn’t go about proselytizing those personal ethic (not that you have been, not saying that).

         The jackpot example is a great one, now again, correct me if I am mis-organizing your thoughts or mis-characterizing your conclusions (haven’t re-listened so I am probably a favourite to be doing so atm had I to guess). But you and Andrew actually talked about what the “social norm” of the place was in contributing to your decision. That just strikes me as total fish talk. If that social norm wasn’t obviously arbitrary independent of comparison, why would you factor the equilibrium consensus of whatever climate has emerged in some backwater culture that is a casino’s culture? And since every cultural consensus is arbitrary if not put through a sieve of logic, the fact that its unwritten rules exist merely implies their violation will incur the scorn of its people. Well that repercussion, I think we can all agree, is of no concern to me!

         • Also, though I don’t think this obligatory (I do it under my own free will haha) I want to state for those reading (and perhaps assuming the opposite), that I love Nate and Andrew. If I were to ever meet someone who I agreed with on the majority of things, that person would bore me very much. And besides their various perspicacious capacities, they are both awesome. Whenever I see them next they will be hugged, whether they want to be or not, because, like other ‘hugging people’, I pay these social norms no mind. So there!

           • So does that mean you would hug anyone who would fold pocket eights in that spot then?

             • Fold or shove, I am an equal-opportunity hugger :).

   • Piefarmer,

     Thanks for the great reply. I suppose this is what happens when philosophers try to do economics without brushing up first. I sometimes hear the term “Tragedy of the Commons” used more loosely than you describe, simply to describe a situation where there is a common (not necessarily public) resource, and everyone would be better off under a system where that resource were consumed according to certain rules, and any individual person is better off consuming more than those rules would permit. I’m fairly sure that time (in a poker tournament) is like this, if not a classic TotC.

     Hopefully I didn’t botch it too badly!

     Thanks again.

     • You didn’t botch it and I congratulate you for using it. But there was an educational opportunity to take what you applied loosely and give it a little sharpness. Plus, dialog such as this helps me stay sharp on stuff that doesn’t come up every day. I think if I tried to describe Tragedy of the Commons offhand as you did, I would have done worse. But I have the benefit of time to research, something not available in your spurious (see what I did there) conversation.

8. Hi,

   I’ve been enjoyng your podcasts so far but at @17 minutes into episode 38 one of you refer to entering a satellite for a tournament that you would not be normally bankrolled to play as like ‘getting raped”. I find that extremely insensitive to females that have been raped’. Untill you have had a loved one raped or been raped yourselves you might want to re-thnk the term.

   Shirley Williams

   • Shirley,

     Thanks for the kind words about the show and for voicing your concern here. I agree with the insensitivity of using rape analogies in such a casual way, and unfortunately it’s quite common in the online poker world: “raping the blinds”, “raping the bubble”, I’ve even heard “so-and-so rapes” to means that so-and-so is a great player or just great all around person.

     I’m 99.9% sure that what Nate says at 16:38 is that “it’s like getting raked the difference between $162 and the certainty equivalent of…”. He’s saying that you lose value by winning a satellite seat because that seat is worth less to you than its cash equivalent.

     I sincerely hope that this is just a misunderstanding, because I would also be troubled if Nate had compared playing above your bankroll to sexual assault, but I don’t think that’s what happened.

     Thanks for listening, and for commenting.

     Andrew

   • “Untill you have had a loved one raped or been raped yourselves you might want to re-thnk the term.”

     In addition to this piece of logic you might also want to rethink your working definition of analogies.

     • I’m not sure this was warranted. She obviously meant that I should rethink _how I use_ the term, which is fair enough (on the false assumption that I said “rape” and not “rake”).

       • I was considering a third line making clear that I was only representing my own personal views, not those of the show. Surely I think anyone could have guessed that. Well maybe not Shirley.

         Nate states that he would not use rape in an analogy and that he would apologize had he. So to be clear, my position should not misrepresent his position. But because being offended at said use would be a choice of the person who heard it, I would defend Nate’s use of rape, should he ever freely choose to make it. With a good deal of indifference I might add, because people who can’t hear words and use logic in processing them are not adults. And people who claim their personal offense is the merited interest of speakers/writers/producers of content are also not adults. Why such crying-to-daddy behaviour has been sanctioned is anyone’s guess. In any case, I don’t respect it, much less condone it.

         Offense is created in the mind of the listener/reader/consumer– not the creator/speaker/writer. That is apart from the obvious point that anything can and should be used in writing/locution for the purposes of finding the best, most colourful, or most illuminating analogy.

         I would be embarrassed to apologize to this kind of comment. Exercises like the one Nate is taking on, culling himself of language-as-violence (as opposed to meaning-as-intention) I view, again my own opinion, as childish — the sanitizing of something that isn’t dirty.

         • Perhaps youre right in this situation but I think you do have sometimes have to take into account certain contradictions and situatons in our society. Let me give you an example.
           In the 80’s a friend of mine, an African American, and I attended a nite club. The guy at the door looking at our tickets and said “Youre the wrong color.”. Meaning our tickets. We were on the wrong nite. I knew what he meant but my friend exploded. People had to jump in and calm the situation down. Of course the speaker did not mean anything pernicious and I don’t think the hearer was childish at all. Tish happens so to speak.
           I don’t think we have to be so harsh with Shirley. We don’t know where she comes from. Things can be sorted out with civil discussion and sensitivity. After all we are poker players and we are always trying to suss out deeper meanings and intent.

           • That is a pretty funny story (now) that I am sure was scary at the time.

             I mean, of course you are right, diplomacy will always best ridicule in situations like this, and often (or at least in your example) teasing out an ambiguity is definitely preferable to jumping the gun. I just see a mentality in today’s culture that takes being offended as a something that indicates that the offending world (ie the outside world) needs to change. Actually, making an internal change would be more advisable, even if the affront is offensive to human rights or the rule of law or to enlightenment values or what have you (which, had Nate been so crass as he was charged, wouldn’t have been the case). I tire of adults using this language of offense as currency for the inducement of companies, writers, whatever. Could I have been less caustic and still made the same (or better) points? Yes…

             Let me give you an example I like to think about. A lot of people would love a prohibition on racist language (and of course, racism in general). I would like the latter (no racism, since it is senseless, specious, and illusory amongst other things) but not the former. Why would I like to not have any prohibitions on racist language? Well one thing is, I would like to know where the racists are!

             People will never fail to display their own bigotry if given opportunity. I would like them to have that opportunity. I would like people’s bigotry out in the open. That’s going to be much more malleable and useful in my view than underground racism. Also, in a space of free speech and free exchange of ideas, racism is never going to win any war (even if it appears to win battles) because it will collapse in any reasoned argument.

             Now I’m really getting on a tangent, but there was a case of some students in the US hanging a racist banner at some liberal arts university outside their dorm room. They were expelled. This is incredibly self-defeating behaviour, it seems to me, for the defenders of freedom. What better place to enlighten these lost young minds than at a liberal arts university! Keep them there, where they can learn the error of their views best! Certainly don’t be releasing racists out into society unchecked.

             If you are so committed to ‘education’ what better opportunity? Instead what, you make them look (in some people’s eyes) as suppressed martyrs. I say leave the banner up and have the university construct some tents and kiosks (or whatever) facing it, making arguments contrary to their racist message, and invite them to a moderated debate. I mean, maybe I’m just a sadist, but if you really want to embarrass people, you have to be creative, not just reactionary.

             • I personally make a distinction between bigotry (prejudice) and racism. I will defend your right to feel any way you want but the minute you have the power over me to deny me my right to participate then that’s another story. For example I get a lot of flack because I am Asian at poker gatherings. You know lame ass jokes about our slants, our women and their slants, and all kinds of tish you can think of. The brits to this day think the word Chinaman is ok as judged by their golf and tennis commentary when describing our people.
               I let it slide like water off a ducks back. Like Carlos. But the minute they don’t allow me to extract money off of them on the felt then we go to war.
               I come from Hawaii and the contradictories abound. I mean imagine a place where all our land was annexed, our beloved Queen incarcerated, and only less than 1% of the population is of pure Hawaiian ancestry because of genocide. You cant deprive me of my bigotry. I laugh when people like Richard Gere lives in a beautiful mansion on our island and preaches to us about the sanctity of Tibet and Chinas imperialist nature. Those people are so funny!

   • Shirley,

     Thank you very much for writing. I am always more grateful for negative feedback than positive feedback.

     That said, I absolutely said “raked” and not “raped”–I was talking about losing a portion of a buyin, so the metaphor to the rake a casino takes seemed to me to fit. A second bit of evidence: just as a matter of grammar, not of ethics, I’ve never used the verb “rape” as taking a direct object that is not the victim. To my ear it would be not only crass but also improper English to say that one had been raped $10.

     Quite apart from that, I’ve made a project of not falling into the sort of casual references to rape (etc.) that are lamentably common in the poker world–it’s actually quite important to me not to do so.

     I wholeheartedly agree with you that this sort of casual comment is unacceptable, and I hope you believe both that I wouldn’t use such a metaphor and that I’d sincerely apologize if I had.

9. He clearly says “raked” and it was one of the better ideas in recent podcast memory. Whenever you play for a prize that deviates in utility from the cash equivalent, you are paying an additional rake. Very well put NM.

   • In Shirley’s defense if you took what Nate said and what Shirley thought she heard and compared them side by side, both statements would make about an equal amount of sense to me (meaning Nate’s comment was a little over my head).

     • Did you say HEAD? What next I ask you?

10. Interesting comments. I said what I had to say. In today’s world there is free speech for me and each of you that responded. I will no longer be following these comments.

Comments are closed.