Rick's Cafe Americain

I’ve had enough of two table poker online.  Having the tables shift back and forth gives me a headache.  Playing in two home games, on the other hand, is a different story.  There were games at the Blue Parrot (Signor Ferrari, prop.) and at A.M. II (a home game of NL ring hosted by the organizers of the A.M. tournament).

Great post. I’m still kicking myself for calling that that damn Omaha
round. I shouldn’t have limped in with a crappy buy-in and then played
omaha with that many people ‘specially since i don’t really know what the
good hands are. I’m goign to limit myself to goign for the lo and if i
don’t have the wheel just sit out.

Sitting in the corner of the table didn’t help, I got passed alot as well ;)

I thought my party poker omaha hi/lo would help me improve, evidently not
enough lol.

I’ve been reading through your blog and it’s really well written and
interesting. I should venture out more on my poker blogs, but I think I’ve
found a new favorite

Mind if I link you up on mine? I’m going to put up a Poker Section.

nice playing with you again

Much props to Diane who got to post a comment before the recap officially went live.  She visited Rick’s after I uploaded the incomplete post by accident but before I took it down.

Of course you can link.  You’ll find your own link in the Game Room momentarily.

On the “nuts” question, I have to give Ferrari credit for thinking about this issue more carefully (and apparently passionately) than I ever have, but I have to agree with Ugarte.  My use of the term “nuts” has always been relative to the hand being played.  In other words, you have the nuts if there is no possible hand that can beat yours.  In Ugarte’s example, AK is the nuts because AA is not possible if you have AK.

The distinction between aces full and the wheel that Ferrari makes is spurious.  Otherwise, the “nuts” in any high-only game will always be a royal flush.  For the term to have meaning, it has to refer to the highest possible hand.

Furthermore, I personally use the term nuts to refer to hands which are the best possible hand at the time, but which may be beaten if there are cards to come.  To illustrate, let’s take another example, which I will call “mixed nuts”:

In Hold ‘Em with a flop of A 5 7 (all spades), If I am holding KQ (spades), I would say I was holding the nuts.  Should the board pair up (A 5 7 7), the nuts would be four-of-a-kind, but if you are holding 7 5, then you have the nuts.  Should a 4 of spades fall on the river, however, the idiot who stayed in with 68s suddenly has the nuts.

flaw in your analysis, rick.  (and I thought you were a careful lawyer).  7-5 is not the nuts on a board of A-5-7-7, as it can be beaten by A-7 and A-A.  But does that make A-A the nuts?  No, because A-A can’t know that 7-7 isn’t out there.  So then A-7 is the nuts, right?  No…

Heh, anyway, 7-5 at the least can be beaten, so it can’t be considered the nuts.

Oops.  7-5 is indeed not the nuts in that scenario.  77 is.

I am a careful lawyer.  I’m not a careful poker blogger.

Regarding issue 1, I am not going to take Ugarte’s bait to try and start re-arguing this issue.  Needless to say, I don’t agree with his characterization of my position and he left out the only thing I was really disagreeing with him on (whether AK high with that board was the same as having the wheel low)

Regarding issue 2, I’ll respond only because (1) although Ugarte and I have talked about this privately before, he apparently wants to air it in open; (2) his criticism implicitly relates to how I run/police my home game.

Does Swish not follow the “etiquettes” of poker?  Yes.  Does he bet out of turn?  Yes.  Does everyone (Ugarte included) usually end up betting out turn at some point during the night?  Yes.  Does Swish do it more than anyone else?  Yes.  Does he need to be reminded, from time to time over the night to pay attention to it?  Yes.  Do I occasionally remind him, and others, when they do that or other things to remember the basic rules?  Yes.  Does Swish (and others in the past) deserve to have a certain individual yell at him, insult him and generally bring a negative and holier than though attitude to the table when he gets on one of those high horses?  No.  Is Swish the only individual this certain person has done this to?  No.  Does Swish bet so often that when he does bet out of turn it rarely impacts the game and much less rarely to his benefit (unless accidental)?  Yes.  Is Swish by far the most fun person who ever comes to my home games to play poker with?  Yes.  Is Swish someone who is trying to take advantage of people in any of his etiquette errors?  Absolutely not!  Did I specifically, in my email invite, mention that I wanted the game to get less harsh and serious as people had complained the games were getting less fun AND singled out Ugarte as the person who would hopefully “loosen up”?  Yes.  Did I feel embarrased that someone was being publically insulted and yelled at at MY home game?  Yes.  Did I feel the need last night to rather sharply tell Ugarte that he really needed to calm down and chill out?  Yes (and I did, in case that was ambiguous).  Is it true that the when the table dropped down to Pauly, Swish, Helmut, Diane and myself that the truly great and fun poker playing began and the reason we played until 5:30 a.m. was because we were having too much fun to stop?  Yes (and for the record, I was probably down $150 after 3 a.m.).  Is it true that the Blue Parrot is a casino?  No.

That’s a whole lot of “yes"es, Signor. You can either choose to care or give a free pass.  I think it EXPLICITLY relates to how you police your home game.

I think I paint a fairly accurate picture of my own behavior, so there is no need to pretend I am some kind of holier-than-thou prig.  I have a long enough fuse that it takes a LOT of betting out of turn to get me to blow. But when I blow, it can be nuclear. (Nuclear bombs have a fuse? -ed.) Take me or leave me, that’s me.

I never accused Swish of either trying to take advantage of people or benefitting from his careless betting.  It is beside the point.  This isn’t the first time “who’s advantage is it” has managed to make an appearance in a discussion of rules by you. It shouldn’t.

Why do you think “less harsh and serious” means “anything goes”? I’ve played in enough other home games that I can assure you that following the rules and a chill atmosphere are not mutually exclusive.  That you felt the need to “sharply” chastise me and never felt any obligation to say anything to Swish speaks volumes.

I have often said things to Swish, so don’t lie.  However, I don’t yell at or belittle him and don’t plan on doing that to anyone.  Also, Swish has never yelled at another player or insulted another player.  I chatised you when you got verbally insulting towards him, were yelling (may not be intentional, but you (like me) can get very loud and it sounds like yelling to everone else) and using profanity (and I mean profanity while complaining about him, we all cus, that’s fine, there is a difference and no I am not accusing you of lobbying a profanity “at” him).

I don’t think it is too much for me to ask that my guests don’t insult other guests and don’t yell at other guests.  When you crossed that line I got annoyed and chatised you.  If anyone else did it, I would tell them to chill too.  And, as you have pointed out on numerous occasions, you are the only one that seems to really get annoyed at Swish. 

Your holier-than-thou attitude is represented by your comment just now.  I like playing with you Charles, but if you are telling me that inviting you means that you get to yell at, insult and chastise players who you don’t think play correctly and that I have to accept that you may go “nuclear” (your words) if someone is not playing how YOU think they should play at MY game, then maybe you shouldn’t. 

So yes, when you put it in those terms, I choose to care.  I am asking that if you (or anyone) comes to play at my game, that you agree not to go nuclear on people in the future (leaving aside actual cheating or someone personally insulting you).  I don’t think that is unreasonable.  If you think it is, then don’t come.

Also, on a less confrontational note, I think that you are not always aware of how negative and belligerent you can get when you get pissed off.  I tend to have the same problem, which is partially why I am aware of it. 

Finally, while you may think differently, I do not think you accurately represented the situation in your description.

I won’t continue this here.  You appear to think it worthwhile to paint me as a raving lunatic and the debate isn’t likely to get any friendlier.

get a room.