Somebody Has to Pay 
PLAYING $1 AND $2 NO LIMIT CASH GAMES with Sam O’Connor
SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY
Overheard recently in a 2-4 limit game:
Jack: “This is crazy. I’ve been playing here for two hours. Nobody has left the game and no new players have come into the game. Nobody’s a winner and we’re all trying to get even. Where did the money go?”
Jill: “You can say goodbye to the money; it’s gone forever. The money keeps traveling back and forth across the table until it wears out.”
Jill, of course, is right. And that’s the reason we move up to bigger games when we have gained the skill and confidence to play on the other side of the room, you know, with the big boys and girls. We want to win bigger and pay a lower percentage of our win to the house. It makes perfect sense.
It also prompts the question: Would you give a poker room $100 so you could play 1-2 no limit hold‘em for five hours?
Except when we’re playing in a home game, all of us small blinds no limit players pay at least $100 for five hours of play. And not always just $100. Those who keep these kinds of records concerning rake and gratuities, show we often pay more than that. But the good part is we pay as we go, pot by pot. We’re on the installment plan.
For fun, let’s look at the possibility of a one time, up front fee.
Picture it. You approach the floor person and tell him/her you want a seat at a 1-2 no limit table for five hours. You pay a Ben Franklin at the desk for the house’s services. Then you buy into the game for, say, $300 and set about getting your c-note back. When you can arrange that first win of $100, you have, in effect, made others at the table pay your fee. After that, your winnings are all profit. Fine. There will be no rake and no tokes because you are not on the rake-and-toke installment plan; you’ve selected a one time cash arrangement for rake and gratuity, like buying a used car for less because you paid the entire cost of the car in cash, up front.
Back to reality.
Now let’s look at the best way to pay that almost inevitable $100 five hour cost with the rake-and-toke installment plan. The pay-as-you-go plan is the only one available at the low blind level because we pay it somewhat painlessly and it is the easiest way for the house to sell its services at this level.
Can we beat the cost by playing only a few pots very tightly and aggressively to keep our share of the total rake low? There are some 1-2 no limit players who implement that theory almost every day. (No, I’m not kidding.)
Or should we play a mixed game so we can have more design in our play, get more action and bigger, more consistent wins? It’ll cost more, but maybe that way we’ll be able to afford more than $100 for our five hours of play. Most experienced players will choose this mixed, more active and expensive, pay-while-you-play method. They’ll be going for the bigger win.
Let’s assume every reader of this column is a good player and, in games in which we play, we are able to pay our $100 or more on the installment plan and go on to be winner for the five hour period. Who is footing the bill?
The losers at the table, quite naturally, are the ones who pay for everything. After the house claims its share, the good and/or lucky players get what else the losers give up and we are pleased to call it profit. We share with the house and it all happens gradually because we’re on the installment plan. We like it that way.
It follows that the key is opponents who will pay the house bill and who will fall prey to our win. The house has almost no risk but we players have plenty of risk in that we are dependant on our skills in a sometimes narrow margin of play. On the other hand, unlike the house, our win opportunities are unlimited.
Have you noticed that players play the game of no limit much better than they used to? Many now are well past the embryo stage. For them, reading poker books is paying off. After some brick and mortar experience, many infants have become grown up players and they aren’t as easy to beat as they used to be.
Now, let’s say you can find a 10-20 no limit hold’em game you like. Most houses charge $14 an hour to play in this kind of game. In five hours that comes to $70 and we’ll say you toke the dealers $30 during the five hours you’re at the table. Ah, the total is $100, the same as the lowest estimate for 1-2.
In the case of 10-20, the $100 cost is about equal to one preflop raise. In other words, you need to be only five times the big blind ahead to pay your bill. This seems worthwhile and in truth it is. Of course the game is generally played at a different skill level than 1-2 but, nevertheless, the bill is much more cost effective than in the 1-2 game. You’ll just need a bigger bankroll and a whole lot more confidence. And in most 10-20 games you’ll have to buy in for at least $5,000 in order to play comfortably.
In general, the lower you play, the higher the percentage you pay. Conversely, the higher you play, the lower the percentage.
After all this analysis, we see that braving the cost of the 1-2 game still makes good sense because of opportunity at the lower skill level.
Don’t forget. We still shouldn’t get into any game, large or small, without some producers at the table who will pay the house cost, the gratuities, and our profit.
Look around any table at any level in which you are playing. See if there are any soft spots. Someone will have to pay the bill. Will it be you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam O’Connor is the author of the new book How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold ‘Em. You can contact him at HowToDominate@aol.com
SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY
Overheard recently in a 2-4 limit game:
Jack: “This is crazy. I’ve been playing here for two hours. Nobody has left the game and no new players have come into the game. Nobody’s a winner and we’re all trying to get even. Where did the money go?”
Jill: “You can say goodbye to the money; it’s gone forever. The money keeps traveling back and forth across the table until it wears out.”
Jill, of course, is right. And that’s the reason we move up to bigger games when we have gained the skill and confidence to play on the other side of the room, you know, with the big boys and girls. We want to win bigger and pay a lower percentage of our win to the house. It makes perfect sense.
It also prompts the question: Would you give a poker room $100 so you could play 1-2 no limit hold‘em for five hours?
Except when we’re playing in a home game, all of us small blinds no limit players pay at least $100 for five hours of play. And not always just $100. Those who keep these kinds of records concerning rake and gratuities, show we often pay more than that. But the good part is we pay as we go, pot by pot. We’re on the installment plan.
For fun, let’s look at the possibility of a one time, up front fee.
Picture it. You approach the floor person and tell him/her you want a seat at a 1-2 no limit table for five hours. You pay a Ben Franklin at the desk for the house’s services. Then you buy into the game for, say, $300 and set about getting your c-note back. When you can arrange that first win of $100, you have, in effect, made others at the table pay your fee. After that, your winnings are all profit. Fine. There will be no rake and no tokes because you are not on the rake-and-toke installment plan; you’ve selected a one time cash arrangement for rake and gratuity, like buying a used car for less because you paid the entire cost of the car in cash, up front.
Back to reality.
Now let’s look at the best way to pay that almost inevitable $100 five hour cost with the rake-and-toke installment plan. The pay-as-you-go plan is the only one available at the low blind level because we pay it somewhat painlessly and it is the easiest way for the house to sell its services at this level.
Can we beat the cost by playing only a few pots very tightly and aggressively to keep our share of the total rake low? There are some 1-2 no limit players who implement that theory almost every day. (No, I’m not kidding.)
Or should we play a mixed game so we can have more design in our play, get more action and bigger, more consistent wins? It’ll cost more, but maybe that way we’ll be able to afford more than $100 for our five hours of play. Most experienced players will choose this mixed, more active and expensive, pay-while-you-play method. They’ll be going for the bigger win.
Let’s assume every reader of this column is a good player and, in games in which we play, we are able to pay our $100 or more on the installment plan and go on to be winner for the five hour period. Who is footing the bill?
The losers at the table, quite naturally, are the ones who pay for everything. After the house claims its share, the good and/or lucky players get what else the losers give up and we are pleased to call it profit. We share with the house and it all happens gradually because we’re on the installment plan. We like it that way.
It follows that the key is opponents who will pay the house bill and who will fall prey to our win. The house has almost no risk but we players have plenty of risk in that we are dependant on our skills in a sometimes narrow margin of play. On the other hand, unlike the house, our win opportunities are unlimited.
Have you noticed that players play the game of no limit much better than they used to? Many now are well past the embryo stage. For them, reading poker books is paying off. After some brick and mortar experience, many infants have become grown up players and they aren’t as easy to beat as they used to be.
Now, let’s say you can find a 10-20 no limit hold’em game you like. Most houses charge $14 an hour to play in this kind of game. In five hours that comes to $70 and we’ll say you toke the dealers $30 during the five hours you’re at the table. Ah, the total is $100, the same as the lowest estimate for 1-2.
In the case of 10-20, the $100 cost is about equal to one preflop raise. In other words, you need to be only five times the big blind ahead to pay your bill. This seems worthwhile and in truth it is. Of course the game is generally played at a different skill level than 1-2 but, nevertheless, the bill is much more cost effective than in the 1-2 game. You’ll just need a bigger bankroll and a whole lot more confidence. And in most 10-20 games you’ll have to buy in for at least $5,000 in order to play comfortably.
In general, the lower you play, the higher the percentage you pay. Conversely, the higher you play, the lower the percentage.
After all this analysis, we see that braving the cost of the 1-2 game still makes good sense because of opportunity at the lower skill level.
Don’t forget. We still shouldn’t get into any game, large or small, without some producers at the table who will pay the house cost, the gratuities, and our profit.
Look around any table at any level in which you are playing. See if there are any soft spots. Someone will have to pay the bill. Will it be you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam O’Connor is the author of the new book How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold ‘Em. You can contact him at HowToDominate@aol.com