Monday, March 11, 2013

SOAPBOX UPDATE - Answering your “questions”

I received a couple of responses to my recent soapbox rants; one by email and one at work (where we talk about poker, sometimes).  Well, OK, they weren’t really questions in that “you didn’t understand,” but more like “you didn’t agree.”  In some ways, I can see why you might not be of the same mind as me, but it could be that I didn’t fully explain myself, rather than the fact that I might, just might, be full of it.  I only want these posts to go on for so long, y’know.

So, here goes…

Regarding Part Three, where I said that the casino companies that “have the most toys” will eventually wind up the winners - taking umbrage with my position that major casinos being against PokerStars buying a casino in Atlantic City isn’t inconsistent - yes, it is.

I have a problem with casino companies being both for and against gambling.  I mean, I know they’re “for” it because that’s their business, but when they take the side of the anti-gamers, that’s an inconsistent position, and makes me wonder what I can believe from them…ever.  When they position themselves as being against an expansion of gambling, just because it’s in another state, that’s inconsistent.  I know WHY they do it, but it would be better if they kept their mouth shut (and their money to themselves).  If “Casino M” has a stake in State A, but State B wants to legalize gaming, yeah, it’s gonna affect their bottom line.  No kidding.  Buy WHY would you position yourself as being on the “no gaming in State B” side just because you’re not going to be the one who gets to set up shop there?  I’ve seen this play out time and time again, and, with corporate consolidation the way it is, it has turned out that companies who fought to keep gaming out of State B wound up buying other casinos that were in State B, so talk about wasted money.  Besides, it’s stupid.  If you’re in the gaming business, you’re for gaming.  Once you take the other side…you’re just another greedy business, and why in the world would I want to patronize you?

Regarding Part Two, and my war against Zynga - well, if you’ve followed this blog long enough, you know I rarely have anything nice to say about Zynga.  To prove my point that they are long on social and short on strategy, I decided to play in their shootout tourneys.  It’s basically three Sit N Gos - first round winner goes to the next table, and then progressing to the final table.  You get your money back if you win the first table, and profit only if you make the final three of the second table (the big money being for the final table, of course).  Of course, “money” is nothing here - it’s all free play.  That’s the important thing, because the “strategy” here, as far as I can tell, is to go all-in on the first hand, no matter what cards you hold.  As of this writing, it’s been 36 39 straight first table games where at least three players (of nine) have gone all in.  A few have had quality hands (pocket Queens, Kings, A-K suited), but most are on the line of 9-5o, 6-3 suited, that kind of crap.  And, as you can imagine, when there are several players involved in a free-for-all hand like that, it’s usually the skany hand that wins.  And then the bozo goes all-in the very next hand, too.

One more thing - of those 36 39 tourneys, I was able to get to Round Two five seven times (only once did I go all in on my first hand - pocket Kings that held up).  In Round Two, someone went all in every time on the first hand (usually had three or four followers).  I made it out of that mess of land mines once to the final table, where…you guessed it - someone went all in (he had J-10 suited, and lost to a 4-flusher A-5o).  That’s poker.

Strategy, my ass, though.

No comments:

Post a Comment