(Poker) Never piss off people at a jackpot Bad Beat table...

[SirFozzie]

(Saw this story on ESPN's Poker Club)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=bluff_magazine&id=2316427

According to Ace Hunter, commander of Megaforce: "Life's like a wheel: it all comes around." And the poker table is the ideal venue for Commander Hunter's philosophy to play out, oftentimes with dire consequences.

While attending college at Arizona State University, I would often play poker at Casino Arizona, a good-sized card room with a wide variety of games. For those of you who haven't mixed it up in one of the Grand Canyon State's casinos, they are all Native American-owned, and the majority offer impressive perks and giveaways. But since poker is our primary concern, the only "perk" worth mentioning are the bad beat jackpots.

If you've never played in a poker room with a bad beat jackpot, the rules are simple: using both hole cards (for hold'em), if your high hand (normally aces full of 10s or better) is cracked by a higher hand (often quads or better), congratulations, you just netted yourself a hefty bonus. At most card clubs, the loser of the hand receives 50 percent of the jackpot, the winner gets 25 percent, and the other players seated at that table divide up the remaining 25 percent. What's more, most of AZ's bad beat jackpots are progressive -- increasing daily until they are hit. If memory serves me correctly, Fort McDowell Casino in Fountain Hills holds the record for the world's largest bad beat jackpot ever paid, somewhere in the neighborhood of $160,000.

While biding my time for a more lucrative $20/$40 limit hold'em game, I snagged an open seat in a $6/$12 game. Shortly after unracking my chips, I realized there was a significant amount of tension at the table, all of it between two players: the No. 3 seat, a young guy, mid-30s, stocky, with a crew cut, and the No. 9 seat, an older woman, possibly way north of the century mark. Had someone handed her a broom, I would've grabbed Dorothy and Toto and whisked them to safety.

Seated in the center of the table, the first few hands I played felt like a ping-pong match as Crew Cut continuously spouted muttered-but-audible off-color remarks, all directed at the Wicked Witch of the West, who had absolutely no qualms about issuing verbal retaliations. Being impartial, I nevertheless gave props to the elder combatant; her replies were much more creative: "The height of your hair is a direct reflection of your IQ," and other statements along those lines.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I turned to my neighbor for enlightenment. Apparently, the bad blood began the way it usually begins at a poker table: he had a high pocket pair (in this case, queens) and she stayed in with a small pair (fours), and eventually snapped him off when she paired her kicker (an unsuited 7) on the river.

OK, it happens, let's move on. However, Crew Cut had no intention of letting the events of Bad Beats Past fade quietly into the night. Oh, no.

A few hands later, nearly the entire table stuck around to see the preraised flop (Casino Arizona is well known for ultra-live action, regardless of the game -- must be the desert sun!) of K-K-A. After a bet and a call, only two were left in the hunt: yup, you guessed it, Crew Cut and the Witch (sounds like the title of the next Harry Potter novel, doesn't it?).

Something irrelevant, an 8, I think, hit the turn and all hell broke loose. Because they were heads-up, there was no cap on raises, and the two kept coming over the top of one another as if they were playing leapfrog to the death.

The rest of us were amped by the furious action and we were all reasonably confident that a boatload of "found money" was about to land in each of our laps. Expecting to dole out some serious cash -- the jackpot was around $60,000 at the time -- two floormen raced over to watch the hand play out.

Crew Cut got it all-in first and the pot was now somewhere in the vicinity of $500, pretty decent for a $6/$12 game. With no betting action left, and only the river to come, Crew Cut proudly flipped over his hand, pocket rockets, giving him aces full of kings, the minimum qualifier for Casino Arizona's bad beat jackpot.

"Go ahead and beat it," Crew Cut said antagonistically. "Gimme a bad beat."

A rag on the river changed nothing and all eyes turned to the old hag, now nodding her head in the affirmative. "Okey-doke," she said, and turned over her pocket kings, giving her quads, the winning hand, and the small end of the bad beat jackpot.

Crew Cut threw up his hands in victory. "Boom!" he screamed, mentally spending his lion's share of the jackpot, right around $30,000.

But the drama wasn't finished yet. Before anyone could convince her otherwise, Witchy-Poo scooped up her pocket kings and held them out to her younger, wise-cracking nemesis.

"Here's your bad beat," she said with unflinching satisfaction and casually tossed her hand into the muck.

We were all dumbfounded -- the players, the dealer, the floormen, not to mention all the lookie-loos who always run to a table when a jackpot has been declared. A chorus of "Holy [expletive]" spread through the crowd.

As for Crew Cut, he turned more colors than a chameleon on a Twister board and collapsed heavily into his chair, mouth agape, his hands locked onto his near hairless scalp.

"Why would you do that?" he queried, mouth aquiver. "You were gonna get 15 grand."

"I don't need the money," she said with complete disdain, while racking up the remainder of her chips. "But knowing you did … " She stopped racking, stared at him and smiled wide, a grin so wide, it would give a fly the chills.

To say we were all pretty pissed was a major understatement, as we were just intentionally hosed out of our players' shares, a smidge over $2K each. But I gotta hand it to the old gal -- she definitely got the last laugh, and taught that kid a valuable lesson he'll never forget.

Ol' Ace wasn't kidding: Sooner or later, it all comes around.

[stevew]

See you next tuesday. Wow.

[SFL Cat]

I wouldn't have tried something like that unless I was packing.

[Mustang]

If it was just him that she was screwing over.. but, she also screwed over every other player at that table out of $ too..

[Vince]

Holy crap.

[Subby]

These are the type of occasions for which the c word was invented...

[Drake]

Custard?

[watravaler]

She is my new hero...

[SFL Cat]

You f*'n custard....nope....justn't doesn't seem to have an edge to it.

[Drake]

Curmudgeon?

[SirFozzie]

Curmudgeon?

I think the word has four letters that they're searching for.. :)

[Drake]

Celt?

[Subby]

Stupid fucking cunt.

Oh wait...that starts with an S...

[sabotai]

I'm not sure I understand....I have not played poker in a casino. let alone a bad beat jackpot table, so explain this.

If she turned over her hand and it was known she had 4 kings, giving him the bad beat, how can she then take the hand and muck it? She showed the hand. How is it she can show the hand for several seconds, then take it and muck it and not have the jackpot paid?

[BrianD]

I'm not sure I understand....I have not played poker in a casino. let alone a bad beat jackpot table, so explain this.

If she turned over her hand and it was known she had 4 kings, giving him the bad beat, how can she then take the hand and muck it? She showed the hand. How is it she can show the hand for several seconds, then take it and muck it and not have the jackpot paid?

I would assume that since the river had never been flipped up, what this woman did was basically show her hand before she folded it.

[timmynausea]

I would assume that since the river had never been flipped up, what this woman did was basically show her hand before she folded it.

The story says she showed it after the river. I seriously doubt it's true, either way.

[Mustang]

River card was out.

Chucking her cards into the middle mucked her hand even if she flipped them up. I'm guessing the dealer didn't declare who won at that time and I believe the dealer is the one that is supposed to kill all losing hands at the showdown. The act of throwing your cards in the middle kills your hand.

Although.. not 100% certain I believe this is the case..

[BrianD]

The story says she showed it after the river. I seriously doubt it's true, either way.

I stand corrected. I read it the first time as "a rag on the river would change nothing", not "did change nothing".

[SirFozzie]

Until the dealer declares a winning hand and kills the other hands.. all cards are live..

she threw her hand away, which killed her hand, therefore she could not win the pot.

So in poker, if you misread the cards, and throw the dealer the winning hand.. you lose.

[sterlingice]

Oof. Man, that's bitchy.

SI

[Arctus]

The story says she showed it after the river. I seriously doubt it's true, either way.

I agree, the story makes no sense.

Problem #1:
She showed her hand after the river; and then scooped them and waved them at Crew Cut. She then threw them into the muck.

She showed her hand and "folded" in two seperate actions after the flop. The hand should have ended after her first action.

Problem #2:
No raise on the flop with 2 monster hands? A check and a call?

Problem #3:
If she's 4K's after the flop, there is no explanation for crew cut betting over the cap unless he has pocket Aces (he can't have a King).

Granny had to have had a good idea she was playing a jackpot hand. If she was going to muck, why would she keep raising the pot on the turn?

Problem #4:
The story is written by someone from "Bluff Magazine". :D

[LoneStarGirl]

"With no betting action left, and only the river to come"
The river hadn't shown yet Arctus. And she kept raising until he was all in so he would show her his cards, which were pocker Aces. After she saw he had the boat, she knew they would qualify for the huge bad beat bonus, so she mucked her cards after showing them to Crew Cut. It makes perfect logical sense to me.

[LoneStarGirl]

But if they kept raising and Crew Cut went all in and showed that he didn't have a boat, maybe he just had an Ace for two pair, then she would have stayed in to win the $500 dollar pot, because that wouldn't have qualified them for the Bad Beat Jackpot. But once she saw that he would win 30K because she had 4 Kings, she decided to throw it in instead of letting me have the satisfaction of winning that money.

[Arctus]

"With no betting action left, and only the river to come"
The river hadn't shown yet Arctus. And she kept raising until he was all in so he would show her his cards, which were pocker Aces. After she saw he had the boat, she knew they would qualify for the huge bad beat bonus, so she mucked her cards after showing them to Crew Cut. It makes perfect logical sense to me.

If you mean the river hadn't shown yet when she mucked, I'm pretty sure it did......

"Go ahead and beat it," Crew Cut said antagonistically. "Gimme a bad beat."

A rag on the river changed nothing and all eyes turned to the old hag, now nodding her head in the affirmative. "Okey-doke," she said, and turned over her pocket kings, giving her quads, the winning hand, and the small end of the bad beat jackpot.

My point is, unless he has pocket aces I don't see him raising himself dry after the flop (as all she would need is one K for the set). If he's max raising, she puts him on pocket aces and at some point calls. At that point, why throw in more chips if you are just going to fold to deprive him of a jackpot anyway.

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure I believe the story anyway... but in theory she could have only decided to muck at the very end, after seeing the glee in the punk's eyes.

[sooner333]

At that point, why throw in more chips if you are just going to fold to deprive him of a jackpot anyway.

Well, he either knows that he's a) won the hand, or b) won the bad beat...so there's really no reason not to. If he's going to get the bad beat, the money he has in front of him is pretty irrelevant. If he's not, he wants to build the pot as much as possible. I see nothing wrong with his betting. He has Aces full of Kings, the only thing that he can lose to is quads, so he's safe.

[Arctus]

Well, he either knows that he's a) won the hand, or b) won the bad beat...so there's really no reason not to. If he's going to get the bad beat, the money he has in front of him is pretty irrelevant. If he's not, he wants to build the pot as much as possible. I see nothing wrong with his betting. He has Aces full of Kings, the only thing that he can lose to is quads, so he's safe.

I was referring to the old woman. Crew cut should be pumping as much money as he can into the pot. (So should the old woman unless she is planning to fold all along.) QS raises a good point about her deciding to screw crew cut after the river.

I'm still calling BS on the story though.

[Glengoyne]

I call BS. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

One thing is that I think most casinos won't let you fold when no one has a bet into you. Perhaps that is just a seven stud rule, because someone folding would change the cards.

Then again when one of them was all-in they both would have shown their hands....not after the river as was described. Fozzie may have the right of it, if she mucked her hand prior to declaration of a winner, but I don't think this would have been allowed to happen as described.

--------------

Me and a friend were in Vegas a few years ago, playing at the Damn I can't think of the name of the casino. They have a big card room...crappy atmosphere, but they have tournaments multiple times a day, and lots of low limit 2/4 or 4/8 players that aren't near as good as they believe. The 'Orleans maybe? I can't remember. In any case my friend and I were playing at two different tables...I was playing stud and he was playing hold'em. Two of the guys at the table get into a hand where after they are both betting back and forth at each other when after the turn they are staring at two pair on the board. They get into a raise re-raise match until one of them calls. Someone at the table mentions the possibility of a bad beat. After a rag falls on the river one guy checks, the other bets into the pot...limit poker no more than $8. The first guy folds, saying that he thinks the other guy actually has the four of a kind. He shows the lower pair as he mucks. That was when I learned that something had happened in my seat across the room, because a couple of people at the table had to be pulled off the folder. He said he didn't know what a bad beat was....and since he folded a $100 plus pot to an $8 bet when he held four of a kind...I guess he should be believed. It cost my buddy a few hundred bucks.

I sat at a table ($1/$2 holdem) where we thought there was a jackpot. A guy held a pair of kings, and a lady with a straight/flush/straightflush draw caught her straight at the turn and the straight flush on the river. However since four cards to her straight flush were on the board, they didn't consider it a bad beat. That sucked, and in that cardroom everyone in the room would have had a piece of it.

[SirFozzie]

In cash games, you don't have to show your cards in an all in till the river..

[Glengoyne]

In cash games, you don't have to show your cards in an all in till the river..AH I guess that is true in a brick and mortar casino. I guess I've been spoiled/corrupted by Paradise Poker.

[sabotai]

In cash games, you don't have to show your cards in an all in till the river..But once you are all in, you still have the option to muck? (Your wording here kind of implies that you do have to show after the river)

[Solecismic]

This story illustrates exactly why I don't get poker at all. It just sounds like two very childish people who enjoy wasting a lot of money.

Serious question for the poker players here. Do you think a simple computer-programmed player, with some calculated random behavior programmed in (i.e. a percentage chance of folding based on observed opponent tendencies and chance of winning the hand) would annihilate all but the best poker players in the world over the long haul?

[sabotai]

Serious question for the poker players here. Do you think a simple computer-programmed player, with some calculated random behavior programmed in (i.e. a percentage chance of folding based on observed opponent tendencies and chance of winning the hand) would annihilate all but the best poker players in the world over the long haul?No.

[Arctus]

Serious question for the poker players here. Do you think a simple computer-programmed player, with some calculated random behavior programmed in (i.e. a percentage chance of folding based on observed opponent tendencies and chance of winning the hand) would annihilate all but the best poker players in the world over the long haul?

No. I would suspect that a program would struggle against very mediocre competition.

[SirFozzie]

Poker Bots would win many small pots, but they'd lose the huge pots.

[SirFozzie]

But once you are all in, you still have the option to muck? (Your wording here kind of implies that you do have to show after the river)

yup..

let's say that in a hand, you have Q8, and your opponent has TT.

Flop on the board are QJT

All in..

Turn is a 4

River is a 9.

You misread the board.. thinking his set beat your queens, so you throw it in (missing the fact that you made a straight.)

The second you do that.. the hand is dead.

As the dealer grabs the cards, the rest of the table says "Dude! You hit a straight.. it's yours!"

Too freakin bad. You killed your hand, you get jack squat.

[Lathum]

The total story is BS. The whole reason why you show your cards when you are all in is to prevent collusion, so when you are all in you can't muck.

[LoneStarGirl]

But SHE wasn't all in, the guy was. And he didn't muck, SHE did.

[Glengoyne]

But SHE wasn't all in, the guy was. And he didn't muck, SHE did.But she mucked after showing her hand in the showdown. In my book...she won the pot, even if she throws her cards into the muck.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, but by the rules, she didn't.

[digamma]

When I read the article, I took it to mean she won the hand, but mucked before the floor manager could come over to validate the jackpot. I've seen a jackpot hit before and the hand is separate from the awarding and validation of the jackpot.

I'll make no claims on the veracity of the story.

[Lathum]

But SHE wasn't all in, the guy was. And he didn't muck, SHE did.
that's exactlly the point of the rule. Once one player is all in both showdown to prevent collusion, otherwise the player with more chips, in this case the woman, can't muck her cards and pass chips to another player.

[Marc Vaughan]

No. I would suspect that a program would struggle against very mediocre competition.
I'm not a big poker player but I disagree - Poker is first and foremost a logical game of possibilities and as such a properly programmed AI opponent would trounce a human over the long-run ....

The problem is teaching the program to learn human behaviour patterns and avoiding being wholly predictable itself - however chess computers have managed this fairly well to the extent of beating Grand Masters - so I see no reason the same wouldn't apply to poker.

(knew I was writing the wrong sort of software ;) )

[RPI-Fan]

I'm not a big poker player but I disagree - Poker is first and foremost a logical game of possibilities and as such a properly programmed AI opponent would trounce a human over the long-run ....

The problem is teaching the program to learn human behaviour patterns and avoiding being wholly predictable itself - however chess computers have managed this fairly well to the extent of beating Grand Masters - so I see no reason the same wouldn't apply to poker.

(knew I was writing the wrong sort of software ;) )

This is ridiculous. People have tried this and been wildly unsuccessful.

[SirFozzie]

Agreed, the human player can vary his play, because bluffing is such a big part of poker (especially No Limit)

[Arctus]

Poker is first and foremost a logical game of possibilities


I respectfully disagree with this statement.

[Airhog]

I'm not a big poker player but I disagree - Poker is first and foremost a logical game of possibilities and as such a properly programmed AI opponent would trounce a human over the long-run ....

The problem is teaching the program to learn human behaviour patterns and avoiding being wholly predictable itself - however chess computers have managed this fairly well to the extent of beating Grand Masters - so I see no reason the same wouldn't apply to poker.

(knew I was writing the wrong sort of software ;) )


Big difference between chess and poker. The CPU doesnt vary its play. It always plays the best move, or what it thinks is the best move. Chess programs don't play chess better than humans. They are able to calculate large numbers of possible moves, and find the best move. They also have a huge library of chess openings, and a database that allows them to make the right move in the end game.

Chess is also a game that has no luck, or X factor in it. It has been said, that you cannot win the game of chess, but you can only lose it. If both sides played a perfect game, the result would be a draw every time.

[Pumpy Tudors]

To me, the reason that a "poker bot" cannot consistently beat good players is that the bot will never be able to accurately read its competition. If it played one player over and over again, perhaps it could possible figure out its opponent's range of hands, but against a full table? There are too many variables. You can't read each player individually. You need to read them based on the context of the other players, unless you can guarantee that you'll be playing every hand heads-up.

I suppose that a bot could play a decent game of limit poker against poor competition. It probably wouldn't be too hard to program a computer to follow Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'Em book, for example. The concepts in that book depend upon the reader playing against competition that plays too many bad hands and goes too far with them. The bot certainly couldn't play optimally in every situation, but I think it could end up with a long-term profit. It just wouldn't be the maximum profit, and it probably wouldn't even be close.

Ultimately, a big part of poker is reading the other players at the table. I mean, you can tell a computer program whether to bet, raise, or fold, but can you really teach a computer program what it means when JoeBlow check-raises on a Q98 rainbow board? How about Q98 suited? How about if JaneDoe check-raises on the same boards? What if JoeBlow raises JaneDoe and sandwiches the bot in the middle? OH MY GOD, WHAT IF IT'S A NO-LIMIT GAME? WHAT EVER WILL THE BOT DO?

Yeah, I don't think it's gonna happen.

[sterlingice]

Ultimately, a big part of poker is reading the other players at the table. I mean, you can tell a computer program whether to bet, raise, or fold, but can you really teach a computer program what it means when JoeBlow check-raises on a Q98 rainbow board? How about Q98 suited? How about if JaneDoe check-raises on the same boards? What if JoeBlow raises JaneDoe and sandwiches the bot in the middle? OH MY GOD, WHAT IF IT'S A NO-LIMIT GAME? WHAT EVER WILL THE BOT DO?

Yeah, I don't think it's gonna happen.The hardest aspect is that it's significantly based on luck, unlike chess.

Frankly, that stuff that you "blew up your poker computer" with is low level AI stuff- pretty easy to program. However, it would treat everyone equally to start off (a base case), and, if the players knew how the computer played, it'd be fairly easy to beat. Unless it was a long game, the computer wouldn't have a large enough database of how a player plays certain situations to make really accurate predictions. However, think about it- what do you do when you're playing at a table- you start making judgements of what direction that player trends towards: "plays too many hands", "plays conservatively", etc- if you can see it, a computer could easily be programmed to pick that up.

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

The hardest aspect is that it's significantly based on luck, unlike chess.Before I try to address the rest of your post, I need to know where you're coming from with the above statement. Are you suggesting that winning at poker is "significantly based on luck" or do you mean something else?

[sterlingice]

Before I try to address the rest of your post, I need to know where you're coming from with the above statement. Are you suggesting that winning at poker is "significantly based on luck" or do you mean something else?No, the hands are significantly based on luck (which is how it's different than chess). Tho, yes, there's something to be said for the entire component of poker being based on luck. The best player in the world, human or computer, can't win if it's dealt 2/7's all day long.

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

No, the hands are significantly based on luck (which is how it's different than chess). Tho, yes, there's something to be said for the entire component of poker being based on luck. The best player in the world, human or computer, can't win if it's dealt 2/7's all day long.OK, I see what you mean. In that case, the outcome of every hand is going to be rooted in chance (or luck, if you wish to call it that). Still, the AI can calculate what its chances are of making a certain hand, and it could play accordingly. If the computer could calculate its chances of making a certain hand, and if it could calculate the chances of its opponent(s) making certain hands, then it could use those probabilities to determine what the proper play is (raise, call, or fold).

The point wouldn't be to have the AI win every single hand that it brings to showdown. After all, you don't "win" at poker by winning each hand. To me, the difference between poker and chess is that chess has a win condition. Poker doesn't, unless it's a tournament, but that's a different animal. As I said before, I believe that a computer could generate a long-term profit against poor poker opponents (of which there are many). I don't think it could beat better opponents, however, because a good human player would be able to adapt to changing game conditions better than the AI could.

As far as the "entire component of poker being based on luck," the best player in the world can't be dealt 2-7 infinitely, so when the player gets better hands, he has the opportunity to exploit those edges for value that far exceeds the losses from 2-7's. That's the thing about luck and poker. Because there's no point at which you've "won" or "lost", the better players will rise above the worse players. Theoretically, given an infinite number of deals, we're all going to get dealt the same hands at the same frequency. It's just a matter of how we play those hands that will determine who gets more money out of it.

Obviously, that's basic statistics, so I'm not trying to teach you anything. I get that you already know that stuff. My point is just that I believe a good human player is more capable than a bot of exploiting an edge for maximum value. In a general sense, I agree with SirFozzie that, at least against good competition, a bot would win small pots and lose big ones. I think that's because a poker bot would simply fold too much.

[larrymcg421]

Luck is a very huge factor in poker. If I took on Kasparov in Chess, we would know who the better player was in about 5 moves. If I took on Ivey or Lederer, I might get hot and take a few pots from them (even win some head to head matchups) and it would take sometime before their advantage became apparent.

I think a computer could be programmed to do very well at $10+1 and $20+1 tourneys, but at the higher levels players vary their play too much for the computer to detect a pattern. And a computer would get killed in late game bubble play.

[SportsDino]

You can not apply a 'Deep Blue' like algorithm for chess to poker. Deep Blue other than some useful heuristics to reduce the search space, is dependant on a monster handmade hardware calculator that chugs through possibly millions of board configurations for EACH MOVE. In chess the possible moves, and therefore the branching factor, is finite, although quite massive when you consider that the search space grows exponentially.

Poker has far more variables, and some dramatic differences. First, the 'board' is a fuzzy state, there is uncertainty as to the configuration of your opponents cards, and with multiple opponents it gets even crazier. Second, there are no finite moves in no-limit, you would have to limit it to limit poker to do any sort of search algorithm. And all such algorithms would suck given the uncertainty and nearly 47 different possible cards that can come on the turn.

So chess is an EASIER game to solve than poker, just if you look at the mathematics involved. And similar algorithms will not work, something new will have to be made to analyze poker.

-----

That said, I love AI and would like to get a PhD off of making a program that can play (and learn) strategic economic games like poker, so i don't think it is impossible to craft a system that can compete on a world champion level. Cash games might be impractical to crack first, tourney play allows you to make some critical assumptions to make poker into a game you can approach with game theory. But the corresponding game theory does not exist to handle poker yet in my opinion. I have made a sort of program to play poker, but it requires a human (me) to play it, as I fill in numerous parts (particularly putting opponents on a hand). Also the program is more of a suggestion to play, managing certain risk factors in an overall tourney, but by itself it still needs a coach to manage the game, and a player to make the play for each hand. My program is like a playbook in that regard.

But anyway, poker is complex, you can probably script a good tight limit machine that will avoid losing too much money and cashes in against fools when it has power hands, but against talent it could be busted out. An aggressive poker machine would be easy to beat if it was scripted (and search is impossible), as you can see if you play any poker sim out there (the aggressive ai's are pretty moronic).