Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Geeks and Poker?

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the do-you-play? dept.

The Almighty Buck 657

Best ID Ever! asks: "Poker, a fascinating intersection of math, game theory, and observation of human behavior, is currently exploding in popularity due to televised high-stakes tournaments such as the World Poker Tour and Binion's 2003 World Series of Poker. Many of today's top professional players have nerdly roots such as Mathematicians, chess prodigies, or backgammon champions. A few pros, including 2000 champion Chris Ferguson, even used to play poker in the IRC poker community. This year's World Series final event, which began Saturday and lasts through the week, drew 2600 participants, more than three times the number of participants in 2003. How many Slashdot readers play poker, and what do you think of Poker's upswing?"

cancel ×

657 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Underlying elements (5, Funny)

DaLiNKz (557579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262203)

..."drew 2600 [newsday.com] "...
So much geek urberness in poker, there is an underlying hacker element to the event..

Re:Underlying elements (2, Funny)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262220)

Or english fanatics (ie there is an english text book I had in high school which was simply labeled 2600)

Re:Underlying elements (5, Funny)

BigglesZX (734765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262372)

Curses, as soon as I read the article I thought about 2600 readers playing poker. Sod's law would have it that the first comment steals my potential "funny" modding up. :-P

poker? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262204)

I hardly even know her!

actually, that's probably a /good/ thing (tm) :)

fp?

I prefer poke-her (-1, Offtopic)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262211)

No maths required, just a condom.

Re:I prefer poke-her (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262235)

Ashcroft: 'Clear and present danger to America' [cnn.com]

Me: 'Clear and present danger to America's democracy'

Re:I prefer poke-her (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262246)

correction:

you *would* prefer poke-her, if you ever got the chance. making posts like this on slashdot doesn't suggest that is likely....

Re:I prefer poke-her (0, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262253)


This is slashdot, you should at least include a link to the definition of "condom". [m-w.com]

Personally... (4, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262218)

Poker, Blackjack or other such games are the only sort of gambling I would be remotely willing to participate in because it involves much more than straight chance as involved in slots, roulette or craps. Sure statistics come into play, but nothing forces the stats to hold consistently.

Re:Personally... (2, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262271)

Around where I work, we have a lot of people that go to Vagas. They say black-jack and video poker are the only real way to leave with cash.

Re:Personally... (5, Insightful)

jmpoast (736629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262297)

The only way to leave with cash from a casino is to hit the ATM on your way out.

Re:Personally... (5, Funny)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262319)

I play the change machine personally. Play a dollar, hit four quarters every time.

Re:Personally... (4, Informative)

RedX (71326) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262343)

Craps actually gives you the best odds to win in most cases. In fact, certain betting combinations can give the bettor almost even odds with the house.

Re:Personally... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262274)

sorry but roulette with just picking the color gives your 50% odds of winning. That's pretty damn good and pretty much the best you can expect of any form of gambling. (payout is lower though)

There is no freaking way to get those kind of odds playing a card game (at least not without counting cards; which is illegal BTW).

Re:Personally... (4, Informative)

Analise (782932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262290)

Actually, last I heard (and admittedly, it's been a while since I heard this), counting cards is not illegal. However, casinos can and will kick you out/blacklist you if you're caught doing it.

Re:Personally... (4, Informative)

jmpoast (736629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262333)

Actually the best odds in the house come from Blackjack and craps. With either one if you know what you are doing the house only has around 1-2% advantage over you. Also its not 50% chance, you forgot about the 0 and 00.

Also counting cards isn't illegal, but the casinos will ask you to leave and maybe blacklist you if you do it.

Counting Cards is NOT Illegal (1)

BananaJr6000 (564475) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262364)

...but the casinos can ask you not to return. They have the right to refuse patrons.

Counting cards with the help of a device is illegal.

Some video poker games pay out more than 100% IF you play perfectly all the time and are prepared to wait out the jackpots (read - have a large bankroll to begin with.) Most players DO NOT play perfectly and will take chances that don't pay off.
--
BananaJr6000 calculates the odds in a VM

Re:Personally... (1, Offtopic)

nebaz (453974) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262381)

Roulette with just the color does not give you 50% odds of winning. There are the 0 and 00 slots so you actually have an 18/38 shot. Not quite 50%, but with these odds, eventually you will lose if you keep betting on it.

Re:Personally... (0, Redundant)

Bullschmidt (69408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262396)

Actually, you are quite wrong one a lot of points here.

Roulette does NOT give you 50% - its MUCH worse, considering there are 2 green slots.

And counting cards, as another poster said, is NOT illegal - but the casinos have the right to ask you to leave and never return. Violating THAT could be illegal.

Plus the fact is that roulette is ultimately a completely losing game that you CANNOT break 50% on. Other games (ie poker) you can gain an advantage through playing style and win money in the long run if you are better than your opponents. If there is a house take, then you have to be better by a larger amount, but in that sense it is winnable.

Re:Personally... (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262400)

Acutally picking a color is lower than 50% depending on the number of green 0's on the wheel. There is no way to play ANY casino game (besides video poker I think) for an extended amount of time and still have the same, or more money than when you started. (I'm talking statically here and not just 5 games in a row and walking out). The game with the best favor for the player is craps with somewhere around a 49.765% chance of winning. Although I've heard that it is possible to actually get a higher than 50% winning record against vido poker. Better on a roulette color is NOT the best way to make money in a casino

Re:Personally... (1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262277)

What about bridge ?

Re:Personally... (1)

axis_omega (771398) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262369)

I beg to differ, Poker not like Blackjack, involve something more called bluff. Sure they are strategies involve in both of them, Blackjack even has a couting theorie, so you know when to bet more...

But to play Poker you need, skills, social skills, straight face, lying face, and alot of luck. I really think that the big million games aren't won by does with alot of luck, but the ones with more bluffing skills, except if you play open poker...

And you're write I can be called a nerd and the two games I would "risk" (calculated risk), would still be poker and blackjack(cause I can count!).

WTF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262219)

Pokers "upswing"?

You mean like all the NASCAR and reality TV they show on the tube? Must be popular with the geeks!

It's just another moranic show... "World's greatest poker tour"... spleh... idiots

Totally agree (0, Offtopic)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262338)

Because the NETWORKS are pushing it HARD and forcing airtime, it MUST be popular. That kind of logic is what Clear Channel uses to determine the #1 record. Issue a play list, play the song you want more than any other, then tout it as the most popular based on airtime and push sales...

Speaking of Nascar and Reality shows...OMG they combined them into a Nascar Reality show...we have sunk lower than I thought possible. Nascar, if the drivers keep practicing and soon they will add right turns too...

More money for me! (2, Interesting)

HeaththeGreat (708430) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262221)

Actually, I'm not really THAT great, but the I do enjoy game theory, as it was my emphasis in my Math degree, so Poker comes fairly naturally to me.

I love its popularity. The more that play, the more I can win!

Re:More money for me! (1)

tessaiga (697968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262397)

I love its popularity. The more that play, the more I can win!
That's a popular sentiment among "old hands" at poker who've been watching the game's surge in popularity. I'd say a lot of credit has to go to Travel Channel and WPT for promoting poker. TV poker is much more interesting to watch than live poker, since being able to see each player's hole cards makes it easier to appreciate the betting strategies being employed.

For those who are just starting out, Brunson's Super System [buy.com] is considered the classic text -- it's been around forever and supposedly every pro has read it. (Brunson has since said that he regrets writing it and giving up so much of what he's learned; he hasn't enjoyed as much success since publishing as he did before.) If the old-school formatting and layout (and sheer size) turn you off, Sklansky's Theory of Poker [buy.com] is also well written, a bit more concise, and appealing to people with a fancy for game theory.

"How many Slashdot readers play poker"?? (5, Funny)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262222)

How many Slashdot readers play poker

All those who aren't posting anymore, because they're too skint to pay the ISP bill now...

New poll (1)

vladkrupin (44145) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262347)

could go something like that
Favorite addictive non-computer game:
- poker
- solitaire
- monopoly
- russian roulette

(or something like that)

I used to play but... (2, Funny)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262227)

I used to play poker but, I played 1 to many times where I lost my pants literally and gave up.

Re:I used to play but... (0, Troll)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262328)

I used to play poker but, I played 1 to many times where I lost my pants literally and gave up.

That is SO not true...

Look here folks, there are two sorts of poker losers: those who are addicted to the game and keep playing (and often losing their shirts) over and over, without telling anybody about it, and those who genuinely got had over one party too many, but weren't addicted and so turned away from the game forever, but they're not proud of it so they keep the story to themselves.

I say the parent poster is playing a pretty strong +5 karma-whore hand here...

Re:I used to play but... (1)

crawdaddy (344241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262329)

That's the best part! That's when "strip poker" becomes "uninhibited sex poker"...but without cards.

Re:I used to play but... (3, Funny)

Arianrhod (66782) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262337)

You *literally* lost your pants? Sounds like the root of the problem may have been the free drinks the casinos hand out rather than the actual poker game.

Re:I used to play but... (1)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262374)

You *literally* lost your pants?

Yes, and he instantly gained another pair, almost identical, save for the color...

Re:I used to play but... (3, Funny)

tundog (445786) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262376)

I played 1 to many times where I lost my pants literally and gave up.

Don't you mean figuratively?

"I'm all in!...What!? Aces over Kings!?.... Noooooooooo, not my pants!"

Ooh. Ooh. Pick me, pick me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262229)

I played poker before it was cool. N00bs.

I play all the time and wrote a poker program. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262233)

I wrote a program [kingsofchaos.com] which gives you the mathmatical odds of whatever winning poker hand you can get depending on what hand you are dealt.

I Play! (1)

ThisIsFred (705426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262237)

I play K-Poker (comes with KDE). I never lose, because I figured out how to edit the config file so that the lowest dollar amount win is always more than what you "pay" for a re-deal. I'm not the kind of geek they'd want playing in a tournament. =P

Re:I Play! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262335)

Actually, if that's the full extent of your skillz, I think that you're EXACTLY the kind of geek I'd want to play poker against...

Game of skill (3, Interesting)

Akiba (589290) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262239)

Poker is often counted as "gambling" but to me it's precisely because it's not gambling but rather a game of skill that it's interesting. It's a zero sum game with some randomness so that you need to play for a little while to really see the better player emerge.

Re:Game of skill (1, Troll)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262307)

Haha...the classic poker excuse:
"Poker is a game of skill, the same people do well in the world series of poker every year"

Sure there is skill...but dont forget about the relatively high randomness factor.

Re:Game of skill (1)

jmpoast (736629) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262393)

Yes there is randomness to it, so each hand has chance played into it. But to win over time it takes skill. You have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em, as they say. The ability to read not only the odds, but the other players, is what makes you a good poker player.

Data from Startrek TNG played poker (4, Funny)

decarelbitter (559973) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262240)

The android Data, one of the most popular characters in TNG amongst geeks, is a fanatic poker player. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Re:Data from Startrek TNG played poker (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262322)

Early on, though, you could always get him with a bluff.

I wonder how Vulcans faired. I'll leave Spock's STIV: TVH quote as obvious.

Quality clay chips? (1, Interesting)

haystor (102186) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262241)

Where can you get some quality clay chips? I see lots of places selling them, but am suspect about the quality.

Re:Quality clay chips? (2, Informative)

moop (140175) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262334)

I actually got mine from Ebay. I got 500 composite 11.5g Chips, that were hotstamped for about $50 then 20 for shipping.

I would really check ebay, anyone with a high seller rating would be fine. And I am completly happy with my chips. Especially because 500 hotstamped chips should have been $200+

Re:Quality clay chips? (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262344)

most places online selling clay chips are pretty good.

or check ebay

the quality is practically casino...I picked up 1000 chips last month

Re:Quality clay chips? (1)

Ai_GuyX (739219) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262349)

I got a nice set off of ebay. I've had a couple of friends buy different sets and none of them have been bad. I wouldn't be too suspect of the quality, as long as they're clay, under any normal use you're not going to break them... ever. Expect to pay $100-$150 for a set of 500, and make sure to get a case.

obligitory "Ocean's 11" Quote... (1)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262243)

"Guys, read 'em and weep: All....Reds!"

2003 Winner, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262247)

2003's winner, Chris Moneymaker [poker-babes.com] , qualified to play online [poker-king.com] and played most of his games online before coming to the big show.

Read "Bringing Down the House" (5, Informative)

websensei (84861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262248)

M.I.T. geeks vs Vegas.
True story.
An amazing read.

Re:Read "Bringing Down the House" (4, Informative)

smcd (634) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262312)

That was Blackjack, not Poker. But yes, it was an interesting read. I wouldn't have guessed in advance how complicated the con got.

Re:Read "Bringing Down the House" (2, Interesting)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262340)

I caught a great documentary on this on the History channel. I recommend it for any one interested in the mathematics of blackjack or if you are trying to see how people cheat at it (the MIT crew was not cheating, they were just VERY smart).

Re:Read "Bringing Down the House" (4, Interesting)

UM_Maverick (16890) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262366)

True story? Sure, but written by a journalist... One of the guys from the book is a member of the same gym as I am (Sports Club LA in Boston), and told me that he doesn't remember "Kevin" (definitely not his real name) ever dating any cheerleaders, or hanging out with Patrick Ewing, or...well, you get the idea.

Did they beat the system? Yeah. Did everything else happen? well....maybe. Does that make it any less worthy of your time? Nope, great book

Re:Read "Bringing Down the House" (5, Insightful)

myc (105406) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262373)

While an interesting read (I own the book and have read it several times), it's more about the social engineering aspect of going against the casinos than the actual mathmatics and statistics aspects of card counting. For instance, the MIT team had to resort to (legal) aliases and disguises to avoid being kicked out of Vegas casinos. The trick was not card counting per se, but card counting without the house knowing about it.

also, Bringing Down The House was about blackjack, not poker :) Poker Nation (forgot the author, sorry) is a much more interesting look into the world of competitive poker players.

Thats Blackjack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262402)

and that book isn't even about the original MIT team or even the most succesful MIT team. The special that was on the History Channel was better.

I and my girlfriend play this game (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262249)

called poke'er.

Video Poker (4, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262250)

I've never understoood the appeal of standing in front of a video poker terminal*, feeding in cash and pushing the little buttons, when I know that the odds are against me. But I have spent many unproductive hours with handheld poker games, and was inspired to come up with a system to lose less often. At the risk of slashdotting my new host, here's my geeky take on How to Lose Less at Video Poker [littlecutie.net] .

It got mixed reviews a year or so ago when the topic came up in a previous Slashdot story, but it still seems to hold up for me -- at least, when there's no real money involved. The main criticism, IIRC, was that my method is very conservative, reducing the chances of a Big Win. Since I'm not the type to plug fifty bucks into a machine in hopes of a Big Win, I'm still happy with the method as it stands, but I'm receptive to comments.

I was hoping to try it out on a trip to Oklahoma, but when I stopped in the so-called Indian Casino [indiancasinos.com] in Okmulgee, I found nothing but a bingo parlor (with touch-screen monitors in place of ink daubers) and a couple hundred video 8-liners [txlottery.org] . Not one real video poker machine to try my luck. I'll have to hit the truck stop in Louisiana again... last time I was there, I played two 25c hands, lost one, won 50c on the other, and cashed out.

* Spending several hours plugging quarters into Pac-Man [klov.com] , however, is another thing entirely.

Re:Video Poker (2, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262330)

I've never understoood the appeal of standing in front of a video poker terminal*, feeding in cash and pushing the little buttons, when I know that the odds are against me. But I have spent many unproductive hours with handheld poker games, and was inspired to come up with a system to lose less often.

Or, you could go to one of the many places on the 'Net that have already done so:

http://wizardofodds.com/games/videopoker/ [wizardofodds.com]

Find the right game with the right payouts, and the long-term return exceeds 100%.

Re:Video Poker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262383)

No offense, but how in the world did this get modded interesting? It's one of the most boring things I have ever read.

Re:Video Poker (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262387)

I don't understand the appeal of poker, PERIOD. I don't understand the appeal of gambling PERIOD. Gambling is idiotic. The house always has superior odds and while idiot white trash may be willing to pay the idiot tax with lotto, scratch offs and a trip to vegas, geeks are smart enough to know you can't win.

Poker, while not involving the house, is still stupid and a losing battle. Real geeks become knowledgable about stocks, securities and business economics and invest. Some would argue that it's a gamble, too - but only if you don't do your research, stick to your plans and try not to be too much of a pig that you fuck yourself over.

Holdem (3, Interesting)

blackula (584329) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262251)

Texas holdem [texasholdem-poker.com] is the real man's card game.

But seriously, that's what they play at the world poker tour and that's all me and my friends play. It takes a lot of strategy, and it's also a lot of fun.

Pokerroom.com (1)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262255)

PokerRoom.com [pokerroom.com] has a pretty good interface. I'm not sure what OS's it supports (i've used it on Windows). I only play with the virtual money, but it is fun playing Texas Hold'em with other people online. You don't have to submit that much info if you aren't using real money.

I used to play (4, Interesting)

Anti Frozt (655515) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262257)

I just started a new position a few weeks ago. Up until recently, we would play Texas Holdem at lunch. I found it was a great opportunity to get to know my colleagues quickly and integrate myself as a memeber of the team.

Unfortunately, it also lead to extended lunch breaks, so the poker I'm disappointed to say, has ended. But the benefits of playing still remain.

Heh (2, Funny)

itwerx (165526) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262261)

...drew 2600 participants...
Last I checked most of the folks in 2600 [2600.org] were pretty sharp! :)

While not a big fan of the game itself . . . (1)

Lorenzo de Medici (774505) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262263)

. . . I don't mind studying the underlying [math.sfu.ca] math [anl.gov] behind it at all. In fact, I find the study of probability and game theory more fun than poker itself.

As a geek, I prefer playing with John Conway's Life [bitstorm.org] .

PR shillery ahoy (1)

dash2 (155223) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262265)

I think this is a schnidey attempt to drum up some "grassroots" public interest. Nothing against poker itself, though.

I play too much (1)

Tysse (738549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262267)

It's pretty bad when you go home for Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Arbor Day ... and right after dinner the table is cleaned and the cards come out. I once left after winning a $50 pot, and 3 years later they still won't let me back at the big boy table. I have to play gold fish with my cousins.

fun, but stupid (1)

aquishix (684586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262275)

It's amazing to me how many people take poker seriously. No matter how good one is at the game, one cannot really control it. There's a very limited degree of skill involved, and that skill is basically just to maximize your probability of not losing everything you throw on the pile.

I avoid the game like the plague, except when it's small-stakes and for fun with a few friends.

I play poker on my cell phone (1)

JWeinraub (773433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262281)

I got verizon, so with get-it-now, i downloaded a poker game. it's quite fun. i love betting like a schmuck only to hope i get four of a kind, only to find i just get a pair :-/

There is little math in /playing/ poker (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262283)

There is little math in playing poker. You just have to learn some values, and then build an intuition. There is, of course, some calculation to be done to arrive at these values, and even some theory you could learn besides. But you don't want to do THAT during the game :-)

Poker odd distribution (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262284)

I was wondering if the following can be taken advantage of in Poker.

Consider that a flush beats a straight. And that a straight beats a three-of-a-kind. Each of these has an increment of ONE over or below the other.

However, the ODDS of getting one over the other is tremendous, sometimes a multiple of the hand that is but one step below it.

So is it possible to take advantage of there being tremendous differences between the odds of hands that have an incriment of only one hierarchical step above each other?

Just something I was wondering about.

Poker in the front... (1)

loveisafist (766873) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262285)

Liquor in the rear! Poker is a great game, but to fully experience it you need to play with real humans in the same room. The social and psychological nuances of the game can make it pretty intense for a game played with cards!

Re:Poker in the front... (1)

JWeinraub (773433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262345)

hell yea! i was at a boring family part, all of us were broke, so we played with nuts. seriously, they had a nut bowl, so macadamias were worth 10, cashews were worth 5 and almonds were worth 1. at the end, all of us bet everything. one of the guys got 4 8's, i got four 10's, and my cousin got four kings. damn, what are the odss? oh yea, we had two wild cards. it sure made waiting for the food a lot more enjoyable

Moderately OT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262286)

Some of the best lecture notes (I feel) covering the basics of Game Theory at a mathematically 'serious' level:

http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/mor/index.html [cam.ac.uk]

The author is an very well respected operational researcher (sadly no poker analysis in these notes). I had the good fortune to be lectured this course a couple of years back and found it incredibly interesting.

A lot of /.ers play poker (5, Funny)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262287)

I'm sure there are a lot of /.ers who play poker. They all downloaded that free strip poker and played for hours to win.

Or, was that just me

Re:A lot of /.ers play poker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262320)

uh, that would be moranic. just hack the damn thing and pull out the pics. or use cheat codes

Poker and liberty (1)

malchus842 (741252) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262291)

I play poker. Both at home, in tourneys and occasionally on-line. I've been playing some form of poker since I was a teenager (ie 70's). The Hold 'Em craze is like nothing I've seen before. It's brought all kinds of people into poker games that might never have really been interested before.

The problem is, that most home poker games (or those held in bars, etc) are illegal. Maybe, just maybe, the explosive interest in Texas Hold'Em (through the WPT, WSOP - which is down to about 70 players for 2004 now, and other TV events) will lead to a push in every state to legalize card rooms. Most states have legal gambling of some kind (lottery, riverboat casinos, etc) - why not legalize card rooms like California? I've thought about starting a Political Action Committee in my state (IL) to lobby for legalizing cardrooms. It sure seems like time to strike while the iron is hot!

Maybe we can get the libertarians to support this movement!

Poker Allows Escape from Geekdom (1)

bmsleight (710084) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262292)

Poker is great.

Real poker, not IRC Poker, means face to face. It makes me leave the computer and the interweb alone for a while, forces interaction with real friends.

I play in-frequently with friends, for 10 pounds made up of 10p pieces, each (15 USD). Usually out beer cost more than the one hundres 10p poker chips.

Drinking (2, Funny)

NinjaPablo (246765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262293)

I find that the quality of my poker face decreases when I lose a lot of hands in poker-for-drinks. This further leads to more drinking, which results in an even worse poker face....

Poker advise (5, Insightful)

Kaimelar (121741) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262301)

Some wise poker advise: "If you don't know who's the sucker at the table, it's you."

Poker is a great motivation for higher level math (1)

chatgris (735079) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262302)

I think that poker is a great way to create interest in higher level math...

My stats professor's brother is playing in this World Poker Tournament, and we get plenty of card probability questions to go along with it ;)

Car Talk Puzzler (3, Interesting)

j0hnfr0g (652153) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262306)


This reminds me of a certain Car Talk Puzzler [cartalk.com] .

how poker works @ howstuffworks.com (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262310)

there's an excellent article on how poker works at howstuffworks available through the following URL: http://www.howstuffworks.com/poker.htm.

check it out!

money and women (1)

ed1park (100777) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262311)

I think the real payoff here folks is using your leet geek poker skillz in playing a game of strip poker with a bunch of hotties. :)

Poker? (2, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262314)

Poker? Hell, I don't even know her!

why 'all of a sudden'? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262316)

It's probably all Wheaton's [wilwheaton.net] fault. :)

Chaos Theory (1)

tundog (445786) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262317)

Anyone know of any good books on Chaos theory? I've been thinking a lot about what it might mean for games like blackjack and poker. I've spent a lot of time playing blackjack this week, and it seems inevitable that the cards go on good and bad swings ( and I've made a lot of money this week by playing accordingly).

Don't get me wrong, I am an engineer, but I can't hep wondering if there is some broader priciple at work.

Last time I played (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262323)

The last time I played was in Vegas, and I got a royal-freekin-flush (no wild cards, 5 card draw). The bad news was I was playing nickle ante with my then mom-in-law and sister-in-law :-( Right after that I said, "Well, I just used up all my luck, so there is no use in ever gambling again."

Online poker for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262325)

Few sites have Linux compatable clients. The one I play on is http://www.pokerroom.com . Their java client works great on my Linux laptop. Also, they list Linux as a supported OS on their site. The new client now has no limit single table tournaments, Omaha hi lo, low limit, seven card stud; it's nice. They also have play money equivelant games for all their real money stuff. Site does have some connectivity issues from time to time, though. If you want to pratice, this is the site.

If I could find others.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9262331)

who would play poker, I would certainly play!

Unfortunately, I am just limited to writing a script that will count how many of each hand there is.

not appropriate (1, Funny)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262339)

This story is obviously inappropriate for the slashdot crowd, as playing poker requires multiple players, ideally all in the same physical place, which is, of course, absurd.

Slashdotters are way more likely to spend an evening at home playing pocket pool.

Kinda like fair-weather fans (1)

AnonymousTravis (775517) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262342)

I've been playing for some years and have noticed the recent upswing. It seems to me like all the people jumping on the bandwagon of poker is a lot like the people who claim to be "Huge fans" of a certain sports team during playoffs (when the team is doing well).

If the past is any indication, this surge in pokers popularity will last a few years and then will go back to the normal level when "The Next Big Thing" (tm) comes along.

Error on web page... (1)

teidou (651247) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262360)

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/msc-essay/node5.h tml clearly states: The Web Server may be down, too busy, or ...You may wish to try again at a later time. Heh. Here's the content: Game Theoretic Analysis Preliminary academic research into poker actually started very early in the computer age. In the book ``Theory of Games and Economic Behavior'' (the founding work of game theory [101]), John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern used mathematical models to analyze certain greatly simplified games of ``poker''. Among other things, they demonstrated the fact that bluffing is an absolutely essential component of poker, and that any sound strategy must include bluffing with a certain frequency. While this was interesting, and useful as an example of the application of game theoretic principles, the games studied were too far removed from real poker to be of much practical value. Other fundamental works into the study of simplified poker were developed by John Nash and Lloyd Shapley [61] and by Samuel Karlin [51, 52]. Collections of related papers on the theory of games are also available [2, 3, 4], as well as an excellent treatise on the analysis of all games [23, 24]. An attempt to adapt these mathematical models to more realistic versions of poker was made by Newman [62], but with only a limited degree of success. More recently, this approach has been revisited and more fully explained by Sakaguchi [71]. Beyond this, there has been little development of the original ideas, probably because they were originally intended as a lesson in the use of game theory, rather than as a serious investigation of poker dynamics. Consequently, the models which have been developed to date are severely limited with respect to the real game of poker, and are of little use to the practical problem of writing a computer algorithm to play a strong game of poker. Nevertheless, general game theoretic notions can be applied to the practical problem, and the original references may be helpful in directing that method of thought. There are at least two potentially useful ideas stemming from game theory. The first is the techniques used for determining certain optimal betting strategies. The second is the utilization of optimal bluffing and calling strategies. In both cases, the `pure' solutions to the simplified problems must be adapted to be applicable to the real game, but the underlying principles constitute a solid starting point from which to develop a sound approach. An optimal betting strategy for pot-limit poker was developed in a paper by William Cutler [32]. Like previous studies, this analysis was based on a simplified poker game with only one betting round and no draw. However, the analysis method is generalized to include games where any number of re-raises are permitted, which is more realistic than the usual no-raise or one-raise scenario. Furthermore, the manner in which the optimal frequencies were computed should still be applicable to a more realistic poker setting, once the effects of multiple betting rounds and the drawing of cards is taken into account. We now look at two books which undertake a complete game theoretic analysis of real poker games, albeit with limited degrees of success.

Live WSOP updates (1)

huphtur (259961) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262365)

To get WSOP 2004 updates, hand counts and even video interviews with some of the top players, check out gutshot.co.uk [gutshot.co.uk] (free reg req).

a zinger for y'all (2, Funny)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262370)

Poker? I hardly even know her!

Eh (1)

Analise (782932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262375)

I've never really learned to play poker, but I think I'd like to sometime. Though I'm also rather certain that I have no poker face to speak of, so I would have to relegate myself to video poker and online poker games.

Been playing for years, but always small time (1)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262379)

I first got into gambling in Tulsa, at the horse track. It was fun to bet and then watch the race a few minutes later.

It took College to get me into Poker. I was a freshman at Oklahoma State University, and I soon learned the professors didn't take roll with 300 person classes (in an auditorium), or even the smaller ones. Anyway, in our dorm we'd set up on the pool table and play from 6pm until 6am, and then go eat at chow. I started missing lots of classes and flunked out.

I stopped for a few years, enlisted in the Air Force, and got my act together (determination in life, got married, etc). I still play small time and really like the World Poker Tour on TV. Its lots more fun, to me, to watch.

John

Geeks and poker? (1)

murky_lurker (780235) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262382)

Sounds almost exactly like the Tiltboys [tiltboys.com] . If ever there were a bunch of harder gamblers, I haven't heard about it.

I play Poker (1)

nooch (538215) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262390)


I have been getting together with a group of friends to play poker for a while now. It's a good opportunity to spend time with friends, and get toasty! The No Limit Texas Hold 'Em from TV has definitely polluted our game though. I have been trying to shake things up by introducing different games, like the 5 card Draw I grew up on. Soon, they may be ready for some 7 Card Stud. I can't wait.

-J

The Feel of the Cards (3, Insightful)

beatleadam (102396) | more than 10 years ago | (#9262395)

Many of today's top professional players have nerdly roots such as Mathematicians, chess prodigies, or backgammon champions.

What I love about Poker (and why I am happy it is gaining in popularity) is simply the "reality" of it in that you have real cards, real chips and potentially even real money in your hands. I am contrasting this to the computerized or synthetic elements of online poker or poker video games.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?