CasinoGaming.com


	Sundays: Inside Gaming Tuesdays: Video Poker Wednesdays: Off the Shelf Fridays: Richard Eng, Player's Edge Saturdays: Pocket Aces

POCKET ACES

Columns

• Back to Maryann's index

• Back to columnists' index

Maryann Guberman has been a writer and editor with many gaming publications, including Sports Form, Card Player, Poker World, Player's Panorama and Systems and Methods. She also has written and edited numerous books on gambling.

July 1, 2006

The Absolute Worst Poker Move Ever

The first step towards amendment is the recognition of error. -- Seneca

What's the worst move in the game of poker?

Is it slow-playing with a monster hand? Is it check-raising with garbage under your card capper? Is it raising every hand? Is it being a calling station? Is it calling all in over a raise when the raiser hasn't named an amount yet? Name any stupid play you can think of -- hell, name 10 stupid plays -- and I'm sure all of us can name 10 we've personally made at one time or another. These are just baby mistakes, piddling little puddles on the casino carpet. It doesn't matter what you think, none of these moves are the absolute, positively, no-question-about-it worst poker move you can imagine -- at least not from my point of view.

No, the absolute worst poker move ever is the use of the rabbit cam or the wonder cam. (In the World Series of Poker videos it's referred to as the former and on the WPT it's the latter, but in both cases it is a horrendous concept.)

Now, let's get the record straight. This is my opinion but it's one worth thinking about in light of this question several questions.

In your game, do you really want people to think they have to stay in the pot with what they've already determined to be a precarious hand just because they saw what happened on TV when someone didn't stay? Not me! I want him out after he's contributed.

If the holder of the two pair folds on the turn and the cam shows the river would have filled his hand, is that good? I don't think so, not because it will later rub salt in the losing wound of the player who folded the two pair but also because it shows the viewer that maybe he should not fold. After all, the next card could tilt the table in his direction, couldn't it?

In some respects poker is a game of guesses, estimates of the future based on past results. If you know, for instance, that Player A will make a weak bet when he has a strong hand, you can determine how you will handle your own cards. If you know that Player B will bet like a millionaire with money to burn when he has a great hand, again, you'll know how to proceed. So all in all, folding your hand should end your participation in any way, shape or form because you've made you guess and your guess is right, no matter what. Revealing what the next card would have been does nothing for you, nothing for your opponent and nothing for the game. In fact, the only thing it does is give the announcer something to get excited about.

Call me picky (I've been called worse), but don't call me stupid. If I've learned how to play, paid attention, understood the risk, figured the outs and the odds and, overall, done my best to try to win and then someone shows me I was wrong -- even though I was right -- I will be quite upset.

I won't go postal but I don't want to be taught the wrong way to play. And I don't want my future opponents to learn how not to play.

I brought the subject up at the lunch table the other day and had only one dissenting opinion. "Well, sometimes I want to know what would have happened if a guy stayed in," one of my coworkers (actually the boss, who plays poker once a year in a media tournament) said.

My response? "You put up the money, you hold the cards, you make the decision. You folded and you lost the pot. There is no 'what would have happened.' There are no more cards! Game over, man."

Other responses included "Nope. It makes a guy look stupid" and "It doesn't add anything to the game," and "I guess they have to make it more exciting," and "It's not like you can learn anything from it," and "I've never been in a casino card room that allowed rabbit hunting."

It's patently silly but I guess perhaps poker is the only game where you can do this. But what purpose does it serve? You can't turn the clock back and let someone replay a hand. In fact, he won't even know the outcome until he watches it himself weeks later.

But since there are too few innovations or bells and whistles to add to televised poker anymore this is something that's going to stay whether I like it or not.

If this were a voting matter, I'd vote against. How about you?