This was my first night in Vegas and
my first session of the trip. It was
most notable for an incredibly stupid play I witnessed, followed by a hand with
pocket Kings and what I think is a gaming violation.
I was at Caesars playing 1/2. I bought in for $200 as per usual. I'm sorry to report that Caesars is still
using those damn $2 chips I've bitched about in the past. I hate them.
And their usage seems to be spreading.
Later in the trip I played at Venetian and they are using them there now
too. My guess is they bought a ton of
them years ago to use for the rake, but now that the rake at virtually every
Vegas poker room maxes out at $5, they really don't need them for that any
more. So rather than retire them, they
are using them in play.
Anyway, it was a rather dull game, not
too much action but it was just what the doctor ordered. I was really tired from the drive up and from
the packing and unpacking for the trip.
The act of packing suitcases and packing the car really takes a toll on
my chronic back issues. And that long
drive to Vegas isn't as much fun as it used to be. So I knew it was going to be a short session. In fact, if not the fact the fact that I was
only going to be there seven nights (a short trip by my standards), I might
have decided to skip playing that night.
But I couldn't afford to waste a night.
So I picked Caesars because of all the rooms on the Strip, I figured
that one required the least amount of walking from my car to the poker
room. Since I was tired, I appreciated
the fact that it wasn't a wild game that would require more concentration than
I could produce this evening.
Early on I had pocket 6's in the big
blind and called $10. It was three-way.
The flop was King-high and I whiffed.
But no one bet. The turn was a
second spade and still not a 6. Again,
no one bet. The river was the King of
spades. The preflop raiser bet $15. It smelled fishy to me. If he had a King, why didn't he c-bet the
flop? Surely he would have. And did he really luck into a back-door
flush? I suppose it was possible but it
seemed unlikely. So I thought it was
worth a call. He said, "I have
nothing," and waited a few beats before finally showing his hand, Jack-8
offsuit, which matched nothing on the board.
My 6's were good. Also worth
knowing he raised preflop with Jack-8.
To introduce this next hand, I have to
describe I hand I wasn't involved in.
There was a guy at the table I had already thought was a bit of jerk and
this hand totally proved it. I don't
really know why I had already come to that conclusion but there was just
something about him, the way he was reacting to results that seemed off. And he had lost a big pot where he got caught
in a bluff and didn't reload. So he was
playing with about a $25 stack for awhile, but he was able to win a pot or two
to get up closer to $100.
Anyway, this hand was heads up. I can't remember whether he had raised or the
other guy had, but there was some king of raise preflop and so after the flop
the pot was like $13-$15. The flop came
Ace-King-Jack, rainbow. Neither player
bet. I noted that Queen-10 would be a
pretty good hand to have. The turn was a
10. Neither player bet. In my mind, for some reason, I was rooting
for a Queen to appear so that Broadway would be on the board. Don't ask me why I was rooting for that, I
just was. I guess I thought it would
look pretty.
Well, sure enough, a Queen did hit the
river. Damn it. Apparently wishing for a certain card to hit
the board only works for me when it doesn't actually matter to me, never when
it does. Anyway, there was no flush
possible and so both players were obviously going to be playing the board. There was no way anyone could beat it. It was destined to be a chopped pot.
So the aforementioned jerk goes ahead
and bets $10! See, I told you he was a
jerk. The other player was steamed. "Why the hell did you do that? You want to give him money?" He was pointing to the dealer. Of course the dealer wouldn't get the additional
rake this idiot was creating, the house would.
Then he said, "I suppose I should
re-raise?" But he didn't, he just
called, they both showed their hands and of course they shared the pot, each
playing the board.
Rarely have I seen such a bone-headed
play. So in this hand I'm about to tell
you about, I knew I wasn't up against a rocket scientist. It was finally time for me to get the dreaded pocket Kings, first time for this
trip. I opened to $10 and got three
callers. Considering this table, that
was a lot of callers. The flop was
Queen-9-x, rainbow, and I bet $25. Only
the aforementioned jerk called. The turn
was a 10 and I bet $40, and he called again.
Now looking at the board, with the
Queen, the 10 and the 9, I started thinking that the last thing I wanted was to
hit my set. A deuce would sure look nice
to me. I mean if this guy had a set or
two pair he would have raised for sure.
So I was wishing for a low card, the lower the better.
Of course, I only get the card I want
when I'm not in a hand (see above). Sure
enough, a King hit the board. I was
confident I was ahead before, but now I wasn't so sure. All he needed was a measly Jack and he had a
straight. Queen-Jack was certainly in
his range. I didn't have to worry about
a flush at least, that was not possible.
Now his stack was up to around $120
when the hand started. Between that and
the hand where I saw him bluff off most of chips earlier, there was no way I
was going to fold if he shoved (his likely play if he bet at all). I'd pay him off. So I guess I should have bet. He might very well have paid me off if he
just had a Queen. But it was pocket
Kings and with him only needing one card to make his straight, I couldn't bring
myself to bet. But he checked
behind. I showed my set of Kings and he
reacted with disgust—like maybe he was mad at himself for not betting/raising
an earlier street—and just mucked his cards.
I would be surprised though if he ever
had a hand that could have beaten my overpair.
I suppose it's possible but I think more likely he was mad for not
trying to take a stab at the pot earlier by raising me when I just had a pair
of Kings. But I'll never know.
I won a few more small pots and was
able to cash out after two hours with a $100 profit. And a 1-0 record with pocket Kings for the
trip, so it was a good session indeed.
Now after I cashed out, I headed over
to the Sports Book. I had been watching the Dodgers on TV in the poker room and
when last I looked they were trying to rally from three runs down with a couple
of men on base and a run in. So I
figured I'd find a seat and at least watch the rest of that inning.
But by the time I made it over to the
book, I noticed the inning was over and they had failed to score any more
runs. So I kept moving. But I did see something that I thought was
unacceptable in the book. There, in the
front row, was a woman sitting there, watching the screens. To her left was a small boy, no more than 6-7
years old, asleep. And the woman had a
smaller child, a little girl, lying on her in her chair, also asleep.
Now the book was closed for the night,
so there were no ticket writers at all in the place (is that the right phrase
for them? I don't think they like being
called "bookies.") But it is
my understanding that children are not allowed in the gambling areas of a
casino. They can just walk through a
casino swiftly (accompanied by a parent, of course) but not loiter at all. These kids were doing more than loiter!
Or does the fact that the book was
closed make it alright? Technically, at
that particular moment, it wasn't really a gambling area. You couldn't place any bets. As opposed to say, sitting at a slot machine
which would of course be a gambling area.
I guess I don't know if that changes
anything, but it seemed wrong to me. But
then, I always wonder why parents bring kids to Vegas anyway.
why not discuss the TRUE reason $2 chips are used, the ones the staff in the poker rooms wont admit to? its because they think that people will tip $2 on a pot theyd otherwise tip $1 on if its got a bunch of $2 chips in it instead of ones. ive heard so many say that the dealers will get more money this way, specifically dealers saying this benefits them.
ReplyDeleteyeah thats a great way to make people want to tip u more, by pissing them off to where u never have 10 or more ones on you at all times like most people like. instead u have like 0 or 1 or 2 ones and a bunch of annoying twos.
Well, I don't think that's the reason they use the $2 chips, Tony. I mean that MAY benefit the dealers, but it doesn't help the house any and it's the house that decides to use those chips.
DeleteAt the places that used $2 chips this time, I ALWAYS had more $1 chips than $2 chips, except for when I had just one $2 chip.
I guess by your theory, the dealers always have incentive to put more $2 chips into the pot, instead of $1 chips, but I never witnessed that happening.
Tony, I think what you said is ridiculous. Very few poker players are as obsessed about tipping as you.
DeleteTo be fair to Tony, I do recall a dealer I follow on Twitter saying if (or when) he deals in a room that uses the $2 chips, he'd try to make sure the pot always had a $2 chip in it so he might get it back as a tip.
Delete