Dav!d ([info]savagemind) wrote in [info]rounders,
@ 2005-03-30 18:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P112493.asp?GT1=6305

There is a great link for all of you who are playing online (or thinking about it). Its got some invaluable tips for picking the right gaming site for you.

In my personal experience, Pacific Poker STILL owes me $10. A small matter, but if they can't refund a small amount, what makes me think they can handle larger sums? Collusion seems to run rampant there, too. So, I'd steer clear.

I'm playing on PokerStars now, and I'm enjoying it. I've been having connection problems with it (not on my side), but I get the impression its more of a fluke.

(Post a new comment)


[info]sloshr
2005-03-31 02:43 am UTC (link)
What makes you state "Collusion seems to run rampant there"?

Just curious.

I regularly play on Pacific and while I don't like their lengthy cash out policy, I have an awesome win rate there.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]savagemind
2005-03-31 05:08 am UTC (link)
I ran into a lot of groups where only one would play at a time. If one would bet the rest would fold, no matter how big/small the bet, and there would always be ONE to call me no matter how big my bets were. When I would fold pre-flop and it was one against the other they would rarely bet. I can remember several instances of seeing two of them go head-to-head and simply check-check all the way to the river.. most of the time they would be smart and one would bet and the other would fold, but sometimes they'd just check-check again and I'd see that even though one had a viable (or even GOOD) hand, they didn't even bother to throw any more chips in.

There were a lot of indications of collusion. It was just too uncomfortable for me to bother risking it.

Pacific Poker just doesn't seem very good at tracking and punishing these people, because they seem to swarm to that casino. I rarely see them at Poker Stars, which is strange because it is one of the most populous of all poker sites.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
first hand knowledge
(Anonymous)
2005-04-17 07:45 pm UTC (link)
i've been told by a friend of mine that some of her friends that live out on the west coast sit at tables and do exactly that. kind of worrisome...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]swolfe
2005-03-31 02:02 pm UTC (link)
uh, that article is crap:

"I'd tell a new player to just play your bankroll," he says. "That's generally 40 times the big blind." So at the $3/$6 table, that would mean having around $240 to play.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]savagemind
2005-03-31 04:43 pm UTC (link)
Explain.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sloshr
2005-04-01 02:53 am UTC (link)
Many poker folks recommend having 300 times the big bet in your bankroll for the game you're playing. So, at 3/6, that'd be $1800. The least I've heard recommended is 100 times the big bet.

A bad run of cards, a straight counterfeited by a full house on the river - folks who don't know they shouldn't play 7/2offsuit - and that 40 times the big bet can get wiped out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swolfe
2005-04-01 02:15 pm UTC (link)
he doesn't even say 40 times the big bet. he says big blind, so 20 big bets :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]savagemind
2005-04-01 03:40 pm UTC (link)
I wouldn't say that 40x is too small. It may not be ideal, but its definitely not too small.

Even a bad run of cards won't eliminate that size bankroll at a big table within a night. Not unless you play your cards very foolishly.

Me, I would play with a lot more, but I don't think that is bad advice to beginners, considering that most players lose their first couple of bankrolls anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…