Podcasts Poker Forums

http://podcasts.deucescracked.com/heyball/Hey_Ball_-_Episode_17.mp3

Chuck and Joe bring on new DC producer: OnTheRail15 and talk about quality of HU games, New York Mets, and how old Joe is.

http://www.deucescracked.com/podcasts/heyball

First of all, the Angels won the 2002 WS.
Second, you should go to Dodger Stadium when the Giants are in town. Second biggest rivalry in baseball, imo. Nobody leaves before the 27th out. Security, yelling, "fights" (security steps in very quickly) and ok-ish baseball, the Angels are too bland, somehow. I know that at the moment the Dodgers are in disarray because of the consequences of the divorce, but I'm sure they'll be back in form in 2-3 years.

I agree and kinda disagree with the HU tables thing. Some time ago, Mason Malmuth wrote that NL cash games would be really bad for the fish as they would all lose their money too quickly. Guess how that worked out? Yes, I know the 100bb buy-in prevented them to go bust too quickly, but you know what I mean. Just blindly saying it's bad for the game, is not considering all options.
In Vegas having 6:5 blackjack tables is counterproductive. It lets the fish go broke quicker, they won't like the game and they will never come back. Casinos should worry about their long term health and never offer these games and patrons should shun these games as much as possible... that is what is happening, right? ;-)
Just because something is good for the site, doesn't mean it's good for the players...

And I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue, but the way you just glossed over the thread and conveniently left out the criticism voiced at training sites made the discussion boring when everybody was agreeing with each other.

First of all, the Angels won the 2002 WS.
Second, you should go to Dodger Stadium when the Giants are in town. Second biggest rivalry in baseball, imo. Nobody leaves before the 27th out. Security, yelling, "fights" (security steps in very quickly) and ok-ish baseball, the Angels are too bland, somehow. I know that at the moment the Dodgers are in disarray because of the consequences of the divorce, but I'm sure they'll be back in form in 2-3 years.

Been there, yes. Don't I say, "Dodger Blue runs deep." or something of the sort, anyway I agree.

I agree and kinda disagree with the HU tables thing. Some time ago, Mason Malmuth wrote that NL cash games would be really bad for the fish as they would all lose their money too quickly. Guess how that worked out? Yes, I know the 100bb buy-in prevented them to go bust too quickly, but you know what I mean. Just blindly saying it's bad for the game, is not considering all options.

Mason wrote that a long time ago. And he was right. And he still is right. He also wrote that before there were HU tables on the internet however.

And I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue, but the way you just glossed over the thread and conveniently left out the criticism voiced at training sites made the discussion boring when everybody was agreeing with each other.

No convenience. There was not mention of the training site silliness until after we recorded this. That illogical thought pattern was not brought up until I posted in the thread and I was linked to the thread after we recorded the podcast.

Game health online (beyond legislation/regulation) is a function of standard win rates. HU winrates>NL6max winrates>LHE 6 max, etc etc and down the line we go. Online training sites might help the health of the games honestly. I have to divulge intimate business details but I know our customers.

Mason is absolutely right about NL games. For example, if you look at the poker room at the Wynn, the uncapped NL game completely destroyed any LHE action, and most NL action in that room.

Anyway don't equate the health of the game with the health of the sites. Obviously those two things go together, but the health of the game obviously also goes with the health of the players, especially the winning players. No game=no money. Game=money. Seems pretty simple to me.

Anyway don't equate the health of the game with the health of the sites. Obviously those two things go together, but the health of the game obviously also goes with the health of the players, especially the winning players. No game=no money. Game=money. Seems pretty simple to me.

I don't get the first sentence. Like under what circumstances would the games be healthy, but the health of the online sites unhealthy and vice versa?

We should all be lobbying for the sites to get rid of the NL games? Especially the deepstacked ones? ;-) Just being facetious...

Joe, it would be really great if you could talk about why you think that online sites help the health of the games. I mean, I know the argument that fish won't lose quickly anymore, won't leave site quickly anymore, good player will still make $. But good players don't make much money anymore and need many more fish to support their WR simply because of the rake. It seems training sites breed mediocrity...

Joe, it would be really great if you could talk about why you think that online sites help the health of the games. I mean, I know the argument that fish won't lose quickly anymore, won't leave site quickly anymore, good player will still make $. But good players don't make much money anymore and need many more fish to support their WR simply because of the rake. It seems training sites breed mediocrity...

I was more or less saying that as training sites are far from the culprit of what people are complaining about when the talk about the state of the games.

I don't get the first sentence. Like under what circumstances would the games be healthy, but the health of the online sites unhealthy and vice versa?

We should all be lobbying for the sites to get rid of the NL games? Especially the deepstacked ones? ;-) Just being facetious...

I was pointing out that both the sites and the players benefit from healthy games. I could turn it around and ask if there's a situation where games are healthy and winning players are unhealthy. Honestly I think that people who want HU tables are quite short sighted or don't want to be in poker for more than a year or two.

And of course we should. But sites will never do that so we don't.

1986 World Series history correction:

Clemens started Game 6. Dennis 'Oil Can' Boyd was scheduled to pitch Game 7 the next day, but the game was rained out. When they played Game 7 the following day, the Red Sox elected to go with Bruce Hurst on three days rest.

Random trivia question: Most baseball fans know that it was Mookie Wilson's grounder that scored Ray Knight to win Game 6 ... but who scored the tying run that inning?

1986 World Series history correction:

Clemens started Game 6. Dennis 'Oil Can' Boyd was scheduled to pitch Game 7 the next day, but the game was rained out. When they played Game 7 the following day, the Red Sox elected to go with Bruce Hurst on three days rest.

Random trivia question: Most baseball fans know that it was Mookie Wilson's grounder that scored Ray Knight to win Game 6 ... but who scored the tying run that inning?

Kevin Mitchel on a wild pitch, right?

1986 World Series history correction:

Clemens started Game 6. Dennis 'Oil Can' Boyd was scheduled to pitch Game 7 the next day, but the game was rained out. When they played Game 7 the following day, the Red Sox elected to go with Bruce Hurst on three days rest.

Random trivia question: Most baseball fans know that it was Mookie Wilson's grounder that scored Ray Knight to win Game 6 ... but who scored the tying run that inning?

Gary Carter. (snap reply no google) I can still see him and his longish hair crossing the plate.

Okay you two named the two other players who scored, but I think Joe should rewatch the 10th inning to confirm the order!

"Here comes Knight ... and the Mets win it!"

Being a Mets fan means you get to enjoy the 86 World Series and the 04 ALCS ... but unfortunately, not much else.

Okay you two named the two other players who scored, but I think Joe should rewatch the 10th inning to confirm the order!

"Here comes Knight ... and the Mets win it!"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8547285560243429315#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8547285560243429315#

Tying run = Mitchell, 4th run = Gary Carter. Awesome re-enactment though, I loved that game (RBI Baseball).

Rob