From: apple!kpc.com!why (Will Hyde)
\nMessage-Id:
\nSubject: Re: Lowball …
\nDate: Sun, 28 Jul 91 18:02:22 PDT<\/p>\n
THE LOWBALL BOOK<\/p>\n
Okay, here it is. <\/p>\n
It should run about 2500 lines, and end with five table
\ncharts (the “plates” … which you should be able to
\nprint out on just about any printer). Please let me
\nknow if you don’t get a complete, clean copy (or if you
\ndo, for that matter)….<\/p>\n
Will Hyde<\/p>\n
* * *
\n\t\t\t* * *<\/p>\n
PLAYING THE RUSH is copyright (c)1978, Whitestone Books.
\nEntire contents are copyright (c)1984, Whitestone Books.<\/p>\n
Permission to copy for non-commercial use is granted,
\nproviding nothing is deleted.<\/p>\n
Whitestone Books\/P.O. Box 1144\/Los Altos, CA 94022<\/p>\n
* * *
\n * * *<\/p>\n
THE LOWBALL BOOK…
\n(Justin Case)<\/p>\n
Author’s Note: This little book is not a primer. It
\nis not going to help you much if you are trying to learn
\nto play Lowball. This is the book of numbers, the book
\non the mathematics and psychology of playing percentages
\n… Lowball percentages. This little book is not a good
\npercentage bet, if you do not know what a good percentage
\nbet is.
\n This little book is for the Lowball Player. The
\nexperienced Lowball player, who has progressed to where
\nhe wants to know the precise percentages. This book is
\nfor you if you are aware that the best percentage player
\nis the best player … if you see that it is possible to
\nhave “the best of it” on every hand you play — even when
\nit is a Ten or a two-card draw — if the odds on the
\nmoney are right, and you know the numbers.
\n If you don’t already know about patience, persever-
\nance, pat hands, position, proposition bets, and all
\nthose other points of play … you are not ready for
\nthis. I am not even going to comment on the gestures,
\ntable talk, body language, or any of those other little
\nsubtleties that go into the make-up of a super-player
\nlike the incredible Mr. Sherman (“The Sniveler On The
\nRoof”) or that silver-haired dude whose net percentage at
\nArtichoke Joe’s is often better than Artichoke Joe’s.
\nThose things you will learn the way they learned them.
\n Experience.
\n In other words, poker strategy is poker strategy …
\nyou can read about it in two-hundred different books, or
\nsubscribe to GAMBLING TIMES and have all the new strate-
\ngies delivered as soon as they are born.
\n In this little book you learn the numbers; what they
\nare, how to compute them and to apply them; how to come
\nup with a net percentage you can take to the bank. This
\nlittle book is the one you were looking for when you
\ncouldn’t find it. This is “the book” on Lowball.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
This little book is dedicated to the Players, Tourists
\nand Live Ones at the Cameo Club — in grateful apprecia-
\ntion of their many contributions to this effort, over the
\nyears….<\/p>\n
[Editor’s note: The “Plates” (table layouts) referred to
\n in the text cannot be displayed properly on screen in an
\n ascii format. They will be appended in an easy-to-print
\n form at the end of the text.]<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
TAKING THE BEST OF IT…
\n(Justin Case)<\/p>\n
Lowball is played like Draw Poker, except that the
\nworst poker hand wins. Almost. Aces are low, Straights
\nand Flushes do not count, so 5-4-3-2-1 is the best
\npossible hand. Your largest card counts first; any Eight
\n(8-6542, for example) beats any Nine (9-4321 is a Nine);
\nany Seven beats any Eight, and like that. The next
\nlargest card breaks ties.<\/p>\n
So now you know how to play Lowball….<\/p>\n
Sure, I know, you didn’t need that; you play Lowball
\nall the time … in a cardroom. Sometimes you win pretty
\ngood, too. Just last Thursday you won a hundred and
\nsixty dollars in a Straight Four at the Garden City, in
\nSan Jose; and a couple of weeks ago you won four hundred
\nplaying No-Limit at the Cameo Club in Palo Alto. In
\nfact, subtracting your losses from your winnings for the
\nlast six months shows you have made a net profit. Not a
\nwhole lot of money, but you know how few are the players
\nwho win consistently. For six months now, you have done
\nbetter than most of the “Regulars” you play with. Still,
\nfor some reason, you are not ready to sell you house and
\nmove to Gardena.<\/p>\n
I’m kidding, of course, there’s no reason to move to
\nGardena; you can find all the action you want just about
\nanywhere in California (and in six or seven other
\nstates). In fact, sometimes you can find too much
\naction, right here in River City….<\/p>\n
That might even be the problem: that hand that always
\nseems to come along just when you are winning real good
\n… that killer hand, where Captain Marvel makes his big
\nplay with a rough Nine and you have a Six to draw to,
\nwith the Joker. Or you pick up that pat Eight when three
\nplayers are already in the pot, and you are not sure how
\nmuch to raise it (why do you always seem to raise it too
\nmuch when somebody has a pat Six — or not enough when
\neverybody is drawing, so they all play and your pat Eight
\ngets drawn out on?).<\/p>\n
Some hands are automatic, anybody could play them,
\nthey play themselves. But never in the crunch … when
\nthe pressure is on, you always have that marginal hand
\nyou don’t really know how to play. These are always
\nhands you could win, if you could just get a little bit
\nlucky…. Sometimes you do win them, sometimes you do
\nget a little bit lucky; but more often you go busted,
\nbecause Lady Luck is a fickle bitch.<\/p>\n
Lady Luck is a fickle bitch, and her name is Karma.
\nNow and then she will bring you a Deuce so you can make
\na straight Six when you are up against a Seven-five you
\nthought was a Nine … but hers is a balancing act; for
\neach time she slips that Deuce in there, she is going to
\ngive you a Seven on your Six and you are going to have to
\ncall that Seven-five. If you get to where you are
\nputting your trust in her, she will screw you.<\/p>\n
Getting lucky means beating the odds, and now and then
\nyou will do that; you do it every time you “take the
\nworst of it” and win, every time you gamble and win.<\/p>\n
AXIOM #1: GAMBLERS DON’T WIN; WINNERS DON’T GAMBLE.<\/p>\n
What’s that? you say, and now you want to remind me
\nthat empires have been built from gambling: Las Vegas;
\nReno; Atlantic City; Monte Carlo … gambling is every-
\nwhere, gamblers are everywhere; everybody loves to
\ngamble.<\/p>\n
Which is bullshit, and you already know it. Empires
\nare built from gambling, right enough … but the Emperor
\ndoes not gamble. The Emperor takes the best of it; he
\nhas a few percentage points in his favor in every game he
\nspreads for gamblers to play. And he takes that percent-
\nage to the bank as if it were a tax, which it damned
\nnearly is.<\/p>\n
THE EMPIRE TAX…<\/p>\n
Of course I’m talking about the “house percentage,”
\nand in a Lowball game you do not play against the house.
\nTheoretically, your odds are the same as everyone else’s;
\nand they are, going in. However, after the cards are
\ndealt the odds change; they must be adjusted to the value
\nof your hand. And often the odds change a little more
\n(sometimes a lot more) with each bet.<\/p>\n
Example: You have a pat Eight, a good one (8-5321);
\nit’s a Four-to-go No-Limit game; there are two players in
\nthe pot for four dollars each; you have raised it twenty
\nmore; everybody has about a hundred on the table….<\/p>\n
At this point you are a pretty good favorite (it looks
\nlike it is going to be two players drawing a card, each
\nwith three-to-one against his making a Seven or better).
\nI want to call your hand a three-to-two favorite to win
\nthe pot (three-to-one against each hand, two hands) and
\nthat is close enough, but you cannot really figure it
\nlike that.<\/p>\n
In a series of four plays at 3-to-1, you figure to win
\nthree times and lose once (WWWL). There are four
\ndifferent ways this can happen (WWWL\/WWLW\/WLWW\/LWWW), so
\nit takes a series of sixteen hands to exhaust the
\npossibilities. If you have two players, each with odds
\nof 3-to-1, you have two different sets of sixteen
\npossibilities.<\/p>\n
Each player figures to make his hand four times in the
\nseries, so it looks like you win eight times and lose
\neight times. If that were true you would lose (at 100.00
\nper hand) 800.00 on your eight losers, and win 1600.00 on
\nyour eight winners; or 800.00 profit for the sixteen hand
\nseries — same as one player, where you lose 400.00 and
\nwin 1200.00 in the series. But that is not quite right
\neither….<\/p>\n
In this series there will be a total of eight Sevens
\nmade, between the two players, but you will lose only
\nseven times. Combined, they will make eight Sevens in
\nsixteen plays (eight Sevens in thirty-two hands) but that
\nis not eight losers in sixteen plays to you, because one
\nof each player’s Sevens will fall on the same hand as one
\nof the other player’s Sevens. Once in sixteen you will
\nlose to both players … so you lose seven at 100.00
\neach, and win nine at 200.00. It is a net profit (Empire
\nTax) of 1100.00, not 800.00.<\/p>\n
If I had gone ahead and called your hand a three-to-
\ntwo favorite we’d need a computer to figure a sixteen-
\nhand series … but it would work out to nine wins of
\n200.00 and six losses of 100.00, in a series of fifteen
\nplays. A net of 1200.00. Close, but inflated.<\/p>\n
It doesn’t matter anyway, neither of them is going to
\ntry to beat your pat Eight-five…. We came here to see
\nhow a bet can change the odds, and the one remaining
\nplayer behind you just came over the fence with a 100.00
\nre-raise…!<\/p>\n
AXIOM #2: A LARGE BET CHANGES THE VALUE OF A HAND.<\/p>\n
So what do you do now? I cannot tell you, because I
\ndon’t know the player. Some players will make a play
\nlike this with a Nine (especially a “two-way Nine,” like
\na Nine-five) and others would not do it with a rough
\nSeven. Your play from this point depends upon your
\nfamiliarity with your opponents. If this bet is made by
\na “Tourist” (a player you do not know) and the only clue
\nyou have is the size of the bet, you are in trouble.
\nThis much I can tell you: if the Eight-five is no good,
\nthe hand is no good … it is at least three-to-one
\nagainst improving it. Only the “Live One” makes that
\nplay.<\/p>\n
Now then, before we get into where those odds come
\nfrom, and how to read them, let’s find out where you are
\nat. This time you are playing Eight-to-go No-Limit (we
\nwill get to the Limit game later on).<\/p>\n
Refer to PLATE ONE…<\/p>\n
The pot is opened for eight dollars; called for eight;
\nand (you) called for eight (drawing to a Six).<\/p>\n
Play #4 is a 72.00 RAISE (bet is 80.00 straight).<\/p>\n
First two players PASS.<\/p>\n
It is now on you to CALL 72.00 (you have 75.00).<\/p>\n
You know the player who raised well enough to know he
\nhas an Eight (he never plays Nines, and the raise is too
\nbig for a smooth hand). Some players will make this play
\nwhen they are drawing a card (usually to the nuts with
\nthe Joker), trying to pick up the 32.00 that was in the
\npot after play #3 (your CALL), but not this particular
\nplayer. He is pat.<\/p>\n
So, what do you do now? And why…?<\/p>\n
This one is easy….<\/p>\n
If you play, you must CALL 72.00 to win 112.00.<\/p>\n
That’s 11-to-7 on the money….<\/p>\n
You have to make an Eight. Odds are two-to-one
\nagainst making the hand….<\/p>\n
You do not attempt a 2-to-1 longshot for 11-to-7 on
\nthe money. It would be an Even Proposition if there were
\n144.00 already in the pot. I would play it if there were
\n150.00 or more — I want that Empire Tax, remember?<\/p>\n
The odds on this play are the odds on the hand,
\nbecause you will have only three dollars on the table if
\nyou make this CALL (after-the-draw possibilities modify
\nthe odds, and we will go into that later on, but in this
\ncase there are none).<\/p>\n
The only way to approach it, if you are thinking in
\nterms of Making A Living, is to see that it IS a living,
\nand life goes on and on and on and on….<\/p>\n
All these hands will be played and replayed and then
\nplayed again. That’s three, right?<\/p>\n
For every three times you play this hand, you will
\nlose two, at 72.00 each, or 144.00. The one you will win
\nwill pay 112.00.<\/p>\n
Now do you see it…?<\/p>\n
The only way to play this hand is to never play it!<\/p>\n
And please, try to forget about your 8.00. When play
\nnumber four (the raise) comes down, that 8.00 is gone
\ninto history. Karma got it. You have no interest in
\nthis pot, unless you call the raise. If you consider
\nthat 8.00 as yours, then the bet is even worse — you can
\nonly win 104.00.<\/p>\n
You have to see the numbers, and realize they are all
\ngoing to run together, in time. The importance of one
\nhand is soon lost; it becomes just another number in a
\nchain of numbers which adds up to a total number — from
\nwhich your Wang could compute your batting average, your
\nEmpire Tax rate.<\/p>\n
Would you give me 14.00 to 11.00 on the flip of a
\ncoin?<\/p>\n
Just once?<\/p>\n
Can you be talked into it…?<\/p>\n
I hope not. If you can be talked into laying long
\nodds on an even-money bet, or going against the odds for
\neven money, you are a “taxpayer” … and I am sure you
\nknow what that makes you.<\/p>\n
What about that Enormous pot you would have won … if
\nyou had just had the balls to play that marginal hand for
\nso much money…? Was it really all that marginal? Was
\nit just too much money, not worth taking the chance?<\/p>\n
Did you know what your chances really were…?<\/p>\n
Your exact percentage…?<\/p>\n
You are drawing a card to the nuts (4-3-2-1) and you
\nthink you can win with an Eight … so what are the odds
\nagainst making an Eight or better? What if you need a
\nSeven … what are the odds then? What are the Outside
\nOdds and what are the Inside Odds? What does “Odds on
\nthe Money” mean? And how about “Balancing the Odds?”
\nWhatever happened to “Lowball is a simple game…?”<\/p>\n
Are answers better than questions?<\/p>\n
Balancing the odds is wondering if this little book
\ncan sell enough to compensate the writer for what it is
\ngoing to cost the player…. Jesus, I can think of a
\nnumber of players who are going to find the leak in their
\nplay in this little book — and a number of others who
\nmight not think this is such a good idea (“Hey, Asshole,
\ndon’t wise up the Live One … I’m trying to Make a
\nLiving here …”). If consciousness of the “Empire Tax”
\n(and how to compute it — which is coming up shortly)
\nwere to appear suddenly in the Big Apple at the Cameo
\nClub, I can see some very real numbers being shaved from
\nmy chain of numbers which adds up to a total number….<\/p>\n
If you don’t know what I am talking about when I say
\n“My chain of numbers” you are not paying attention! It
\nis going to come up again, when we consider THE ENDLESS
\nLOWBALL GAME, but if you are missing things like that at
\nthis point, by the time we get to that point you will be
\ncoming back to here to see what you missed. Some of this
\nis just Lobbying, because we are going pretty fast, and
\nthat is only good up to a point, too. We don’t want the
\npoints to run together like the numbers in my chain….<\/p>\n
Momentarily I am going to give you a list of numbers,
\nan odds chart, the odds against making a hand. Twenty-
\nfour sets of odds that are so important you have to learn
\nthem all. So important that right after I give them to
\nyou, I am going to show you how to compute them from hand
\nto hand and from play to play, just in case you cannot
\nlearn them all … because every hand you play is
\naffected by these odds, and most are determined by them.<\/p>\n
Then we will go into balancing those odds against the
\nOdds on the Money; a mating that gives birth to a little
\nbeauty called the Net Percentage (the Empire Tax). The
\nwhole process passed through when we were playing the
\nhand on PLATE #1, but like I said, that one was easy.
\nThe Empire Tax on that one was the difference between
\n112.00 and 144.00 … but in that case you would have
\nbeen paying the tax, if you had made the CALL. You know,
\nif you think of it as a TAX, you might be able to resist
\npaying it….<\/p>\n
We are almost ready to type another hand into your
\ncomputer, but it is going to be a little closer this
\ntime; so this time you get to run the program first.<\/p>\n
First the Odds chart:<\/p>\n
ONE CARD DRAW (odds against): 5: 11-to-1
\n 6: 5-to-1
\n 7: 3-to-1
\n 8: 2-to-1
\n 9: 7-to-5
\n 10: .EVEN.<\/p>\n
ONE CARD DRAW (with the Joker): 5: 5-to-1
\n 6: 3-to-1
\n 7: 2-to-1
\n 8: 7-to-5
\n 9: .EVEN.
\n 10: 5-to-7<\/p>\n
TWO CARD DRAW (if you must): 5: 71-to-1
\n 6: 23-to-1
\n 7: 11-to-1
\n 8: 6-to-1
\n 9: 4-to-1
\n 10: 5-to-2<\/p>\n
TWO CARD DRAW (with the Joker): 5: 23-to-1
\n 6: 11-to-1
\n 7: 6-to-1
\n 8: 4-to-1
\n 9: 5-to-2
\n 10: 11-to-7<\/p>\n
And for the purist: The 6-to-1 is in fact, 6.2-to-1,
\nand the 4-to-1 is actually 3.8-to-1 (in the first case
\nyou will miss 62 times for each 10 you make, instead of
\n60; and in the second you will miss 38 to each 10,
\ninstead of 40). In neither case is the difference
\nsignificant, and as it happens, they cancel each other.
\nAnd if you are into making sixty-two two-card draws, you
\ndon’t give a damn what the odds are anyway. Some pretty
\ngood players will tell you that a two-card draw is never
\ncalled for, and in truth, it very rarely is. But you
\nwill run into situations where a two-card draw has the
\nbest of it … if you know the numbers.<\/p>\n
Beginning with 53. There are 53 cards in the deck,
\nunless you play in one of those rare joints where there
\nis no Joker in the deck (Artichoke Joe’s, in San Bruno).
\nIf you play without the Joker count it this way anyway.
\nTrust me … you will see that it works out. The Joker
\nwe will deal with separately, shortly.<\/p>\n
THE FORTY-EIGHT UNKNOWN CARDS…<\/p>\n
Now let me try that again. There are 53 cards in the
\ndeck, and you hold five of them; so there are forty-eight
\nunknown cards from which you will be drawing, if you draw
\na card. It works the same way if your opponent is
\ndrawing and you want to know the odds on (against) his
\ndrawing out on your hand.<\/p>\n
There are always forty-eight unknown cards; the cards
\nin your opponent’s hand (unknown to you) do not change
\nthis. Sure, you know your opponents are holding mostly
\nsmall cards too, when they play a hand, and it seem that
\n“uses up” some of the cards which will make your hand.
\nMaybe so, but maybe it is using up the cards which would
\npair you. Nor can you figure the discarded hands are
\nheavy in high cards — the player behind you just threw
\naway four treys and the Joker.<\/p>\n
It makes no difference either, that there are only
\nthirteen cards left in the stub (in an eight-handed game)
\nand only eleven of them are actually in play (everybody
\nburns the first card and, if the draw goes that far, the
\nlast one). They are all at random from the forty-eight
\nunknown cards; so to calculate the odds on any one of
\nthem is to calculate from the unknown forty-eight.<\/p>\n
Like this: Drawing to 4-3-2-1, you want to know the
\nodds against making an Eight or better. You can catch a
\nFive, a Six, a Seven or an Eight (four of each); sixteen
\ncards you can catch. Now then, 16 of 48 is 32-to-16 —
\nexactly 2-to-1.<\/p>\n
But what if you need a Seven or better…?<\/p>\n
You can now catch twelve cards (5-6-7), so it is 12 of
\n48, or 36-to 12: Exactly 3-to-1 against making a Seven
\nor better.<\/p>\n
For a Six it is 8 of 48; 40-to-8 … Exactly 5-to-1.<\/p>\n
I wonder if you noticed (it’s easy to see on the odds
\nchart) that having the Joker in your hand increases all
\ndraw possibilities by four cards … and moves the odds
\na full notch (drawing to a Seven with the Joker, has the
\nsame odds as drawing to an Eight without it). I’ll bet
\nyou noticed that I did not include the Joker as one of
\nthe unknown cards you can catch though, didn’t you? I
\nshall go into that right after we play another hand.<\/p>\n
This time it is 5-5-10, Twenty-to-go, No-Limit (this
\nis the “Big Apple” at the Cameo — the afternoon big
\ngame). You just sat down with 200.00 (the minimum) and
\nthe Whistling Oakie got you for 75.00 on the very first
\nhand. The second hand, on the middle Blind, was unplay-
\nable; so now you have 120 on the table and the Houseman
\nis dealing for you.<\/p>\n
See PLATE #2…<\/p>\n
The pot is opened for twenty and called twice, before
\nit gets to you. You have a five-dollar Blind already in
\nthe pot, so it will cost you 15.00 to call. You know all
\nthese players, and you can just feel it … everybody is
\nspeculating, they are all on the come. You could
\nprobably win it right here, if you tapped off — it’s
\ntempting — but you have a pair of Queens in your hand.
\nYou don’t have enough money to make that play, and you
\ndon’t have enough hand for a short raise.<\/p>\n
But what about the 15.00 CALL?<\/p>\n
Time to balance the odds.<\/p>\n
At this point there is 80.00 in the pot, but it may as
\nwell be 90.00 — because the big Blind is going to creep
\nin here for ten dollars more, even if he’s drawing three
\ncards (it will look like 10-to-1 on the money to him, and
\nit just about will be). To you it looks like 6-to-1
\n(15.00 to win 90.00), better than 5-to-1 even if the big
\nBlind does not play.<\/p>\n
What kind of hand can you make at 6-to-1…?<\/p>\n
Your 4-3-Joker has odds of 6-to-1 against making a
\nSeven or better. If you have to make a Seven to win, you
\nare into an Even Proposition, and Nines win hands like
\nthis.<\/p>\n
It is an easy call.<\/p>\n
Ah, yes … then the big Blind does come in — with a
\n200.00 raise! The son of a bitch is making the play you
\nwanted to make…!<\/p>\n
And you were right too, everybody was speculating.
\nOne at a time, all three of them PASS.<\/p>\n
Now he’s looking at you, and your hundred-dollar stack
\nof chips….<\/p>\n
Show him the two Queens, drop them face up….<\/p>\n
Now he is looking at you, at your hundred-dollar
\nstack, and at the two Queens; he is doing a little odds
\nbalancing of his own.<\/p>\n
“C’mon,” he says, “I’m drawing,” and he throws away a
\ncard. (What just happened is called a “Proposition Bet”
\nand it happens all the time in games like this one. You
\njust offered him two for one — you’ll CALL a hundred of
\nhis raise and draw two cards, if he will draw one — and
\nhe went for it.) He knows what he’s doing (although he
\nwouldn’t do it if he knew you had the Joker). If you do
\nnot have the Joker, he is a three-to-one favorite on the
\ndraw; if you do have the Joker he is favored by two-to-
\none.<\/p>\n
His odds against making a Seven or better are 3-to-1,
\nand yours are 6-to-1 … 2-to-1 against an Eight for him,
\nand 4-to-1 for you — he has two-to-one the best of it on
\nthe draw.<\/p>\n
But there is 205.00 in the pot, and it is 100.00 to
\nyou (all you have on the table). There is only five
\ndollars in Empire Tax in this pot, but it is on your side
\nof the bet.<\/p>\n
Don’t tell me who won, it doesn’t really matter; it is
\njust another number in an endless chain of numbers….<\/p>\n
Play this hand three times: lose a hundred twice, and
\nwin 205.00 once….<\/p>\n
I know, you are not going to play that hand three
\ntimes in three years … but you are wrong about that.
\nAny hand that plays to those odds is that hand; it does
\nnot matter what the money amounts are, nor what the hands
\nare; only the odds count. Any hand that works out to
\ntwo-to-one on the money and two-to-one against the hand,
\nas closely as that one did, is that hand again. To put
\na hundred into a 200.00 pot, when you have to make an
\nEight, is the same bet. To put fifty cents into a dollar
\npot is likewise.<\/p>\n
CONCERNING THE JOKER…<\/p>\n
It is 9.6-to-1 that you will not be dealt the
\nJoker, and if you do not have it, it is 8.6-to-1 that
\nyour opponent does not have it either. It is 47-to-1 you
\nwill not catch the Joker on a one-card draw; and if you
\ndo, it won’t do anything for you that a number of other
\ncards would not do. If you draw one to an Eight, and
\ncatch the Joker to beat a Nine, the Joker didn’t do
\nanything for your that any of the sixteen other cards
\nwould not do. The presence of the Joker in the forty-
\neight unknown cards, does not make a significant differ-
\nence in your chances of making a hand — and the differ-
\nence it does make will be turned to your advantage
\nanyway, like another tax.<\/p>\n
Can you work with a number like: 2 9\/13ths-to-1…?
\nThat is, two and nine-thirteenths to one, the true odds
\nagainst making a Seven. How much is 2 9\/13ths-to-1 in
\ndollars? It does not compute, I cannot visualize it. I
\ncan visualize drawing to 4-3-2-1, needing 5, 6 or 7,
\nwhich is 12 cards of 48, which is 36-to-12 … which is
\n3-to-1….<\/p>\n
And I am always aware that I still have a little bitty
\nedge when it all works out dead even, because the true
\nodds against my making my Seven are a small fraction of
\na number shorter than I play them. It is a surcharge on
\nmy Empire Tax. It does not have to work out even though,
\nthat fraction is there no matter how the odds work out.<\/p>\n
Of course it is not, but when I make that 47-to-1
\nshot, and catch the Joker, it feels like a collection on
\nmy fractions.<\/p>\n
Adding an imaginary Joker to the deck of fifty-two, so
\nyou can count from forty-eight unknown cards, does the
\nsame thing, including building in the fractions. Doing
\nthat, changes 2 11\/12ths to 3-to-1. The differences are
\na little smaller, because now you are discounting the
\nexistence of an imaginary card; adding one card to the
\ncards which will not make your hand, but not discounting
\none which will.<\/p>\n
Either way, it works out. Besides, if you are playing
\ngood cards it does not get that close.<\/p>\n
AXIOM #3: PLAYING DEAD EVEN WILL KILL YOU…<\/p>\n
If you could manage to hold your odds to exactly EVEN
\non every hand you play for a year’s time, at the end of
\nthe year you would probably be even on your play … and
\nstuck for a year’s TIME…. Dead Even.<\/p>\n
By discounting the Joker as one of the unknown forty-
\neight, you will come up with odds that work out to even
\nnumbers (whole numbers, numbers with no fractions) but
\nthey will never be Dead Even. It is like deducting full
\ndollars from your checking account when you write a check
\nwith cents in it. It adds up.<\/p>\n
Now I hope I have not given you the wrong idea about
\nthe Joker, about its importance. The value of the
\npossibility of the Joker (as a card you can catch) is not
\nsignificant, but the reality of it is. When the Joker is
\nin your hand it changes everything. When the Joker is in
\nthe deck it is just one more card you can catch, it
\nincreases your possibilities by one card; but when it is
\nin your hand, it increases your possibilities by FOUR
\ncards. The twelve cards you can catch to make a Seven,
\nfor example, become sixteen cards when you hold the
\nJoker. The odds change from 3-to-1 to 2-to-1, and that
\ncertainly is a significant difference. At times, as you
\nhave seen (PLATE #2), the Joker can make a two-card draw
\ninto a “good bet.”<\/p>\n
One more little thing: When you hold the Joker in
\nyour hand, and compute the odds (your own, or those of
\nyour opponents), the numbers you come up with are true
\nodds. If you hold the Joker, the three-to-one against
\nyour opponent’s making a Seven is exactly three-to-one,
\nthe fraction-causing possibility of the Joker is elimi-
\nnated. Of course, your opponent does not know that.<\/p>\n
OUTSIDE ODDS\/INSIDE ODDS…<\/p>\n
You are drawing to 5-3-2-1 (to make it easy) and you
\nput him on an Eight. When you consider the odds against
\n“making an Eight or better” you are working out the
\nOutside Odds….<\/p>\n
Now you catch an Eight!<\/p>\n
Is it the best Eight…?<\/p>\n
Now you are considering the Inside Odds (which, in
\nthis case, are 33-to-1 in your favor, with one tie
\npossibility).<\/p>\n
If you are drawing to an Eight, the Outside Odds are
\nthe odds against catching inside the Eight … when you
\ndo, the Inside Odds are the odds against your Eight being
\nthe best Eight.<\/p>\n
Does it matter?<\/p>\n
Suppose you are drawing to 7-4-3-2 — and you make the
\nSeven.<\/p>\n
Now your wife’s mother bets a pretty good chunk, and
\nsays: “Be careful, I made a Seven….” She is teasing
\nthe Live One who built the pot — and then drew two, to
\nan Eight — but you know the old lady is telling the
\ntruth.<\/p>\n
Good thing you drew smooth, isn’t it? If you caught
\na Six the Inside Odds make old moms the favorite by a
\nmargin of 4-to-3, but a Five gives it to you by 5-to-2;
\nand if you caught an Ace, you can’t lose.<\/p>\n
There are seventy ways to make a Nine, and half of
\nthem have an Eight in them; thus 9-7654 will beat more
\nthan half the hands he could have when he says, “I have
\na Nine.” Exactly half, in fact, with one tie. Before
\nthe hand started you had 7-6-5-4 to draw to, and you put
\nhim on a Nine. He went all-in with a small stack, and
\nstood pat. You drew a card and asked him what you had to
\nbeat, and he said (of course) “I have a Nine….”<\/p>\n
Your Outside Odds were 7-to-5 against, but you caught
\na Nine, sure enough (actually, your Outside Odds were
\ntwo-to-one, because it takes an Eight to win it on the
\nOutside). Now it must be decided by the Inside Odds, and
\nthat is a coin flip: 9-7654 beats 35 Nines, loses to 34,
\nand ties one.<\/p>\n
7-6543 There are thirty-five different ways to make
\n7-6542 an Eight — and twenty of them have a Seven.
\n7-6541
\n7-6532 Fifteen Sevens (listed), and ten of them are
\n7-6531 Seven-six — a Seven-five is a Six-and-a-half.
\n7-6521
\n7-6432 Okay, let’s play one more hand at the Cameo
\n7-6431 Club, to see if any of this is working, then we
\n7-6421 will go play some Limit Lowball for a while.
\n7-6321
\n This time the game is Six-to-go.
\n7-5432
\n7-5431 See PLATE THREE…
\n7-5421
\n7-5321 This pot is opened for six dollars, and has
\n been called for six, when the short stack at the
\n7-4321 table goes all-in for 20.00….<\/p>\n
You are Dealing (Houseman is dealing for you, so you
\nhave a 1.00 Blind in the pot), and you have Q-6321; it is
\n19.00 to you….<\/p>\n
At this point there is 38.00 in the pot; it is already
\n2-to-1 on the money, and you know the two players with
\nsix dollars in the pot are unlikely to pass. You are
\nalmost a cinch to get at least three-to-one on your money
\n— the (Outside) odds against a Seven. The numbers force
\nyou to play. The big Blind comes in as well, the other
\ntwo call the 14.00 RAISE, and there is 102.00 in the pot.<\/p>\n
Everybody draws one card, except the player who went
\nall-in; he stands pat.<\/p>\n
You catch an Eight (8-6321).<\/p>\n
After the draw, the first player PASSes (he has 120.00
\non the table); second player PASSes (90.00 in his stack);
\nthird player also PASSes (60.00); all-in player cannot
\nbet, so it is on you (you have 200.00 left).<\/p>\n
You cannot PASS a Seven or better at the Cameo.<\/p>\n
The all-in player could have anything.<\/p>\n
How much is your hand worth now…?<\/p>\n
The best possible hand, among the players who drew a
\ncard, is some kind of Eight. The pat hand cannot win any
\npart of this bet, so as far as this bet is concerned, he
\ndoes not matter. The Inside Odds on an 8-6321 are such
\nthat your hand amounts to a cinch.<\/p>\n
If you can assume everybody knows what is happening,
\nand will more-or-less play the value of his hand, there
\nis a “Best Bet” in this spot:<\/p>\n
100.00.<\/p>\n
If you tap off (bet 120.00 or more) the odds on the
\nmoney to the first player (with 120.00) are 220.00 to
\n120.00, and he will probably lay down an Eight — the
\nmoney odds are short, and he has to consider the possi-
\nbility that the 102.00 already in the pot is locked up by
\nthe pat hand, which would mean he is getting EVEN odds on
\nhis money from you, on the side. Betting 100.00 makes it
\n202.00-to-100.00, and he can justify calling with an
\nEight, because of the 2-to-1 odds against your having
\nmade an Eight (and because the other two players have
\nPASSed once).<\/p>\n
If the bet comes to the second player (with 90.00 in
\nfront of him) the money odds are 192.00-to-90.00. If he
\nhas an Eight, the odds are better for him than they were
\nfor the first player.<\/p>\n
To the third player, the odds on his money will be:
\n162.00-to-60.00. If he has a Eight, he is “Pot Stuck,”
\nforced by the numbers to call.<\/p>\n
There always exists the possibility of somebody
\ngetting crazy and calling for a bluff, or double-thinking
\nhimself into calling with a Nine; thinking you are making
\na play with a Nine because you think the all-in bet was
\na desperation play (a Ten), and you want to force the
\nother three players out.<\/p>\n
THE LIMIT GAME…<\/p>\n
Now then, before we go play some Limit Lowball, some
\nthoughts that slip in here with all these odds and your
\nEmpire Tax….<\/p>\n
In a No-Limit game the size of the bet you are
\nprepared to make (or call) determines the “value of the
\nhand.” In the Limit game, the value of a hand is
\ndetermined by the number of bets (raises) you are
\nprepared to put in.<\/p>\n
When you pick up a pat Eight-five (for instance) you
\nsay to yourself: “This hand is worth four bets,” or,
\n“I’ll go six bets with this one, if old Flash Gordon
\nraises back….”<\/p>\n
Anyway, you make an evaluation of the hand in this
\nspot, and you play it to that value. When old Flash
\nGordon takes it to the seventh bet, you make another
\nevaluation (AXIOM #2 comes into play now). If you go any
\nfurther, you are considering breaking the Eight; and the
\nfurther you go beyond the value of the hand, the greater
\nbecome the odds against you. Every bet you make at
\nthree-to-one the worst of it, is a bet you must make at
\nthree-to-one the best of it, if you want to stay even on
\nyour Empire Tax.<\/p>\n
You are going to win the “bad bets” in exactly the
\nsame ratio you are going to lose the “good bets.” If you
\ncould make the same number of each, they would cancel
\neach other. Unfortunately, you can make all the bad bets
\nyou want … but you have to get somebody to CALL the
\ngood ones.<\/p>\n
Before you tell me that computing the odds against a
\nparticular hand doesn’t help the Limit player much,
\nconsider a play like this:<\/p>\n
Pot is opened, raised and raised again (three play-
\ners). <\/p>\n
Opener puts in the fourth bet and gets called by both
\nplayers.<\/p>\n
Opener is pat.<\/p>\n
Player Two hesitates a moment and “breaks a Nine.”<\/p>\n
Player Three hesitates even longer, and then he too,
\nshows a Nine as he discards it. “I can see this isn’t
\ngonna get it,” he says.<\/p>\n
After the draw it is PASS, PASS, and Player Three
\nsays: “Oh shit, I caught a Ten….” He has a Ten-six.<\/p>\n
Now the pat hand shows his straight Ten. “You got
\nlucky,” he says, “But I made you break the best….”<\/p>\n
What did he do wrong?<\/p>\n
Two things. First, he exceeded the value of his hand;
\nplayed a worthless hand for four bets, trying to “make a
\nbig play.”<\/p>\n
Then he did not bet it after the draw (when was the
\nlast time you broke a Nine because you were convinced it
\nwas no good, and then called with a Ten?).<\/p>\n
In No-Limit, “Bluffing” is making a bet he cannot call
\nbecause it exceeds the value of his hand by too much; it
\nis a “pressure bet,” playing the money against the odds.
\nIn Limit, Bluffing is misrepresenting the value of your
\nhand before the draw (the straight Ten in the preceding
\nhand would have been Bluffing, and would have won the
\npot, if he had followed through with his misrepresenta-
\ntion of the hand and bet it after the draw).<\/p>\n
In Limit, it is called “Snowing a hand” (it’s a “snow
\njob”) and it begins with the first bet. You cannot
\nchange the value of a hand with one bet, not in a Limit
\ngame.<\/p>\n
The point of all this is that the two games are both
\nLowball, but to move from one to the other is to change
\nmore than the joint you are playing in. As you are about
\nto see….<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
PLAYING THE RUSH…
\n(Justin Case<\/p>\n
My old lady says I shouldn’t be doing this piece yet.
\nShe says I haven’t exactly been Making A Living at Limit
\nLowball. She is right about that, so far, but it remains
\nto be seen. I have been at it for a couple of weeks,
\nthis time, and I have been playing pretty close to even,
\nwhich means we have spent too much money out of my stack.
\nBut that is no big deal; this is not the first time I
\nhave switched to Limit. I am still in action, and
\nhaven’t really had a rush of cards yet. But I will, and
\nwhen my four hours of glory come along I will still know
\nwhat to do.<\/p>\n
My old lady says I am the world’s greatest Lowball
\nplayer (about that she’s wrong, his name is San Francisco
\nAl …) but she thinks I should stay with No-Limit. She
\nmight be right about that too; she is, after all, a
\n“Professional” (licensed by the city). She deals in the
\nNo-Limit games at the Cameo Club, in Palo Alto (where I
\nspent my youth doing the same thing) and she thinks the
\nbig Limit games are a crap shoot, for Gamblers, and the
\nsmall ones are strictly for the “pleasure players.” She
\nis certainly right about that — God couldn’t make a
\nliving playing Two-limit. Not if He stayed in the Two.<\/p>\n
The mistake my old lady makes is that she knows
\n“Gamblers” don’t win (the first rule of No-Limit is that
\nGamblers do not win, and Winners do not gamble). The
\nthing she is missing is that some rules apply to some
\nthings, and some other things have other rules.<\/p>\n
My old lady sees no difference between Gambling and
\nPlaying Fast. True, they look the same thing, but they
\nare not. A Gambler is either out there gambling up, or
\nhe is not out there at all. A Fast Player, on the other
\nhand, is either out there playing fast, or he’s out there
\nplaying not so fast. The Gambler has but one speed; the
\nFast Player knows when he is speeding….<\/p>\n
The rules in Palo Alto are not the rules in San Jose,
\nwhere the name of the game is Limit. It is a different
\ngame, but I have been here before and I know what the
\ndifference is.<\/p>\n
I just haven’t had one yet.<\/p>\n
The four-hour rush. It is a phenomenon of the Limit
\ngame that comes around at irregular intervals. It is
\nliterally a rush; a head rush … a high. Perhaps the
\nreason a lot of players play. You can feel a rush in
\nyour cheeks, and sometimes a feeling of euphoria like
\nwhen the dentist lets you sniff the nitrous oxide.<\/p>\n
Limit Lowball is a game of rushes. You do not pick up
\nthat one big hand. You cannot play around the edges all
\nnight, picking off a few small soft spots — just staying
\neven, waiting for that pat Six, and a chance to double or
\ntriple your entire stack. The hands in Limit are played
\nmore-or-less the same, regardless of the size of the
\ngame. The trick is in playing in the bigger games when
\nyou are running hot, playing faster when you are making
\na lot of hands.<\/p>\n
I haven’t really had a rush yet, but I have been
\nfeeling some little flashes. I am beginning to feel good
\nabout the game, and I know what is going to happen before
\nwe get to five thousand words. I’ve been playing in the
\nSix-limits at the Comstock and at the Garden City. About
\nhalf the time I start right out winning and it is a
\nquestion of how much I can win; the rest of the time it
\nis a question of how stuck I am going to get before the
\ncards change and I get out of the trap.<\/p>\n
When I sit down in a Six and win a hundred or so in a
\nshort time, I will jump into a Twenty. I will do this on
\nseven or eight bets. I am not in action until after I
\nhave made the jump to the Twenty, and after I make that
\njump I am looking to jump again; there is no limit to how
\nhigh I will go if I keep winning. When I lose the chips
\nI have on the table, any table, I will go play Pan for a
\nwhile, or go home. When I am playing in a Twenty I am
\nplaying with chips I did not buy — I do not buy chips in
\na Twenty (if I were into giving you a list of rules, that
\nwould be number one).<\/p>\n
That is, put no limit on the amount of money you will
\nwin, and when you are winning put no limit on the size of
\nthe game … but when you come down to the tablecloth in
\nthe bigger game you are at the point where the dollar has
\nthe least value. A stack of five-dollar chips is not a
\nhundred dollars; it does not look like a hundred dollars,
\nnor does it feel like it. It is not five times as hard
\nto buy as a stack of one-dollar chips, and it plays the
\nsame. So don’t buy them; go home and let the value of a
\ndollar return to normal. Come back tomorrow and buy
\nthose one-dollar chips.<\/p>\n
I am not telling you how much money to play for; I
\ndon’t know how much money you have. Add another zero to
\nall the numbers if you like, start in the 60.00 and jump
\nto the 200.00 if you like … you are playing for “bets,”
\nthe money amounts are not relevant.<\/p>\n
I rarely play in a Deuce (Two-limit) but it is a good
\nplace to start; the action in a Deuce is generally pretty
\nfast, and if you get lucky you can make enough to jump to
\na Four or a Six. Again, the difficult part is in being
\nable to quit the bigger game if you lose the chips you
\nhave on the table. Whether you are starting in the Deuce
\nand jumping to the Four or Six, or starting in the Twenty
\nand jumping to the Eighty, it will kill you at the faster
\nrate if you blow what you moved with and start buying
\nmore chips. If you start out losing in the Deuce you
\nwill likely stay there (where the chips are ten dollars
\na stack) but if you beat the Deuce and jump to a Six, and
\nthen start losing until you are down to the tablecloth,
\nit is going to cost you thirty dollars for the five bets
\nyou get for ten in the Deuce. If you get stuck in a
\nsmaller game and then move to a larger game and buy more
\nchips, in the hope of getting even quickly, you will find
\nthat you have found the shortest route to the poker
\nplayer’s poor house.<\/p>\n
It is really very simple, if you have more chips than
\nyou bought, you are winning, and should be looking to
\nmove up A.S.A.P. — as soon as you make the Buy-in — if
\nyou have less than you bought, the game you are in is big
\nenough, maybe too big.<\/p>\n
In other words, when you are winning play faster and
\nplay for more — if you keep winning the joint will
\nclose, or the game will break up, and you will have to
\ntake a winner home. If you are losing, do it in the
\nsmallest possible game. Or even better, quit. At least,
\nwhen you come back down to the tablecloth in a game you
\nhave moved up to, quit. Go back to the smaller game, if
\nyou still feel like playing. Chances are your luck will
\nchange and you can try it again. If that happens don’t
\nfeel disappointed because you didn’t stay in the bigger
\ngame — if you had your luck might have gotten worse. I
\nsuggest that if that happens (you start winning again in
\nthe smaller game) win a Buy-in for tomorrow, and quit.<\/p>\n
If you have never played Lowball before, you can learn
\nto play this game in half an hour. If you have any “card
\nsense” at all, you can be holding your own within a
\ncouple of sessions. The way the hands are played in a
\nDeuce is the way the hands are played in a Twenty or an
\nEighty (in fact, the bigger games are generally the
\nfaster games). The only element of skill that can be
\nsharpened enough to make a long-range winner out of you
\nis your ability to keep yourself under control. That
\nmeans controlling your losses. Saving those bad bets.<\/p>\n
You think he has an Eight, no worse than an Eight, and
\nyou put in three bets to draw to an Eight, because you
\nare last and you have the Joker (it is only 7-to-5
\nagainst making your Eight). You catch a Nine, and he
\ncomes out betting after the draw. You are sure the Nine
\nis no good, but maybe he made a mistake and you want to
\nsee if you were right about his hand. You do not like
\nthis call, but you call anyway.<\/p>\n
He has an Eight-five.<\/p>\n
Now you feel you made a bad bet when you called, you
\nshould have saved that last bet. But you are wrong
\nagain, you did not make a bad bet … you made FOUR bad
\nbets in that hand.<\/p>\n
Saving those bad bets. Ask any experienced Limit
\nplayer for the key to the game and she (ladies play too)
\nwill tell you it is saving those bad bets — and she is
\nnot just talking about (this is important!) those bad
\ncalls after the draw. She is talking about not playing
\nthose short-odds hands. Every time you do not make one
\nof those odds-against bets, you have saved a bad bet.<\/p>\n
Ask a really good Limit player (yes Virginia, there
\nreally are Really Good Limit Players …) for the key and
\nhe will tell you it is saving those bad bets and Playing
\nThe Rush … betting the shit out of those “good bets.”<\/p>\n
The Live One does not care if you have the best of it,
\nhe will play anyway. He is not even playing the same
\ngame you are playing. He is playing hunches, because
\nthat is all he has to go on. He thinks a one-card draw
\nto a Bicycle must be played at any price — because you
\ncan’t beat a Bicycle “…and if I don’t play hands like
\nthat, I ain’t playing Lowball….” He is playing
\nhunches, and you are playing percentages.<\/p>\n
If you are consistently drawing rougher than the other
\nguy, you are just as consistently losing to him. It is
\nthree-to-one against drawing a card and making a Seven,
\nit always will be three-to-one against — the odds do not
\nchange for the Limit game. But Live Ones play Limit,
\ntoo.<\/p>\n
It is not really luck that changes. Hands run in
\nstreaks, you must see that they do, and learn to play up
\nwhen they are running to you; but a rush of cards is not
\na suspension of the law of the Empire, it is not a “Lucky
\nStreak” where you get to gamble and win for a while,
\nwhere you get to beat the odds for a series of hands. A
\nRush of Cards is a series of hands where the odds are in
\nyour favor, a series of odds-favored hands.<\/p>\n
A Four-card Rush is a series of good one-card draw
\nhands, good hands before the draw. A Four-card Rush is
\nbad news, for it doesn’t become a Four-card Rush until
\nyou repeatedly miss on the draw. When you are making
\nthem it becomes a Rush of Cards.<\/p>\n
I am probably going to say this again, but it is one
\nof those things that becomes obvious after you see it:
\nA Rush of Cards is not a series where you beat the odds,
\nit’s a series where you get the odds. The cards do not
\nchange so that you get to take the worst of it and win,
\nthey change so that you get the best of it for a series
\nof hands.<\/p>\n
A “Lucky Streak” is drawing three cards three times,
\nand winning one of them — a Lucky Streak is playing
\nstupid and winning anyway. You are not waiting for a
\nLucky Streak, you are waiting for a rush of cards.<\/p>\n
The name of the game is Limit, and the art of the game
\nis limiting your losses. If you get a rush enjoy it,
\njump on it and play on, play it out. Don’t get scared
\nwhen you get so “lucky” you feel guilty about it; when
\nyou win nearly every hand you play and you are playing
\nnearly every hand. A rush is a thing of heat, and you
\ncan feel it when you are hot — and on the other hand,
\nsometimes you will get so cold it is like sitting in a
\ncar with a dead battery. When that happens, go walk
\naround the building or something, you cannot start a rush
\nby pushing it….<\/p>\n
And we are stalled here too. We are going to have to
\nhave an understanding of what is meant by “Playing ABC,”
\nbecause we can’t talk about playing faster until we have
\na point of reference. I am sure you are aware that there
\nis a point where the Fast Player becomes the Live One.
\nThe Fast Player puts in an extra bet when he has the best
\nof it — the Live One puts in an extra bet every time he
\nplays, just in case he gets lucky and overcomes the odds.<\/p>\n
Every game has a tough old bird who wins because he
\nnever “gets out of line.” He is the Hard Rock — he has
\na formula by which he plays and he never deviates from
\nit. You can almost tell what he has in his hand by the
\nway he plays it. He never comes into a pot to draw two
\ncards, and he never draws to an Eight. He doesn’t try to
\nbluff. When he raises, his hand is complete and it is
\nnot a Nine.<\/p>\n
It is possible to play by a rigid formula and win (the
\none in the above paragraph works). It is called “grind-
\ning it out,” and it is exactly that. It is a grind, but
\nlearn to do it … because it will save you when you are
\ncold.<\/p>\n
Of course there is a little formula to my play too, I
\ngive considerable thought to the amount of TIME being
\npaid in the game, and the rate at which the Blinds are
\neating into my stack (for example: in a Six-limit I pay
\nabout a bet an hour to the House and the Blinds consume
\nanother bet every eight hands, a total that can run to
\nthirty dollars an hour if I never play a hand). I have
\nto win five bets an hour to stay even, and sometimes I
\ndon’t play in five hands an hour. So (and the formula
\ncomes in here) I try to play every hand I play for an
\nextra bet. The range of hands I find playable is a
\nlittle tougher than most — I usually have the best of
\nit, so I like to play in the big pots. I don’t play in
\nall the raised pots, but unless I am really salty, all
\nthe pots I play are raised.<\/p>\n
You cannot say I play ABC, because I raise on the
\ncome, and I have been known to play a Nine for a lot of
\nmoney. The thing I have in mind in this method is the
\nratio of the size of the pots to the hourly rate of
\nforced investment. For instance (this is a variation on
\nthe Empire Tax): In the long run, you can expect to win
\nwith a pat Nine (against one player who draws a card)
\nabout seven times in twelve tries, and you will be dealt
\nX-number of Nines in any given length of time. If you
\nplay them all, you should end up with a net profit; if
\nyou play only the Nines that fall in a good spot, they
\nare good enough an investment to justify an extra bet or
\ntwo. Some of the biggest pots are won by Nines.<\/p>\n
And speaking of the Empire Tax….<\/p>\n
The odds in favor of ANY pat Nine, against a one-card
\ndraw, are always going to be at least seven-to-five
\n(depending upon the Inside Odds). Even if you play them
\nall, it is the law of the Empire that you will collect a
\nnet percentage of one-sixth of your total investment.<\/p>\n
Want it in numbers?<\/p>\n
Play 100 hands (pat Nine) against one-card draws….
\n100.00 per hand. 10,000.00 total investment.<\/p>\n
You win seven of twelve (net of two in twelve).<\/p>\n
Gross return: 11,666.67.<\/p>\n
Your net percentage is more dependable, easier to
\ncollect, than for the No-Limit player — because you do
\nnot face the possibility of a big bet after the draw.<\/p>\n
It is as dependable as taxation … and if it is your
\nNine, it is your Empire.<\/p>\n
If you are going to be the Emperor though, you must
\nlearn patience and perseverance. You gotta give the
\npeople a little credit — let them pay installments —
\nrealize you must lose five of twelve, and one hand is
\njust one number in an endless chain of numbers. If you
\ngo getting mad at the taxpayers every time one of them
\ncollects a little refund check, you are wasting time on
\nire, Sire….<\/p>\n
Spare me that crap about thinking like a No-Limit
\nplayer. If you play Limit because you think it is easier
\n— you don’t need to know all those numbers — it does
\nnot necessarily mean you are a loser, but it means you
\nare lost. It means you are playing in a game you do not
\nreally understand. The value of a hand is often differ-
\nent in Limit, but not the odds on your getting it, nor
\nthe odds on its standing up when you do get it.<\/p>\n
Consider a pat Eight. When I pick up a pat Eight in
\na No-Limit game, and I have (say) three players in the
\npot, the raise I put in often wins it right there; or it
\nwill go to heads up, and I have two-to-one the best of
\nit. When you pick that hand up in a Limit game, the
\nraise will be called three times and the odds are three-
\nto-two the hand will not stand up. In my case it is a
\nreturn of 200.00 for each 100.00 invested; in your case
\nit is a return of 300.00 twice, for each 100.00 invested
\nthree times. The net result is the same.<\/p>\n
In time.<\/p>\n
Of course the plays come down differently, you get
\nthere by a different route, but you are going to the same
\ndestination.<\/p>\n
In the Limit game you will never get to play your pat
\nhand for all your chips (if you have very many) against
\na player who is drawing, because even the player who
\nwants to gamble will not go very far against a suspected
\npat hand. And from that side of it, you have to consider
\nthat the player with the pat hand will only pay off one
\nbet after the draw — you cannot justify taking the worst
\nof it (paying a big price to hit the deck) on the grounds
\nof what you can win after the draw. The bigger the pot
\nbefore the draw, the higher your percentage when you have
\nthe best of it, to any degree.<\/p>\n
You must be aware that even if you are drawing to Ace,
\nDeuce, Trey and Four, you are taking the worst of it
\nagainst a pat hand (nobody plays Tens anymore) but if you
\nare drawing against two pat hands, your percentage is a
\nlittle better. Because you are getting two-to-one on
\nyour money without changing your odds on making the best
\nhand by quite that much — because of the Five and the
\nSix, and probably the Seven.<\/p>\n
I guess, in the back of my mind, I am thinking of the
\nplayer who has not had the cardroom experience. There
\nwas a time when I played poker regularly with a group of
\nfriends; more than once we rented a motel room to spread
\na game (when a real Live One wanted to play) and I had
\nnever considered playing in a cardroom. When I first
\nwent into a cardroom (more than twenty-five years ago) it
\nwas like turning on to marijuana. I thought I was
\nventuring into a world of hustlers and cardsharps. I
\nthought I was taking a chance on getting hooked on
\ngambling (like taking that first toke is taking a chance
\non becoming a junkie of another kind) but I have found
\nthat Lowball and Draw Poker are not gambling, in the pure
\nsense of the word. The hustlers and cardsharps all went
\nto Hollywood … it is a new world. The player raising
\nyou out of your chair might be that little old gray-
\nhaired lady who checks out books at the library.<\/p>\n
You cannot play Blackjack, Craps or Roulette, but the
\nGarden City (for instance) feels like a casino in Nevada.
\nThere are no slot machines, but you can hear the constant
\nrattling of the chips in the nervous fingers of the
\nplayers. Built to look like a big church, it is an
\nimpressive structure. It is a big business.<\/p>\n
When you walk in you will be “behind the rail,” in an
\narea of comfortable sofas for players waiting for a seat
\nin a game. Here too, is the man at the board. If there
\nis a game of the size you want that is not full, he will
\ndirect you to a Floorman, who will seat you in a game and
\nsell you some chips. If there is no seat open he will
\nput you down for a game (put you on the board). This
\narea is elevated slightly, and while you are behind the
\nrail you can look out over the heads of the players at
\nthe forty tables on the playing floor.<\/p>\n
Above each table hangs a large chandelier, built to
\nlook like a wheel (that’s apt) with eight spokes. The
\nlights are in the ends of the spokes and in the center,
\nif you look closely, you can see a little red light on a
\nclosed-circuit television camera. This is one of the
\nassurances the player has that the games are straight.<\/p>\n
However, don’t kid yourself, and don’t put your faith
\nentirely in an electronic eye that sees only the visible.
\nWhen you deal, count the stub. On the draw you will burn
\nthe first card, and work from a twelve-card stub (eight-
\nhanded). If the draw is 1-1-2, for example, you will
\nhave eight cards left in the stub. If the stub does not
\ncome out right (short a card) make that your last hand.<\/p>\n
It happens, but it does not happen often … the
\nchances are your deck will always come out right; but it
\nis a comfort to be sure, so count the stub. If it ever
\ndoes happen, tell the Floorman about it when you cash in.
\nThese guys are “professionals” too, and they will deal
\nwith it.<\/p>\n
I did not mean to do a testimonial for the Garden
\nCity, but it is a class act. An Empire unto itself.<\/p>\n
I mention this because the City Mothers feel the
\ncardroom belongs over with the porno movie houses and the
\ndirt-book stores. They see the player as some kind of
\ndegenerate who needs to be protected from himself.
\nJesus, talk about playing with a short deck … you are
\na whole lot safer inside one of these modern cardrooms
\nthan you are on the streets. A whole lot safer in one of
\nthese games than in a private game. The games are
\nstraight, the player is protected, and the people who
\nplay are just people.<\/p>\n
I could do a whole section on the laws and regulations
\ncovering the operation of a cardroom, but that would be
\na bad percentage bet; let’s let it suffice to say that
\nthe day of the backroom game is ended. Like the bowling
\nalley and the pool hall, maturity and respectability have
\ncome to the cardroom. The environment is First Class;
\nthe games are played by the rules; quickly, quietly and
\nstraight. You do not play against the House and nobody
\nis being ripped off.<\/p>\n
There is something of a paradox in the law (or at
\nleast, in the Official Attitude) about playing cards.
\nGambling is against the law (unless the government has
\nthe House Percentage, as in Horse Racing or the Lotto).
\nLowball is a form of Draw Poker, and isn’t really
\ngambling … it is a game of skill. Lowball is not
\nagainst the law because it is not gambling, but it is
\nsubject to regulation by the County and the City, because
\ngamblers play it; and gamblers need to be protected….<\/p>\n
In other words, the gamblers will not get you, but the
\ngood players will.<\/p>\n
The essence of the law is right, I guess, because the
\ngood player does win. He wins because the element of
\ngamble can be controlled. When the cards are not
\nrunning, and the best of it is not good enough — when
\nyou just cannot make a hand because your battery is dead
\n— you can tighten up and grind it out with the Hard
\nRock.<\/p>\n
When you are gambling too much, making fooling plays
\nbecause you are hot and stuck, you will know it. You
\nwill play hands for more money than they are worth, and
\nyou will put in too many bets to draw too many cards too
\nmany times. You will know you are blowing it while you
\nare blowing it. It will remind you that the good player
\nwins because he is sitting over there whistling to
\nhimself and playing the percentages against your foolish-
\nness.<\/p>\n
The Taxman. Playing against him is a bad percentage
\nbet. You will learn that when you learn that the odds do
\nnot change, but the cards do. They don’t change so that
\nyou can beat the odds for a while; they change so that
\nyou get the odds for a while….<\/p>\n
The cards change, and the idea is to be there when
\nthey do — without getting too stuck while you are
\nwaiting. I took my old lady to the Comstock last night
\n(while I was waiting for this paragraph) and wrote the
\nperfect lyric for that tune.<\/p>\n
The Comstock is another class act; smaller than the
\nGarden City, less formal, but state-of-the-art neverthe-
\nless. Last night they were busy, really humming. I like
\nthat, because there are definitely good games and bad
\ngames, and when the joint is buzzing there are always
\ngames where everybody wants to gamble up. Regardless of
\nthe size of the game, the amounts of chips passing
\nthrough the pots is a definite variable from game to
\ngame.<\/p>\n
The speed of the game is an entity in itself, like the
\nrunning of the cards. It is a thing to consider apart
\nfrom whether or not you are holding a lot of good cards.
\nIn some games you don’t need good cards; every pot will
\nbe raised and everybody will be trying to make a Nine,
\nbecause nobody has a hand and Tens and Jacks are winning
\npot after pot.<\/p>\n
Two or three guys playing Nines at each other means
\nmost of the pots are being won by Nines. There are more
\nways to make a None that all the hands of Eight-or-better
\ncombined. If nobody is playing Nines, only half as many
\nhands will be played — less than half. Nobody plays
\nEights, and you are down to nobody plays much. Somewhere
\nin there is the speed of the game.<\/p>\n
The game I sat into was a beauty. It was a Six, but
\nit was raining chips in groups of eighteen and twenty-
\nfour, three or four players in every pot. It was the
\ngame I am always looking for, but it was a little faster
\nthan I was prepared for. I had come in with eighty
\ndollars in my pocket (and twenty of that was already in
\naction in a Deuce — my old lady doesn’t like Limit, but
\nshe spends all day dealing in games she can’t play in,
\nand she likes to play). I sat down with ten bets — a
\nnormal buy-in, but in this game it was a matter of lose
\nthree pots in a row and go home. Maybe only two.<\/p>\n
But I’m a Player.<\/p>\n
When you sit into a Six-limit your first hand must be
\non the big Blind (the dealer antes one dollar, the player
\nto his left antes two, the player on his left antes three
\n— the player with the most money in the pot “in the
\nblind” goes last, before the draw). When you sit in any
\nother seat you do not get a hand unless you double the
\nBlind (and the Limit, on that one hand).<\/p>\n
Doubling the Blind (called, “killing it”) is a bad
\npercentage bet when you are short — and sixty dollars is
\nshort, in a good game — but what the hell….<\/p>\n
After the first hand I was down to thirty-six dollars
\nand the game was back to Six-to-go (instead of twelve).
\nSix bets. I should have been in a Four-limit in the
\nfirst place; I was supposed to go busted quickly, but it
\nwas one of those nights when everything went the way
\neverything would go if you were writing a book about it.<\/p>\n
For the first hour I threw away hands that were better
\nthan some of the hands some of the players were drawing
\nto. I was doing little more than watching the speed of
\nthe game and making the Blinds. I anted away twelve more
\ndollars and then won eighteen. Then I anted away twelve
\nmore. So I had thirty dollars when I picked up my first
\nreal hand.<\/p>\n
The pot was opened for six, raised to twelve and a
\nthird player had come in cold for the twelve, when it
\ncame to me. I had a pat Eight-five, and went to three
\nbets. The opener quit, but the player who put in the
\nfirst raise, raised again (made it four bets) and the
\nplayer between us again came for two bets. I called,
\nholding back my one remaining bet on the chance that he
\nwas trying to play a Nine. I did not want him to break
\na rough hand.<\/p>\n
I was right. He had a Nine-seven and he played it
\npat. The other player drew a card and paired Aces (if
\nthe Nine-seven had broken, he would have made a Seven).
\nI bet the remaining six-dollar bet and he paid it off,
\nand I had about ninety dollars on the table.<\/p>\n
Ninety dollars in a Six is about right, normally. It
\nis fifteen bets, and that is just about as stuck as you
\nshould allow yourself to get. If you lose fifteen bets
\nin a game and keep going, the game had better be a really
\ngood one, and you had better have the control to play so
\ntight you squeak (even so, you are doing one of those
\nthings which will come to be known as one of those things
\nyou should not do).<\/p>\n
But that is going in the other direction. We are
\ntalking about a different ninety dollars now. Now it’s
\nninety in chips that cost sixty in real money … now it
\nis five bets of “their money.” On this money, I play a
\nlittle faster. If I get to speeding I will crash, and I
\nam usually able to quit gambling and invest an hour on
\nwaiting for a pat Eight (for you gamble less if you do
\nnot draw, and sometimes while you are waiting for an
\nEight, you will find a Six). But again, that is going in
\nthe wrong direction. This time it worked.<\/p>\n
Now I had fifteen bets when I picked up the perfect
\nhand to overplay: Ace, Deuce, Trey and Joker to draw to.<\/p>\n
I was in the two-dollar Blind (next to last before the
\ndraw and first after the draw). The pot was opened and
\ncalled twice when it came my turn. I raised. The big
\nBlind passed but the three players in the pot all called
\n(a total of fifty-one dollars, including the unplayed big
\nBlind).<\/p>\n
I drew a card, caught a six and bet it (in twenty-five
\nyears, I have had this hand beaten only one time). The
\nfirst player behind me passed, the second called the six
\ndollars and the third player raised six more. I raised
\nagain. One pass and one call (seven more bets after the
\ndraw).<\/p>\n
Unlike No-Limit, the play of the individual hand is
\nalmost beside the point; I am not trying to tell you how
\nto play a hand. The point of this is that for the first
\nhour in this game I did little more than make the Blinds
\nand watch the action. I took no chances, gambled not at
\nall, and it worked out that I still had chips on the
\ntable when I finally got a really playable hand.<\/p>\n
The Joker-321 might have been played without the
\nraise, during that first hour, but when I picked it up I
\nhad a little more than ninety dollars on the table and
\nthe game was still a fast game (faster even, for now I
\nwas raising on the come and encouraging the action too).
\nWhen I cashed in (from the Twenty) I had a little over
\nfive hundred from my sixty-dollar investment — and my
\nold lady said it was okay to do this piece now.<\/p>\n
And speaking of my old lady, remember the twenty
\ndollars I gave her when we came in? When I quit she was
\nplaying in a Four-limit, and had a hundred and thirty
\ndollars. She ran the twenty I gave her up to fifty-five
\nin the Deuce, and then cashed in the twenty and moved to
\nthe Four with thirty-five. She doesn’t win as consis-
\ntently as I do because she gambles too much, too soon,
\nbut she is a Player. Give her a rush of cards and you
\nwill find her in the Twenty at the end of the evening.<\/p>\n
The name of the game is Limit, but the limit only
\napplies to an individual bet; there is no limit to the
\namount you can win or lose in a given period of time. It
\nis not a game for children and it is not a game for the
\ntimid. The game is played fast, the action is fast, and
\nsometimes you can go through a bankroll (or build one) in
\na matter of minutes.<\/p>\n
To most men (and women) gambling is as natural as
\neating; nearly everybody gambles daily, in one way or
\nanother. Bet the horses, buy a sweepstakes or Lotto
\nticket, bet a few bucks on a football game; it is all a
\nmatter of degree, the urge to gamble is there in all of
\nus. Of course there are people whose lives have been
\ndestroyed by gambling; of course there are people who
\ncannot control their losses, people who have lost their
\nhomes and businesses and like that … but it is not a
\nfault of the game they play, it is in the way they play
\nit….<\/p>\n
Lowball and Draw Poker played straight (the way they
\nare played in the casinos of California) are not gambling
\nin the pure sense of the word. You do not play against
\nthe House and you do not play against a set percentage
\n(in the odds). You play against other players who may or
\nmay not play the game as well as you do.<\/p>\n
And the good player does win.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
LIMIT VARIATIONS…<\/p>\n
If you change your mind, and decide to move to Gardena
\nafter all, you will find the game there is a little
\ndifferent once again. They play Limit Lowball in Gardena
\n(mostly) but it is not Straight Limit, where every bet is
\nthe same amount. Most of the Gardena clubs play a
\nversion of Limit which has one major difference — the
\nlimit is doubled after the draw….<\/p>\n
Before the draw the game is about the same as the game
\nwe just left at the Comstock, but the doubled bet after
\nthe draw does present an opportunity to stand pat and
\nsteal a pot now and then. It is still risky business to
\nbet a busted hand (one you drew to, as opposed to a hand
\nplayed pat) because an eight-dollar bet is not much into
\na pot of eight or ten four-dollar bets, but there are
\nsituations….<\/p>\n
If I could bet “two bets” after the draw at the
\nComstock or Garden City, I would play all those hands
\nfull of sevens and eights. The no-hand-at-all “snowing”
\nof a hand is bluffing from the start, and has no hope of
\nwinning if anybody makes a hand; it is setting up a
\nsituation where you win if nobody makes an Eight or
\nbetter. Snowing a hand is playing those two-to-one odds
\nagainst his making an Eight. So give me a hand full of
\nEights, and let me double my bet after the draw … it
\nadds a whole series of pat hand possibilities.<\/p>\n
I hate to admit it, but I have never been to Gardena
\n(that’s like Moses not going to Israel). I am sure I
\nwill, sooner or later, but like I said in the beginning,
\nthere is no reason to move to Gardena; you can find all
\nthe action you want just about anywhere….<\/p>\n
Morgan Hill is about as far south as I go — and it is
\nthere that we find the game that splits the difference
\nbetween Limit and No-Limit.<\/p>\n
Spread Limit….<\/p>\n
For some reason I cannot explain, it seems the Spread
\nLimit game is popular all over the state, but you usually
\nfind it in those little one-cardroom towns in the
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
Like the Country Casino, in Morgan Hill.<\/p>\n
The Country Casino is a six-table joint of recent
\nvintage (owned by my boss-in-law, and a small group of
\nBig Apple players from the Cameo Club — the incredible
\nWhistling Oakie is one of them, so it must be a good
\npercentage bet). I think it is an investment in the
\nfuture of Morgan Hill, a little country town that figures
\nto be a metropolitan center pretty soon.<\/p>\n
The first few times I went down there, it was for a
\ntournament (forty-eight players buy 40.00 worth of chips
\n— sometimes 100.00 — and play until all but three are
\neliminated by a process of doubling the size of the game
\nevery hour).<\/p>\n
My old lady loves to play in these tournaments (in the
\nmoney, three tournaments in a row) but to me the attrac-
\ntion is the games that form from the players eliminated
\nfrom the tournament. The action in these games gets
\ninsane — everybody starts out stuck (because of the
\ntournament) and a Four-to-Twenty can be a big game.<\/p>\n
Four-to-Twenty is a Spread Limit game. You can bet as
\nlittle as four dollars or as much as twenty, or any
\namount between. It is played like No-Limit up to a
\npoint. You have the No-Limit player’s ability to put a
\n20.00 raise on a four-dollar bet (enough to bring AXIOM
\n#2 into play on one bet) but you also have the Limit
\nplayer’s protection from going busted on one bet.<\/p>\n
The best of both worlds? I am not sure about that,
\nbut it certainly does combine elements of both games.<\/p>\n
Two-to-Ten is the small game; Eight-to-Forty is
\nusually the big game. They do play 20.00-to-100.00 at
\ntimes, but the 5-5-10 usually goes to No-Limit. It’s up
\nto the players.<\/p>\n
There is another difference in these games — no TIME.
\nThe House does not collect TIME from the players. There
\nis a Dealer in these games and the Dealer “rakes the pot”
\n… TIME comes out of the pots, the winners pay the TIME
\nfor everybody (they do this at Artichoke Joe’s too, in
\nthe small games). It is a break for the Short Money
\nplayer because there is no overhead, no nut to crack,
\nwhile he is waiting for the cards to change. I have
\nfound it makes little difference to me; it costs a little
\nmore than TIME when I am winning a lot of pots, but it
\ncosts nothing when I am not.<\/p>\n
This is the game where Percentage Players play the
\nrush….<\/p>\n
And the next step is back to where we started from.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
THE ENDLESS LOWBALL GAME…
\n(Justin Case)<\/p>\n
After you have a grasp on the odds of the game, and
\nhave developed a measure of control over your urges to
\ndefy the odds, you must make the next step. The big
\nstep. That is, you must see that the game today and the
\ngame tomorrow is the same game. It is an endless Lowball
\ngame, and it goes on and on and on….<\/p>\n
You are going to play hand after hand after hand. You
\nare going to win some; you are going to lose some; you
\nare even going to tie some; but as a Percentage Player,
\nyou know it makes little difference from hand to hand.
\nYou are playing for an average. As a percentage player,
\nyou know you do not have to win this next pot … it
\nmakes little difference whether this next pot turns out
\nto be one of the pots you won, or not. Each hand is just
\nanother number in an endless chain of numbers….<\/p>\n
The Player (note the capital “P”) realizes the law of
\naverages suffers many infractions, that you cannot depend
\non it this hand. The law of averages only tells you who
\nshould win, not who will. Not this hand. And knowing
\nthat, the Player is not disturbed when he has a bad day,
\nor when the Live One makes that 11-to-1 shot, and draws
\nout on his pat Six-four. He knows the law of averages
\nwill average out, in time, and he knows he needs no more
\nthan that. He will never panic behind a salty streak and
\nmake another “bad bet,” and then another….<\/p>\n
He never gets “hot and stuck.”<\/p>\n
Sure I am talking about control — but I am talking
\nabout control based upon a certain knowledge. Do you
\nthink Bill Harrah gets pissed off because some tourist
\nbet a thousand dollars on twelve-craps, threw two sixes
\nand won 30,000.00…? Are you aware that Mr. Harrah is
\n5000.00 ahead on that play — because the true odds are
\n35-to-1 — his craps table still has five thousand
\ndollars in its bank that should not be there.<\/p>\n
He does not lose as much as he is supposed to lose
\nwhen he loses, and he wins more than he is supposed to
\nwin when he wins. Bill Harrah is a Percentage Player.<\/p>\n
An Emperor.<\/p>\n
I know, that’s craps and this is Lowball, there is a
\nbig difference. And there is, did you know there is no
\nbet you can make in a casino where the odds are as long
\nas they are against a one-card draw who has to make an
\nEight? The House percentage in most of the casino games
\nis rarely more than five or six percent (those two green
\nnumbers make the odds against Red or Black work out to
\n20-to-18, and that’s about as bad as it gets). The odds
\nagainst that one-card draw to an Eight are still 2-to-1
\n(20-to-10).<\/p>\n
Still, you know the Roulette wheel cannot lose,
\nbecause of those thousands upon thousands of bets, each
\npaying 18-to-18 when the odds are 20-to-18 (about 5.25%
\nthe best of it). The greater the volume of bets made,
\nthe more assured the percentage, you knew that. So why
\ndon’t you play Lowball the same way…?<\/p>\n
Admit it. The toughest thing you are asked to do
\nis to take that loss. Jesus, it hurts (when that sucker
\nput all those chips in the pot and then drew out on your
\npat Six — talk about the agony of defeat — it was like
\nbeing punched in the stomach, it took your breath away).
\nSo what do you do? Buy a thousand, and when he gets out
\nof line again….<\/p>\n
You know what the flaw is here though, don’t you? He
\nis not going to get out of line again … you are.<\/p>\n
Now it is to hell with percentages, to hell with the
\nbest of it, now you are hot and stuck and you are ready
\nto gamble. And day after tomorrow, when another Live One
\nmakes another dumb play and your pat hand stands up like
\nit is supposed to do, you will still be stuck the extra
\nthousand you lost because you forgot about that chain of
\nnumbers, because you went to playing every hand as if it
\nwere going to be the last hand you would ever play. You
\nforgot about that average you play for.<\/p>\n
You forgot there is no last hand in an endless Lowball
\ngame….<\/p>\n
SMART MONEY…<\/p>\n
Now I am going to tell you to do something I am sure
\nyou will not do. You will see the reason for it, it will
\nmake obvious sense, but you won’t do it anyway. I know
\nplayers who can’t learn this one:<\/p>\n
And that is, play the money you have in action as if
\nthe money does not count, as if you had a ton of it, as
\nif it is not real money.<\/p>\n
If your play can be affected by the size of your
\nbankroll, it can only be badly affected. Keep in mind
\nthat the other players (some of them) will be aware you
\nare playing short money, and they will take advantage.
\nIf you allow anything but percentages to determine
\nwhether or not you play, it will work for them. The odds
\ndo not change because you are playing short money, but
\nthe play often does. If you pass up an odds-favored bet
\n(a “good bet”) because you are short, you are playing
\nScared Money, and you should not be playing at all.<\/p>\n
Surely you are familiar with the expression “Smart
\nMoney,” generally taken to mean money bet on a favorite
\nto win, but not always. Sometimes the Smart Money is on
\na 20-to-1 shot, because the bettor has inside information
\nthat mitigates the odds. A horse race, for example: You
\nknow a trainer or jockey who tells you about a 20-to-1
\nlongshot who, for any number of reasons, has a much
\nbetter chance than that (they’ve been holding him back,
\nbuilding up the odds, but this time he is going to go for
\nit). You don’t know the true odds, but you know they are
\na lot less than 20-to-1. Maybe you never bet the horses,
\nbut one who does would call this a Smart Money bet.<\/p>\n
In a Lowball game, Smart Money is rarely short money,
\nfor the simple reason that you do not get the true odds
\non an all-in bet; you don’t get full value for your
\nmoney.<\/p>\n
Suppose you have two players in a pot for 20.00 each,
\nand you go all-in with your last 20.00 (let’s give you a
\npat Six this time). You will be getting two-to-one on
\nyour money and will be a heavy favorite to win the pot,
\neven if they are both drawing to a Wheel. Now what if
\none of them bets 50.00 after the draw, gets a 50.00 call
\nand wins a 100.00 side pot, with a Seven…?<\/p>\n
In other words, as a percentage player, every bet you
\nmake is a Smart Money bet (your chances of winning are
\nalways better than the price you pay to play) unless you
\ncannot cover the bet.<\/p>\n
My advice to the short money player? Play Limit, play
\nfor the fun of it, or don’t play. There is no such thing
\nas a short money percentage player.<\/p>\n
BLUFFING…<\/p>\n
And then there is the one about Bluffing. Which is
\nwhat I would be doing if I said I could tell you when to
\ndo it and when not to. Because I don’t know the players,
\nand that is the most important aspect to Bluffing.<\/p>\n
In a Limit game I do very little bluffing, it is
\nrarely a good percentage bet. That is, betting a busted
\nhand is a poor percentage bet. “Snowing a hand” is a
\ndifferent situation altogether, as we have already
\ndiscussed. I will usually try that a time or two (more,
\nif it works) when I have a hand full of Sevens and Eights
\n— and I NEVER show the hand if it gets away a winner.
\nIt does not make you macho to show the whole room you
\njust played the shit out of four Eights! You trying to
\nbe the Cincinnati Kid? Trying to eliminate a whole
\nseries of pat hands from your good bet list…?<\/p>\n
I suggest you save those plays until you know all the
\nplayers and they have all played hundreds of hands with
\nyou, and nobody has ever seen you make a play like that
\nbefore — and if it works, they have still never seen you
\nmake a play like that before….<\/p>\n
Hands like that don’t happen often, and when they do
\nthey are not really Bluffing. Four Eights is all the pat
\nhands between Seven and Nine. When a couple of tourists
\ncall a moderate raise and draw a card, then pass it to
\nyou … four Eights is a better hand than a pat Eight.
\nNobody “slipped an Eight,” and you can make it nearly
\nimpossible to call with a Nine, can’t you? Of course
\nknowing all the Eights are dead is the same as holding
\nthem.<\/p>\n
Bluffing is betting a busted hand, using the pressure
\nof AXIOM #2 to force your opponent to lay down what you
\nknow is the best hand. There are a lot of players who
\nwill pass an Eight, intending to catch someone bluffing,
\nand end up calling a moderate bet from a player who
\nthought his Nine, or rougher Eight, was good. But when
\nthe bet is serious, not moderate, they inevitably say:
\n“I slipped this sucker for action … but not that much
\naction….” The player who slips that Eight is nearly
\nalways passing it because he is afraid to bet it. Nearly
\nalways. I hope you don’t try to bluff those known
\n“calling stations.”<\/p>\n
When you are playing with “tourists,” and don’t have
\na clue about who makes those long calls, try this one
\n(for starters): the first few times you pair up, just lay
\ndown like a little girl and say something like: “I can’t
\nbet … I paired up again….”<\/p>\n
After you have done that a few times, change horses
\nand go the other way. Every time you pair up, bet it
\nlike a Seven — and stay on this horse until you get
\ncaught. You might steal a dozen pots before you do get
\ncaught. When you do get caught, be sure everybody knows
\nit. “You got me … I paired up again….” Lord, I hope
\nI don’t have to tell you not to show a successful bluff.
\nThe Cincinnati Kid was a loser, remember.<\/p>\n
Now that you have been caught bluffing and everybody
\nknows it, don’t do it again — but now you do not let
\nthem see the pairs you lay down. Your chances of getting
\nthat long call are greatly enhanced now. Now they are
\nwondering if you were bluffing all the time.<\/p>\n
Anything I could tell you about bluffing is subject to
\nbe modified out of existence by your familiarity with the
\nplayers, but there are a few yardsticks. First, would he
\nmake that bet with a busted hand? Some players never
\nbluff, and some bluff every chance they get. Somewhere
\nbetween is everybody else. Second, would he make that
\nbet if he made a hand, if he is looking for a call? A
\nplayer with a Six or a Wheel rarely bets enough that it
\nis a tough call. If the size of the bet and the size of
\nthe pot make you feel you would be pot stuck with an
\nEight, you are probably dead with an Eight, and crazy to
\ncall with anything rougher. Try to be suspicious when
\nthey make it easy, don’t double-think yourself into
\nmaking what feels like a bad call.<\/p>\n
If you are into guessing … well, your guess is as
\ngood as mine. Remember too, that player who bets every
\ntime he pairs up, is not paired up every time he bets.<\/p>\n
Laying down the best hand? The player who never does
\nit is over there by the rail, looking for a stake.<\/p>\n
AFTER THE DRAW…<\/p>\n
After the draw possibilities modify the odds. I
\nremember saying that when we were playing a hand which
\nhad no after the draw possibilities, so I said we would
\nget into after the draw, afterwards.<\/p>\n
Now then.<\/p>\n
See PLATE FOUR…<\/p>\n
And we will play another hand in the Big Apple at the
\nCameo Club (20.00 No-Limit).<\/p>\n
This one is opened and called for 20.00 by a couple of
\nLive Ones, each with about 100.00 on the table.<\/p>\n
You are ahead of the dealer and the Blinds, but behind
\nthese two. You have 480.00 in front of you and a pat
\nEight-six with the Joker in it.<\/p>\n
How much to bet?<\/p>\n
80.00. That makes it 140.00 in the pot to the first
\none, for a 60.00 call (for two-to-one on his money, this
\nguy will draw two cards). He will play for 60.00 more,
\nand that will make the other one think he is pot stuck,
\nhe will play “for the action.”<\/p>\n
After the draw, either or both will call 40.00 with
\njust about anything. Your best shot at that other 40.00
\nis after the draw. Go for it now and you will lose them
\nboth. Your best bet is 80.00, and there is 140.00 in the
\npot (including the Blinds).<\/p>\n
Looking good … right? Right. And then comes my
\nhero, whistling a little tune about AXIOM #2, and raising
\nit 120.00 more! His bet is 200.00….<\/p>\n
Now there is 335.00 in the pot.<\/p>\n
The two Live Ones are gone.<\/p>\n
You have 400.00 more. He has 1400.00.<\/p>\n
It is 120.00 to you….<\/p>\n
You still have a pat Eight-six with the Joker in it,
\nand it just went from a heavy favorite to a dead hand in
\none bet.<\/p>\n
You know the Eight-six is no good, and if you break it
\nand catch a Seven you are in a world of hurt. Pot stuck
\nwith a marginal hand. But there are three ways to make
\na Six, a good Six, and you will have 280.00 more after
\nthe draw.<\/p>\n
Three-to-one against making a Six.<\/p>\n
335.00 to 120.00.<\/p>\n
What this is, is short odds if you miss, but not if
\nyou don’t. Not even the Taxman can get away if you make
\nthe Six. He will have to bet first, into what will be a
\n455.00 pot (with your call). What this amounts to then,
\nis this:<\/p>\n
615.00 to 120.00 that you can’t make a 3-to-1 shot.<\/p>\n
If you don’t play hands like this….<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
AFTERWORDS…<\/p>\n
THE EMPIRE TAX is the Percentage Player’s income. It
\nis the amount of money above the odds against the hand.<\/p>\n
It works like this: There is 100.00 in the pot; you
\nhave a one-card draw to a Seven, which figures to win,
\nand it is 30.00 to you. There is ten dollars in Empire
\nTax in this pot, on your side of the odds on the money.<\/p>\n
The odds against making the hand are three-to-one
\n(3.00 to 1.00). The odds on the money are 3.33 to 1.00.
\nIn a series of four plays, you will win one time and lose
\nthree. You will win 100.00 once, and lose 30.00 three
\ntimes, and put 10.00 in Empire Tax in the bank. The
\nlonger the series of hands the more accurate your
\npercentage figures to be. Play this hand enough times
\nand it becomes a cinch 3.33 for 3.00.<\/p>\n
If you can win with an Eight, the odds on the money
\nare still 3.33 to 1.00 — but the odds against the hand
\nare only two-to-one. Now there is 40.00 in Empire Tax on
\nyour side of the odds on the money. Play this hand three
\ntimes; you lose 30.00 twice and win 100.00 once.<\/p>\n
If you have to make a Six to win, you are up against
\nodds of five-to-one. That is, the odds on the money are
\n3.33-to-1.00, but the odds against the hand are 5.00 to
\n1.00. You are PAYING an Empire Tax of 1.67 every time
\nyou put 5.00 into a pot at these odds. You are getting
\n100-to-30 on a 150-to-30 proposition. Play it six times;
\nwin 100.00 once, lose 30.00 five times.<\/p>\n
It’s really very simple: If the odds on the money are
\ngreater than the odds against the hand, play the hand.<\/p>\n
If there is an element of skill involved it is in your
\nability to determine what kind of hand it will take. But
\nthere are not all that many possibilities, and you can
\nusually come pretty close to the Outside Odds.<\/p>\n
THE FORTY-EIGHT UNKNOWN CARDS are the cards from which
\nyou are drawing when you try to make a hand. There are
\nfour of each card you can catch to win, and subtracting
\nthe total of these “live cards” from the forty-eight,
\nwill give you the odds against making the hand.<\/p>\n
Drawing one to an Eight, for example, means there
\nare four different cards you can catch, and there are for
\nof each of these. Sixteen of the forty-eight unknown
\ncards are live cards, so thirty-two are not. Thirty-two
\nways to miss; sixteen ways to make your hand: two-to-one.<\/p>\n
THE JOKER is a hammer when you hold it in your hand.
\nThose two-to-one odds against making that Eight, are only
\nseven-to-five now; now it is but two-to-one against
\nmaking a Seven.<\/p>\n
The presence of the Joker among the unknown forty-
\neight cards is no big deal. Disregarding it gives you
\nthe forty-eight, which is such a nice number, and the
\nfour, eight, twelve, sixteen, twenty, twenty-four,
\ntwenty-eight and thirty-two, which all work so well with
\nit….<\/p>\n
Not counting the Joker among the forty-eight changes
\nthe odds against making your hand just enough that when
\nyour odds come out to Dead Even, you are still alive.<\/p>\n
THE OUTSIDE ODDS are the odds we have been working
\nwith, the odds against making a hand. The INSIDE ODDS
\nare the odds on a hand being the best hand when it is up
\nagainst a high-card tie.<\/p>\n
Whatever the high card in your hand (Nine; Eight;
\nSeven; Six) the Inside Odds give you the best of it in a
\nhigh-card tie, if your hand does not contain the next
\nlargest card. A Nine-seven beats half the Nines possi-
\nble; an Eight-six beats twenty of the thirty-five Eights;
\na Seven-five beats ten of fifteen Sevens; a Six-four
\ncannot be beaten by a Six.<\/p>\n
A straight Seven has three-to-one the best of it
\nagainst a one-card draw to a Six, but a Seven-five has
\nfive-to-one the best of it — because he must make the
\nSix….<\/p>\n
THE TAXMAN is the ultimate percentage player … he
\nalways knows what the odds are, and he always has the
\nbest of it.<\/p>\n
That does not mean he is always the favorite to win
\nthe pot. He is not. He doesn’t expect to be. He does
\nnot hesitate to put a hundred dollars into a pot of
\n220.00 or so, when he knows he has to make an Eight. He
\nknows he can only win this pot one time in three, but he
\nknows what that means.<\/p>\n
THE ENDLESS LOWBALL GAME is the game the Taxman is
\nplaying in.<\/p>\n
When it is a three-to-one proposition, he plays the
\nhand in a 4-series, he thinks of it as one hand in a
\nseries of four hands. There is no first hand to the
\nseries, or every hand is the first hand, it does not
\nmatter. The series does not start with this hand, nor
\ndoes it end with this hand; this hand is just one of the
\nfour. When he gets lucky and wins this hand three or
\nfour times in a row, he knows that doesn’t mean much
\neither. It does not change the odds on the next hand or
\non the next series. The individual hands he wins mean no
\nmore than do the individual losses.<\/p>\n
Endless chain.<\/p>\n
It’s funny, everybody knows the Taxman is a big
\nwinner; over the years he has always been a big winner.
\nEverybody knows playing against him is a bad percentage
\nbet, but everybody does. Some of them swim upstream in
\na lot of current (take the worst of it for big bucks)
\nbecause they get an extra thrill from beating him. Fast
\nEddie Felson after Minnesota Fats….<\/p>\n
It is funny because the Taxman couldn’t care less who
\nbeats his hand; when somebody makes a really dumb play
\nand wins a big pot anyway, he says it’s a good thing they
\ndo that now and then … if they didn’t, they would stop
\ntrying it.<\/p>\n
It is not that he cannot be shaken, it is that there
\nis nothing in this game to shake him with. The Taxman is
\nthe ultimate percentage player, his Empire Tax rate is
\nthe highest in the realm. The odds against his hand are
\nalways less than the odds on the money — every bet he
\nmakes is a Smart Money bet.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
FINAL EXAM…<\/p>\n
Last hand. The Big Apple (20.00 No-Limit) and then
\nfour questions. You should answer all four.<\/p>\n
See PLATE FIVE…<\/p>\n
Friday night at the Cameo Club, full moon, two minutes
\nto closing time. This is the last hand of the night,
\neverybody’s last chance to get even. This is the one
\nwhere the crazies come out.<\/p>\n
And you are first, with Molly Hogan and a number-four
\nhand to draw to (Q-6542). In this spot, at this time,
\nwith these players, you know you are going to be raised
\nif you open. You have 120.00 on the table (you have been
\nplaying all evening and you are stuck 80.00).<\/p>\n
You open for 20.00.<\/p>\n
The Pale White Hunter immediately makes it 120.00.
\nThey call him that because the color drains out of his
\nface when he picks up a good hand. Right now he is nice
\nand pink.<\/p>\n
That brings in Lou C. Luce, “for the action,” he has
\na slick two-card draw. He calls the 120.00.<\/p>\n
And then the dread moment … it is on Rocky Hardy,
\nlast before the blinds. Oh shit … he’s counting his
\nmoney … he just does have 120.00 … everybody in the
\nroom knows he has a Seven if he makes this call.<\/p>\n
He calls.<\/p>\n
That’s it. All the Blinds pass, and it is on you for
\nthe 100.00 you have left.<\/p>\n
400.00 in the pot so far, including the Blinds.<\/p>\n
Q1- Do you put your 100.00 in there?<\/p>\n
Q2- Why?<\/p>\n
Q3- What if you and Rocky Hardy each have another
\n100.00 (an additional 100.00, which means you are even
\nfor the day).<\/p>\n
Q4- What if you have the Joker?<\/p>\n
Now play fair. Before you go on, play out the hand on
\nPLATE FIVE (so you can see it all) and answer all four
\nquestions completely. This is a test, remember….<\/p>\n
If you miss Question #1, you must read this little
\nbook again, before going any further. It is impossible
\nto miss Question #1 and answer Question #2. If you miss
\nany of them, you have not been paying attention … and
\nit is not fair to say you have read THE LOWBALL BOOK….<\/p>\n
A1- The answer to question number one is: No.<\/p>\n
A2- Because the odds on the money are four-to-one to
\nyou, and you cannot change that after the draw. You will
\nbe all-in at 400 to 100. Because you have to make the
\nSix to win, and the odds against doing that are five-to-
\none. If you could win with a Seven it would be a good
\npercentage bit, but the Inside Odds kill your Seven. You
\nwill probably play anyway, but the answer is no, because
\nit is a bad percentage bet.<\/p>\n
A3- If you and Rocky Hardy each have 100.00 more, the
\nhand is a coin flip. Five-to-one on the money and five-
\nto-one against the hand. You can assume Rocky’s 100.00
\nis yours if you make the Six, so it is 500.00 to this
\n100.00 call. Your bet after the draw is not relevant.
\nIts only function in this pot is to pick up the 100.00
\nRocky Hardy is adding to the bet against you making your
\nhand. If you have 100.00 more, the other two players
\nmake it a definite go situation. They add 200.00 to your
\npossibilities after the draw.<\/p>\n
A4- Go for it. The odds on the money are still four-
\nto-one — but now the odds against the hand are only
\nthree-to-one. This is the bet you are looking for.
\nSeries of four: lose 300.00 and win 400.00. This is the
\nPercentage Player’s hand.<\/p>\n
The Percentage Player likes this hand because he is
\nplaying for an average — he knows his income comes from
\nthe net result of a series of hands in which he often
\nloses more pots than he wins. He doesn’t really expect
\nto win this pot, but he knows he will win it often enough
\nto come out ahead.<\/p>\n
And that’s where it’s at….<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
THE PLATES (TABLE CHARTS)….
\nSet your printer to 60-lines:
\n(Top\/Bottom margins, .5 inch)<\/p>\n
_____________________________
\nline 1.<\/p>\n
PLATE ONE<\/p>\n
——————
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |1-OPEN 8.00| |2-CALL 8.00|
\n |5-PASS — | |6-PASS — |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n |200.00 8.00| |200.00 8.00|
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n|BLIND 4.00| |3-CALL 8.00|
\n| | |7- |
\n| | $112.00 | (Q-6421) |
\n| | (72.00 TO CALL) | |
\n| | |75.00 8.00|
\n—————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |BLIND 2.00| |4-RAISE 80.00|
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | |150.00 80.00|
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
——————
\n |DEALER 2.00|
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n ——————<\/p>\n
1- Play begins after BLINDS; a blank position is a PASS.
\n2- Plays are numbered in order.
\n3- Pot shows total (including Blinds) after last play.
\n4- Amount lower left (each position) is amount on table.
\n5- Amount lower right is total invested in this pot.
\n6- Amount shown after RAISE includes CALL amount.
\n7- Position with hand (shown) is your position.
\n8- It is on you….<\/p>\n
line 1.<\/p>\n
PLATE TWO<\/p>\n
——————
\n |2-CALL 20.00|
\n |7-PASS — |
\n | |
\n | |
\n |450.00 20.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |1-OPEN 20.00| | |
\n |6-PASS — | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n |200.00 20.00| | |
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n|BLIND 10.00| |3-CALL 20.00|
\n|5-RAISE 210.00| |8-PASS — |
\n| | $205.00 | |
\n| | (100.00 TO CALL) | |
\n|1000.00 120.00| |300.00 20.00|
\n—————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |BLIND 5.00| | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | 5.00| | |
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
——————
\n |DEALER 5.00|
\n |4-CALL 15.00|
\n |9- |
\n | (QQ43Jkr) |
\n |100.00 20.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
1- Play begins after BLINDS; a blank position is a PASS.
\n2- Plays are numbered in order.
\n3- Pot shows total (including Blinds) after last play.
\n4- Amount lower left (each position) is amount on table.
\n5- Amount lower right is total invested in this pot.
\n6- Amount shown after RAISE includes CALL amount.
\n7- Position with hand (shown) is your position.
\n8- It is on you….<\/p>\n
line 1.<\/p>\n
PLATE THREE<\/p>\n
——————
\n |1-OPEN 6.00|
\n |6-CALL 14.00|
\n |9-PASS — |
\n | |
\n |90.00 20.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n | | |2-CALL 6.00|
\n | | |7-CALL 14.00|
\n | | |10-PASS — |
\n | | | |
\n | | |60.00 20.00|
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n|BLIND 3.00| |3-ALL-IN 20.00|
\n|5-CALL 17.00| | |
\n|8-PASS — | $102.00 | |
\n| | (On you, to bet) | |
\n|120.00 20.00| | —- 20.00|
\n—————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |BLIND 2.00| | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n | 2.00| | |
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
——————
\n |DEALER 1.00|
\n |4-CALL 9.00|
\n | (6321) |
\n |11- (8-6321) |
\n |200.00 20.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
1- Play begins after BLINDS; a blank position is a PASS.
\n2- Plays are numbered in order.
\n3- Pot shows total (including Blinds) after last play.
\n4- Amount lower left (each position) is amount on table.
\n5- Amount lower right is total invested in this pot.
\n6- Amount shown after RAISE includes CALL amount.
\n7- Position with hand (shown) is your position.
\n8- It is on you….<\/p>\n
line 1.<\/p>\n
PLATE FOUR<\/p>\n
——————
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |1-OPEN 20.00| | |
\n |5-PASS — | | |
\n | | | |
\n | | | |
\n |100.00 20.00| | |
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n|BLIND 10.00| |2-CALL 20.00|
\n| | |6-PASS — |
\n| | $335.00 | |
\n| | (120.00 To Call) | |
\n| 10.00| |100.00 20.00|
\n—————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |BLIND 5.00| |3-RAISE 80.00|
\n |4-RAISE 195.00| |7- |
\n | | | (8-632Jkr) |
\n | | | |
\n |1400.00 200.00| |400.00 80.00|
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
——————
\n |DEALER 5.00|
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | 5.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
1- Play begins after BLINDS; a blank position is a PASS.
\n2- Plays are numbered in order.
\n3- Pot shows total (including Blinds) after last play.
\n4- Amount lower left (each position) is amount on table.
\n5- Amount lower right is total invested in this pot.
\n6- Amount shown after RAISE includes CALL amount.
\n7- Position with hand (shown) is your position.
\n8- It is on you….<\/p>\n
line 1.<\/p>\n
PLATE FIVE<\/p>\n
——————
\n |2-RAISE 120.00|
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n |800.00 120.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |1-OPEN 20.00| | |
\n | | | |
\n | (Q-6542) | | |
\n | | | |
\n |100.00 20.00| | |
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n|BLIND 10.00| |3-CALL 120.00|
\n| | | |
\n| | $400.00 | |
\n| | (100.00 To Call) | |
\n| 10.00| |600.00 120.00|
\n—————— ——————<\/p>\n
—————— ——————
\n |BLIND 5.00| |4-CALL 120.00|
\n | | | |
\n | | | (a Seven) |
\n | | | |
\n | 5.00| | — 120.00|
\n —————— ——————<\/p>\n
——————
\n |DEALER 5.00|
\n | |
\n | |
\n | |
\n | 5.00|
\n ——————<\/p>\n
1- Play begins after BLINDS; a blank position is a PASS.
\n2- Plays are numbered in order.
\n3- Pot shows total (including Blinds) after last play.
\n4- Amount lower left (each position) is amount on table.
\n5- Amount lower right is total invested in this pot.
\n6- Amount shown after RAISE includes CALL amount.
\n7- Position with hand (shown) is your position.
\n8- It is on you….<\/p>\n
*end*<\/p>\n
