woensdag 25 april 2007
The 30-bet Rule
When I first started playing poker, my big brother gave me a great piece of advice. He told me to never lose more than 30 big bets in a game, give or take. That means I shouldn't lose more than $180 in a $3-$6 game, $600 in a $10-$20 game and so on. What a great piece of advice that was, one of the most important he ever gave me for money management, so I'm going to pass it on to you here: "Don't ever go off for more than 30 big bets in a poker game!"When you are first starting out as a poker player it is very difficult to judge whether you are a good player or a bad one. Until you have a lot of experience and table hours under your belt there is no way for you to effectively judge your skill level. More importantly, until you have played a lot of hours it is difficult for you to judge your level of skill compared to the other players at your table. One thing the 30 bet rule does for you is limit your losses in games where you might be the sucker. Until you are able to accurately judge how you play compared to others in your game, loss limiting with the 30 bet rule effectively stops you from dumping off large sums of money in games you may not be able to beat. This is always a good strategy for bankroll health!Even if you have enough experience and table hours to judge whether you are good, better or worse than the game you have chosen, loss limiting is still a good strategy. When we are losing it is difficult to accurately judge exactly how much losing affects our play. Even great champions will often be in a game they could generally beat soundly but because they are losing. They become a dog to the game and don't realize it. When you are losing, your table image erodes and table image is very important to how much money you can take out of a game. Other players are also more likely to play hands strong and fast against you, bluff at you and generally will be more likely to run you down which will take away your ability to bluff. All of this really eats into your earnings.Not only will your table image erode when you are losing but your skills will erode as well! As you go into the mindset of wanting to reduce your loss on losing hands you will play hands softer than called for, back off hands, and won't raise when appropriate. And we all know that passive play is a recipe for losing play. Losing generally makes us all more passive. Yet, there are those of us who steam... we chase hands we would normally fold or play hands we would normally never get involved in and the like. Steaming is another recipe for losing.By limiting your losses to 30 big bets, you are effectively minimizing the time you spend playing with a poor table image, playing passively, or steaming at the table and maximizing the amount of time you spend playing your A-game. If you don't go beyond 30 big bets, you won't dump off large sums when you are playing poorly or are in a bad game and might not be able to soundly assess your circumstances. Loss limiting acts as an objective stop-gap.So always listen to big brother... keep your losses small!
In Las Vegas, Too Many Hotels Are Never Enough
A model of a new tower in the CityCenter development in Las Vegas. MGM, which is building it, calls it the most expensive privately funded project in American history. LAS VEGAS — Stephen A. Wynn, the hotel and gambling impresario, still remembers the first time he was asked if he and other developers had lost their minds building so many casino hotels here. It was the mid-1970s, when Las Vegas had about 35,000 rooms.
Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
CityCenter, a mini-city bordering the Las Vegas strip, will feature six towering buildings that reach as high as 61 stories, including a 4,000-room hotel, over 67 acres.
He was asked that same question in the 1980s, while building the 3,000-room Mirage, and again in the early 1990s. By that time Las Vegas was home to more hotel rooms — 106,000 — than any other city in the country.
And so now, with Las Vegas in the midst of another big building boom, Mr. Wynn only shrugs when people suggest that the nation’s premier gambling center, with 151,000 rooms and counting, simply cannot absorb any more new hotels.
Ever since the mobster Bugsy Siegel opened the first modern hotel casino here in 1946, the surest means for gaining attention has been to one-up the competition by building an even more monstrously immense pleasure palace.
But even Las Vegas has never witnessed anything quite like what is going on today.
“This is the most outrageous, over-the-top expansion” ever, Mr. Wynn said.
Americans — and an increasing number of foreigners — can’t seem to get enough of Las Vegas. The current construction craze is driven by a 95 percent weekend occupancy rate — and rates that approach 100 percent at the city’s newer properties. Last year, even the weekday rate fell just shy of 90 percent, partly because of the city’s success in positioning itself as an attractive convention destination.
Fueling the current boom as well are the enticing riches to be made catering to a new kind of guest: aging boomers entering the empty-nest phase of their free-spending lives.
And contrary to some predictions, the opening of American Indian casinos and other gambling outposts in more than 30 states has not hurt Las Vegas.
Far from it. The smaller, more prosaic gambling halls stretched across the country have actually helped the boom, casino executives say, serving as a kind of a feeder system for Las Vegas as people gain a taste for gambling and then aspire to a touch of the big time. The soaring popularity of poker has also helped drive growth as the game has drawn a younger crowd to the city.
“I suppose one day Las Vegas will reach its limit,” said Anthony Curtis, president of LasVegasAdvisor.com, a local travel site. “But that day is nowhere in sight.”
Consider the Venetian, which already ranks as the sixth-biggest hotel in the world and the fourth largest in Las Vegas, home to 15 of the 20 largest on the planet. This colossus will assume the top spot once it opens a 3,200-suite tower, now under construction, that will bring its room count to more than 7,000.
Another development, Echelon Place, will have more than 5,000 rooms when it is built on the site of the old Stardust, which its owners demolished last month. The MGM currently ranks as the largest hotel in Las Vegas — and the world — with 5,000 rooms.
At $4.4 billion, Echelon Place would rank as the most expensive development in Las Vegas history — if not for the $7 billion the MGM Mirage is spending on CityCenter. That price is far more than the previous record, set when Mr. Wynn and his financial backers spent $2.7 billion building the 2,700-room Wynn, which opened in 2005.
Even competitors marvel at the scope of the CityCenter project, which MGM calls the most expensive privately financed project in American history. This minicity bordering the Las Vegas Strip will feature six towering buildings that reach as high as 61 stories. Covering 67 acres, it will include a 4,000-room hotel, a sprawling convention center, a half million square feet of retail space and 2,700 condominium units.
The changing demographics have led the designers of the new Vegas to push a sleek and modern aesthetic, along with amenities like luxurious spas, in place of the gilt and gaudy properties that reigned in the 1980s and 1990s. But their owners’ ambitions are greater than ever.
“The building we’re seeing right now,” said Gary Loveman, chief executive of Harrah’s, which operates half a dozen casinos on the Las Vegas strip, “is by leaps and bounds bigger than anything we’ve ever seen.”
For a long time, Harrah’s had only one major casino in Las Vegas. “One of my predecessors was convinced in the late 1980s, early 1990s, that Las Vegas was overbuilt,” Mr. Loveman said. “That turned out to be a wrong call. Spectacularly wrong.”
Even more than hotel construction, a boom in condominium development has increased the number of construction cranes crowding the skies.
Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
CityCenter, a mini-city bordering the Las Vegas strip, will feature six towering buildings that reach as high as 61 stories, including a 4,000-room hotel, over 67 acres.
He was asked that same question in the 1980s, while building the 3,000-room Mirage, and again in the early 1990s. By that time Las Vegas was home to more hotel rooms — 106,000 — than any other city in the country.
And so now, with Las Vegas in the midst of another big building boom, Mr. Wynn only shrugs when people suggest that the nation’s premier gambling center, with 151,000 rooms and counting, simply cannot absorb any more new hotels.
Ever since the mobster Bugsy Siegel opened the first modern hotel casino here in 1946, the surest means for gaining attention has been to one-up the competition by building an even more monstrously immense pleasure palace.
But even Las Vegas has never witnessed anything quite like what is going on today.
“This is the most outrageous, over-the-top expansion” ever, Mr. Wynn said.
Americans — and an increasing number of foreigners — can’t seem to get enough of Las Vegas. The current construction craze is driven by a 95 percent weekend occupancy rate — and rates that approach 100 percent at the city’s newer properties. Last year, even the weekday rate fell just shy of 90 percent, partly because of the city’s success in positioning itself as an attractive convention destination.
Fueling the current boom as well are the enticing riches to be made catering to a new kind of guest: aging boomers entering the empty-nest phase of their free-spending lives.
And contrary to some predictions, the opening of American Indian casinos and other gambling outposts in more than 30 states has not hurt Las Vegas.
Far from it. The smaller, more prosaic gambling halls stretched across the country have actually helped the boom, casino executives say, serving as a kind of a feeder system for Las Vegas as people gain a taste for gambling and then aspire to a touch of the big time. The soaring popularity of poker has also helped drive growth as the game has drawn a younger crowd to the city.
“I suppose one day Las Vegas will reach its limit,” said Anthony Curtis, president of LasVegasAdvisor.com, a local travel site. “But that day is nowhere in sight.”
Consider the Venetian, which already ranks as the sixth-biggest hotel in the world and the fourth largest in Las Vegas, home to 15 of the 20 largest on the planet. This colossus will assume the top spot once it opens a 3,200-suite tower, now under construction, that will bring its room count to more than 7,000.
Another development, Echelon Place, will have more than 5,000 rooms when it is built on the site of the old Stardust, which its owners demolished last month. The MGM currently ranks as the largest hotel in Las Vegas — and the world — with 5,000 rooms.
At $4.4 billion, Echelon Place would rank as the most expensive development in Las Vegas history — if not for the $7 billion the MGM Mirage is spending on CityCenter. That price is far more than the previous record, set when Mr. Wynn and his financial backers spent $2.7 billion building the 2,700-room Wynn, which opened in 2005.
Even competitors marvel at the scope of the CityCenter project, which MGM calls the most expensive privately financed project in American history. This minicity bordering the Las Vegas Strip will feature six towering buildings that reach as high as 61 stories. Covering 67 acres, it will include a 4,000-room hotel, a sprawling convention center, a half million square feet of retail space and 2,700 condominium units.
The changing demographics have led the designers of the new Vegas to push a sleek and modern aesthetic, along with amenities like luxurious spas, in place of the gilt and gaudy properties that reigned in the 1980s and 1990s. But their owners’ ambitions are greater than ever.
“The building we’re seeing right now,” said Gary Loveman, chief executive of Harrah’s, which operates half a dozen casinos on the Las Vegas strip, “is by leaps and bounds bigger than anything we’ve ever seen.”
For a long time, Harrah’s had only one major casino in Las Vegas. “One of my predecessors was convinced in the late 1980s, early 1990s, that Las Vegas was overbuilt,” Mr. Loveman said. “That turned out to be a wrong call. Spectacularly wrong.”
Even more than hotel construction, a boom in condominium development has increased the number of construction cranes crowding the skies.
Developers, including Donald J. Trump and Florida-based Turnberry Associates, are collectively spending billions of dollars building condo towers on or near the Strip, adding thousands of units even as the local real estate market, like much of the country, has been mired in a downturn.
But MGM and other developers see themselves as competing for buyers far beyond the Las Vegas market. “We see these as third homes,” said Alan M. Feldman, a spokesman for MGM.
Data provided by the National Association of Realtors indicated that the median price of a condo in the Las Vegas metropolitan area fell by 3 percent in the second half of 2006.
In a perverse way, though, the city’s current boom helped developers here avoid the kind of frantic overbuilding that plagues condominium developers and condo owners in cities like Miami and Washington. John Restrepo of the Restrepo Consulting Group, a real estate firm based here, said that a “gold rush fever” had swept through the Las Vegas condo market, with more than 100 luxury condo projects, totaling 72,000 units, announced since 2005.
But escalating land prices and a steep rise in construction costs, Mr. Restrepo said, “caused most of these guys, who were never much more than a Web site and a dream, to fade away.” Today, there are just 22 luxury condo projects, representing 10,000 units, under construction, he said, “and a large portion of those units have been sold.”
The MGM Mirage is not the only casino company venturing into the condominium business. So, too, is the Venetian, which will add a 270-unit condominium tower to its property along the Strip.
“Las Vegas has morphed from a place that is simply a casino box with rooms to rent for 23 bucks a night,” said William P. Weidner, the president of Las Vegas Sands, the parent company of the Venetian. “It is now a place with mixed-used developments which take advantage of the new Las Vegas, a multiday-stay destination and a place where increasingly people want to live.”
The scale of Las Vegas’ hotel industry and the size of its properties put other cities to shame. Even the massive 2,000-room casino resort Mr. Wynn is building next to Wynn — it would rank as New York’s largest hotel — will not crack Las Vegas’s top 15.
Not to be outdone, Fontainebleau Resorts recently announced plans for a $2.8 billion, 3,900-room resort on the northern end of the Las Vegas Strip. And developer Ian Bruce Eichner has raised $3 billion to build a 3,000-unit condo-hotel, the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino, on the Strip.
[And there is the likelihood of more large-scale projects on the horizon. Yesterday, Goldman Sachs paid $1.3 billion for the four Nevada casinos owned by Carl C. Icahn’s American Real Estate Partners, including the Stratosphere Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, but also a precious 17 acres of undeveloped land on the Strip.]
Even without the new hotel properties, the 151,000 guest rooms in the extended Las Vegas area, according to Smith Travel Research, a lodging industry data broker, are nearly twice the 80,000 rooms in New York City. Orlando ranks second to Las Vegas with 111,000 rooms.
And yet Las Vegas has more new hotel rooms under construction (11,000) than any other city in the country, as well as more rooms on the drawing boards (35,000).
Tourists spent a combined $15 billion last year at the Strip’s various casino resorts. Sixty percent of that revenue — $9 billion — was from noncasino sources ranging from hotel rooms to restaurants, some as costly as New York’s best, to high-end retailers that pay dearly for a spot inside the sprawling malls that are a staple of today’s Las Vegas casino.
These revenue sources are proving enticing even to an old-line player like Boyd Gaming, a middle-market casino company that had ceded the high-end market to the likes of MGM and the Venetian. But with the announcement of its plans for the $4.4 billion Echelon Place, Boyd made clear it was going upscale, too.
“We considered a variety of options,” said Robert L. Boughner, a longtime Boyd executive who is overseeing the Echelon project. “But ultimately we concluded that there were very compelling reasons to enter the premium tier.”
Concerns over future limits on water supplies might ultimately slow development here. Eventually, tourists might tire of fighting the daily traffic jams that snarl the Strip and nearby freeways, or grow frustrated negotiating McCarran International Airport, which seems in a perpetual state of crisis.
But those problems have not hampered Las Vegas’s success so far. The city had just under 39 million visitors in 2006, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority — an 86 percent increase over the 21 million visiting the city in 1990.
And in anticipation of handling even larger hordes of tourists, McCarran is in the first year of a five-year, $4 billion makeover. Meanwhile, officials are looking into adding a second airport at Ivanpah Valley, 30 miles from Las Vegas.
“People have been predicting dating back to 1955 that Las Vegas will reach a saturation point,” said David G. Schwartz, author of “Roll the Bones,” a history of gambling, and director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “But me, I wouldn’t bet against casino growth.”
Data provided by the National Association of Realtors indicated that the median price of a condo in the Las Vegas metropolitan area fell by 3 percent in the second half of 2006.
In a perverse way, though, the city’s current boom helped developers here avoid the kind of frantic overbuilding that plagues condominium developers and condo owners in cities like Miami and Washington. John Restrepo of the Restrepo Consulting Group, a real estate firm based here, said that a “gold rush fever” had swept through the Las Vegas condo market, with more than 100 luxury condo projects, totaling 72,000 units, announced since 2005.
But escalating land prices and a steep rise in construction costs, Mr. Restrepo said, “caused most of these guys, who were never much more than a Web site and a dream, to fade away.” Today, there are just 22 luxury condo projects, representing 10,000 units, under construction, he said, “and a large portion of those units have been sold.”
The MGM Mirage is not the only casino company venturing into the condominium business. So, too, is the Venetian, which will add a 270-unit condominium tower to its property along the Strip.
“Las Vegas has morphed from a place that is simply a casino box with rooms to rent for 23 bucks a night,” said William P. Weidner, the president of Las Vegas Sands, the parent company of the Venetian. “It is now a place with mixed-used developments which take advantage of the new Las Vegas, a multiday-stay destination and a place where increasingly people want to live.”
The scale of Las Vegas’ hotel industry and the size of its properties put other cities to shame. Even the massive 2,000-room casino resort Mr. Wynn is building next to Wynn — it would rank as New York’s largest hotel — will not crack Las Vegas’s top 15.
Not to be outdone, Fontainebleau Resorts recently announced plans for a $2.8 billion, 3,900-room resort on the northern end of the Las Vegas Strip. And developer Ian Bruce Eichner has raised $3 billion to build a 3,000-unit condo-hotel, the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino, on the Strip.
[And there is the likelihood of more large-scale projects on the horizon. Yesterday, Goldman Sachs paid $1.3 billion for the four Nevada casinos owned by Carl C. Icahn’s American Real Estate Partners, including the Stratosphere Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, but also a precious 17 acres of undeveloped land on the Strip.]
Even without the new hotel properties, the 151,000 guest rooms in the extended Las Vegas area, according to Smith Travel Research, a lodging industry data broker, are nearly twice the 80,000 rooms in New York City. Orlando ranks second to Las Vegas with 111,000 rooms.
And yet Las Vegas has more new hotel rooms under construction (11,000) than any other city in the country, as well as more rooms on the drawing boards (35,000).
Tourists spent a combined $15 billion last year at the Strip’s various casino resorts. Sixty percent of that revenue — $9 billion — was from noncasino sources ranging from hotel rooms to restaurants, some as costly as New York’s best, to high-end retailers that pay dearly for a spot inside the sprawling malls that are a staple of today’s Las Vegas casino.
These revenue sources are proving enticing even to an old-line player like Boyd Gaming, a middle-market casino company that had ceded the high-end market to the likes of MGM and the Venetian. But with the announcement of its plans for the $4.4 billion Echelon Place, Boyd made clear it was going upscale, too.
“We considered a variety of options,” said Robert L. Boughner, a longtime Boyd executive who is overseeing the Echelon project. “But ultimately we concluded that there were very compelling reasons to enter the premium tier.”
Concerns over future limits on water supplies might ultimately slow development here. Eventually, tourists might tire of fighting the daily traffic jams that snarl the Strip and nearby freeways, or grow frustrated negotiating McCarran International Airport, which seems in a perpetual state of crisis.
But those problems have not hampered Las Vegas’s success so far. The city had just under 39 million visitors in 2006, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority — an 86 percent increase over the 21 million visiting the city in 1990.
And in anticipation of handling even larger hordes of tourists, McCarran is in the first year of a five-year, $4 billion makeover. Meanwhile, officials are looking into adding a second airport at Ivanpah Valley, 30 miles from Las Vegas.
“People have been predicting dating back to 1955 that Las Vegas will reach a saturation point,” said David G. Schwartz, author of “Roll the Bones,” a history of gambling, and director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “But me, I wouldn’t bet against casino growth.”
WPT Championships Day 1a: The Phil Hellmuth and Jamie Gold Show
For the next week, the center of the poker universe is at the Bellagio Casino in Las Vegas as it plays host to the $25,000 buy-in WPT Championship event. Some of the preeminent poker players on the planet showed up for battle in a grueling test of poker acumen, metal toughness, and testicular fortitude. And when it's all over and the dust settles, the WPT will crown a new world champion as the winner will pocket over $4 million. That will be the richest prize ever awarded in a non-WSOP Main Event.The biggest names in poker all converged on the Bellagio Casino in Las Vegas in hopes of making history. The structure included ninety minute levels and a starting stack of 50,000. The 304 person field on Day 1a was star-studded. Among those spotted were Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Jamie Gold, defending champion Joe Bartholdi, Victor Ramdin, Men "The Master" Nguyen, Jeff Madsen, Dan Harrington, Vinny Procopio, Fabrice Soulier, Gavin Smith, Josh "Billy Madison" Arieh, Barny Boatman, Brad Berman, T.J. Cloutier, Kristy Gazes, Rehne Pedersen, David Plastik, Haralabos Voulgaris, Harry Demetriou, Hoyt Corkins, Steve Brecher, Padraig Parkinson, Maureen Feduniak, Jason Lester, Dan Alspach, Joe Sebok, Ralph Perry, David Grey, John Gale, Scott Fischman, John Duthie, Davidson Matthew, Barry Shulman, John Bonetti, David Levi, Ben Roberts, Amnon Filippi, Doug Lee, Juha Helppi, Johnny Lodden, Roland de Wolfe, Jordan Morgan, David Williams, Rene Angelil, Marcel Luske, Cliff "JohnnyBax" Josephy, Mike Woo, Kenna James, Ross Boatman, Shane "Shaniac" Schleger, Jen Harman, John Myung, Barry Greenstein, David "The Dragon" Pham, ZeeJustin, Noah Boeken, Tuan Le, Andy Black, Brian "sbrugby" Townsend, JJ Lui, Chad Brown, "Miami" John Cernuto, Dustin "NeverWin" Woolf, Raj Patel, Danny Alaei, Ted Lawson, Eli Elezra, Capt. Tom Franklin, Robert Mizrachi, Joe Tehan, James Van Alstyne, Liz Lieu, Alan Goehring, Eric Hershler, Cyndy Violette, Jesse Jones, Johnny "World" Hennigan, Thor Hansen, David "Devilfish" Ulliott, David Sklansky, Jon Little, Vanessa Rousso, and Alex Jacob.By far the toughest table in the room had to be table #58. It was nicknamed "The Champions Table."Table #58Seat 1: Tony CousineauSeat 2: Abe MosseriSeat 3: Hoyt Corkins (2003 WPT Foxwoods Champion)Seat 4: Maureen FeduniakSeat 5: Adam Weinraub (2007 WPT Invitational Champion)Seat 6: Tuan Le (2005 WPT World Champion)Seat 7: Jamie Gold (2006 WSOP Champion)Seat 8: Francois SafieddineSeat 10: Scott Clements (2006 WSOP bracelet winner)Later in the afternoon, EPT creator John Duthie and Martin de Knijff (2004 WPT World Champion) were both moved to the table. By the end of the session, Adam Weinraub and Tuan Le would both get eliminated.Tuan Le had a tough time against Jamie Gold who dominated Le the entire day. During the first hour of the tournament, Gold badgered the table with his usual verbal bombardment, including the former WPT World Champion. Gold promptly put Le on tilt after he displayed a masterful bluff. On a board of , Le checked to Gold who moved all in. Le sat and stared at the flop for several minutes. He obviously had a mediocre hand as he went into the tank and Gold stood up. Tournament reporters and photographers all raced over to the table to capture the first big all-in hand of the day. Gold walked back and forth and asked the press if he'd be the first player eliminated if he lost the hand. When he found out that it indeed was the case he turned to Le and said, "I've got a huge hand. I don't know, if it's taking you this long maybe you have a huge hand, too. If you do have me beat it'll be an amazing call."Le mucked as Gold tabled 6c-3s for a complete bluff. Le looked stunned as Gold mentioned, "He was about a minute away from sending me home. It wasn't looking good."Phil Hellmuth, who had arrived late, heard about the amazing bluff and began talking smack with Gold who barked right back. The two eventually settled on a prop bet where Hellmuth bet Gold $5K that he would not make it to Day 2. Gold agreed and ended up winning that prop bet. Hellmuth also promised Gold $500 in cash every time that he bluffed Le. Gold did it twice and picked up an additional $1,000.Gold continued his run towards 100K after he busted Adam Weinraub. On a board of , Weinraub bet 5K and Gold re-raised to 12K."I could be lying," Gold said as he stood up and goaded Weinraub to call his bet. "I'm not going to tell you if I'm bluffing."Weinraub moved all-in and Gold quickly called as he shouted, "Yes!"He flipped over for the nuts as Weinraub showed for a set. That hand put Gold past 100K as Weinraub headed to the rail.The big story of Day 1a involved Anna Wroblewski who ended the day as the chip leader with over 211K. She was the first player to jump past the 100K and 200K mark. No one in the Fontana Room could stop the 21-year old who won a 3K event at the Bellagio earlier in the week. She won a satellite to get in, and turned an initial $300 investment into a $337K first place prize.At the WPT Championships, she quickly built up her stack when she picked off a bluff with just Ace high. She also sent two-time WSOP bracelet winner Jeff Madsen to the rail early. Wroblewski flopped a set of 2s as she stacked Madsen. By the end of the night, everyone in the room wanted to know more about the new wunderkind.When played ended for the night, about 220 players remain with Wroblewski as the chipleader.Noteworthy eliminations on Day 1a included Jeff Madsen, Alex Jacob, Brian "sbrugby" Townsend, Tuan Le, Chad Brown, Shane "Shaniac" Schleger, T.J. Cloutier, David "The Dragon" Pham, John Gale, Doug Lee, Davidson Matthew, John Juanda, Raj Patel, Johnny "World" Hennigan, Men "The Master" Nguyen, Barry Shulman, Mike Woo, Jon Friedberg, Jordan Morgan, and Cyndy Violette.Day 1b will begin at noon on Sunday. The remaining players in both starting fields will combine on Monday. Check back in with Poker News for live updates, photos, videos, and don't forget about out Feature Hands section.
dinsdag 24 april 2007
Knowing When to Stop Playing Poker
"I tell you what, you give me half your money, we'll go out back, I'll kick you in the ass, and we'll call it a day." The words of the blackjack dealer in National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation have never seemed more real. How you wish you could actually go back to the poker table or table game and have taken this proposition. Unfortunately, we can't reel back the paradox of time.
So you are sitting at your favorite regular game with seven to nine buddies that you are on a first name basis with. Of course, you know their last names too becuase you've been playing poker with them for years, but using last names just wouldn't keep the atmosphere friendly. It's your turn and you decide to raise the last of your chips in the pot and announce "Go big or go home!" to the rest of the table. Sure enough, your buddy Rick calls your bet and you hear him mumble "I knew he was bluffing." It's time to get up... or is it?
If you recognize your problem, do you deny to it when asked? Do people say that you don't know when enough is really enough? Are you consistently losing when you are playing poker? My friend, you might have a gambling problem if you answered any of these questions with a yes.
You usually lose "just a bit" each week, but you've already lost this week's paycheck in tonights game, and last week it was "just bad cards." When are you going to stop and realize that poker might just not be for you. When are you going to grow a backbone and surprise your Friday night buddies when you don't show up?
Losing a paycheck isn't all that bad, but your gambling problem can certainly lead to other things. Before you know it you will be losing your car, home, and, some place in the process, your wife / significant other.
Lots of people don't waste time on gamblers, especially women. If you expect to be able to have a relationship and continue gambling, you might as well save the other person by not getting involved at all. Fix your gambling problem first and then you can think about having a relationship with somebody.
So you are sitting at your favorite regular game with seven to nine buddies that you are on a first name basis with. Of course, you know their last names too becuase you've been playing poker with them for years, but using last names just wouldn't keep the atmosphere friendly. It's your turn and you decide to raise the last of your chips in the pot and announce "Go big or go home!" to the rest of the table. Sure enough, your buddy Rick calls your bet and you hear him mumble "I knew he was bluffing." It's time to get up... or is it?
If you recognize your problem, do you deny to it when asked? Do people say that you don't know when enough is really enough? Are you consistently losing when you are playing poker? My friend, you might have a gambling problem if you answered any of these questions with a yes.
You usually lose "just a bit" each week, but you've already lost this week's paycheck in tonights game, and last week it was "just bad cards." When are you going to stop and realize that poker might just not be for you. When are you going to grow a backbone and surprise your Friday night buddies when you don't show up?
Losing a paycheck isn't all that bad, but your gambling problem can certainly lead to other things. Before you know it you will be losing your car, home, and, some place in the process, your wife / significant other.
Lots of people don't waste time on gamblers, especially women. If you expect to be able to have a relationship and continue gambling, you might as well save the other person by not getting involved at all. Fix your gambling problem first and then you can think about having a relationship with somebody.
Omaha Holdem Basics
One of the most profitable variations of poker today, especially online, is Omaha high low split eight-or-better, mercifully reduced to the more common name Omaha/8. The main reason for this profitability is not only are there many poor poker players who play Omaha/8, but there are just as many who don’t even understand the rules and hand values. Another reason is that Omaha/8 is a very straightforward and mathematical game. It has much less short-term variance, or luck, than holdem. The good news is you have come to the right place to start maximizing your chance at this profit. Starting below you will learn the basics such as how to play and how to read both high and low hands. After you have a solid understanding of the rules, continue with the Omaha/8 strategy sections. They cover basic and advanced strategy for both limit and pot limit Omaha/8. Omaha/8 can be played with anywhere from 2 to 10 players with most rooms running full tables of 9 or 10 players. The player to the left of the dealer or button places a forced bet called the small blind and the player to the small blinds left places a forced bet called the big blind. The big blind is equal to the lower betting limit of the game, for example in a 10/20 game the big blind is 10. The small blind is half the big blind, or 5 in our example. Each player then receives four cards face down, often called hole cards. The first round of betting starts at this time with the player to the big blinds left, who can fold, call or raise. Play continues to the left until it reaches the big blind, who may check if the pot hasn’t been raised, or raise. Three cards are then placed face up in the center of the table. This is called the flop and these cards are community cards, which can be used by every player to form their best hand. The second round of betting starts at this time with the first person still involved in the hand to the left of the dealer. A fourth community card, often called the turn, is placed face up in the center, followed by a third round of betting. This and the last round are at the upper limit, 20 in our example, in limit play. The last community card, called the river, is now placed face up in the center of the table and the last round of betting is conducted. The pot is then awarded based on the following rules:1. If there is not a possible low hand, the high hand wins the entire pot. If two players tie for the best high hand, then the pot is split between both players.2. If one or more players have a qualifying low hand the pot is split. Half the pot is awarded to the best high hand and the other half is awarded to the best low hand. In the event of a tie, the half of the pot awarded is split between the two ties, or they each receive one-fourth of the pot. This is often called “getting quartered”. The single most important rule to remember in Omaha/8 is that you must use exactly two cards from your hand and three from the board, or community cards, to form your best hand. If you have both a high and low hand, you can use two different cards from your hand to form them, but you still are required to use exactly two. The number of players who don’t understand this rule will surprise you. Another major problem area for many players, particularly holdem players, is playing too many hands. Players assume incorrectly that because they start with four cards instead of two, that they can play a higher percentage of starting hands. This is completely wrong and can make even a great player lose money. Just like most forms of poker, tight and aggressive play is the path to profitability. This means playing around 25% of your starting hands. When I was learning Omaha/8, the strategy I quickly was forced to adopt was looking for reasons not to play a hand instead of reasons to play it. This may sound like a small thing, but by evaluating the shortcomings of a hand you will quickly become a tighter and better player. A challenge that everyone faces when learning Omaha/8 is correctly reading low hands. Remember that because each player must use two hole cards and three from the board, the only hands that can be split are the ones with three unpaired cards eight or below on the board. The fastest way to read low hands is to read them backwards as a number. When comparing two or more hands this way, the lowest number wins. Here is an example, with the lowest hand first and highest hand last.
A 2 3 4 5 - 54,321
A 3 4 5 7 - 75,431
2 4 5 6 7 - 76,542
A 2 3 4 8 - 84,321
A 2 3 4 5 - 54,321
A 3 4 5 7 - 75,431
2 4 5 6 7 - 76,542
A 2 3 4 8 - 84,321
mortgage
A mortgage is a method of using property (real or personal) as security for the payment of a debt.
The term mortgage (from Law French, lit. death vow) refers to the legal device used in securing the property, but it is also commonly used to refer to the debt secured by the mortgage, the mortgage loan.
In most jurisdictions mortgages are strongly associated with loans secured on real estate rather than other property (such as ships) and in some cases only land may be mortgaged. Arranging a mortgage is seen as the standard method by which individuals and businesses can purchase residential and commercial real estate without the need to pay the full value immediately. See mortgage loan for residential mortgage lending, and commercial mortgage for lending against commercial property.
In many countries it is normal for home purchases to be funded by a mortgage. In countries where the demand for home ownership is highest, strong domestic markets have developed, notably in Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The term mortgage (from Law French, lit. death vow) refers to the legal device used in securing the property, but it is also commonly used to refer to the debt secured by the mortgage, the mortgage loan.
In most jurisdictions mortgages are strongly associated with loans secured on real estate rather than other property (such as ships) and in some cases only land may be mortgaged. Arranging a mortgage is seen as the standard method by which individuals and businesses can purchase residential and commercial real estate without the need to pay the full value immediately. See mortgage loan for residential mortgage lending, and commercial mortgage for lending against commercial property.
In many countries it is normal for home purchases to be funded by a mortgage. In countries where the demand for home ownership is highest, strong domestic markets have developed, notably in Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
maandag 23 april 2007
Verkopers zijn te optimistisch over waarde van hun vastgoed
Belgen die vastgoed verkopen, overschatten de waarde van dat onroerend goed. Dat blijkt uit een rondvraag van de redactie. Slechts een minderheid onderhandelt over de prijs. De volledige vastgoedgids staat dit weekend in Netto, de wekelijkse bijlage van De Tijd.
(tijd) - Hoe gaat het met de vastgoedmarkt? Die vraag wordt meestal benaderd vanuit het standpunt van de kopers, de vraagzijde. De Tijd/Netto wilde wel eens weten hoe het gesteld is met de andere kant van de markt, de aanbodzijde.
Hoe gedragen de verkopers zich? Om dat te doorgronden hield de redactie een enquête bij een nationaal panel bestaande uit 15.600 personen, hoofdzakelijk samengesteld uit de lezers van De Tijd, L'Echo en de websites van deze kranten. Vanuit sociaaleconomisch standpunt is hun profiel dus hoger dan het nationale gemiddelde. De representativiteit van het panel dient niet al te strikt genomen te worden, ook al is het aantal respondenten indrukwekkend: ruim 2.800 (van wie 76 procent Vlamingen). Van hen hebben ruim 1.300 personen al een eigendom verkocht. Het leeuwendeel (57 procent) deed dat meer dan drie jaar geleden. Toch constateren we de laatste drie maanden een lichte opleving van het aantal transacties. 8 procent verkocht de laatste drie maanden een eigendom, 5 procent deed dat drie tot zes maanden geleden. Geen indrukwekkend verschil, maar toch een verschil.
Eerste vaststelling: de verkopers overschatten de prijs die ze kunnen krijgen voor hun eigendom. Amper een op de twee verkopers kreeg wat hij oorspronkelijk gevraagd had. Bijna vier op de tien moesten tevreden zijn met minder. Men zou kunnen vermoeden dat dat komt doordat de verkopers anticiperen op het spel van bod en tegenbod, maar niets is minder waar. De Belg onderhandelt nauwelijks over de prijs als hij een onroerend goed verkoopt. Bijna zes op de tien verkopers vragen van meet af aan het bedrag dat ze wensen te krijgen. Dat geldt zowel voor degenen die een vastgoed verkochten om in te spelen op een financiële opportuniteit en de meerwaarden te verzilveren (20 procent van de ondervraagden), als voor degenen die het verkochten om zelf hun intrek te nemen in een andere woning (35 procent).
Als we toch de indruk zouden hebben dat verkopers de initiële vraagprijs systematisch hoger leggen, dan is dat wellicht voor een deel te wijten aan de 15 procent van de ondervraagden die initieel een vraagprijs afficheerden die minstens 15 procent hoger was dan de prijs waarop ze hoopten.
Wie een onroerend goed verkoopt, kan kiezen tussen verschillende verkoopkanalen: een openbare verkoop, via de notaris, uit de hand of met de hulp van een vastgoedmakelaar. De rechtstreekse verkoop en de makelaar kennen het meeste bijval: 42 procent van de respondenten verkocht het onroerend goed zelf, 38 procent deed een beroep op een makelaar. De notaris (14 procent) en de openbare verkoop (2 procent) zijn minder in trek.
Beïnvloedt het gekozen verkoopkanaal de prijs en de snelheid waarmee het onroerend goed verkocht wordt? Eerst en vooral blijkt dat het verkoopkanaal de prijszetting beïnvloedt. Dat is niet zo verbazend. De verkoper rekent de commissie die hij aan de makelaar moet betalen door aan de potentiële koper door de vraagprijs met het bedrag van de commissie te verhogen. Vaste makelaarstarieven zijn er niet, maar ongeveer 4 procent van de verkoopprijs is een gangbaar tarief.
De troeven van een makelaar - extra promotiekanalen, klantenportefeuille, marktexpertise - zijn geen garantie op het krijgen van een betere prijs, zo blijkt. Bijna zes op de tien verkopers die het goed zelf verkochten, kregen wat ze vroegen. Dat aantal valt terug tot vier op de tien van de eigenaars die het via een makelaar te koop stelden. Maar liefst de helft van de verkopers die een makelaar inschakelden, moest zich tevredenstellen met een lagere prijs. Een op de drie die het onroerend goed uit de hand verkochten, kregen een lagere prijs dan gehoopt. Uiteraard kan het initiële verwachtingspatroon deze resultaten vertekenen: hoe hoger de verwachting, hoe groter de kans op een ontgoocheling.
Kan het feit dat een contract van een makelaar beperkt is in de tijd de lagere prijs verklaren? Met andere woorden: zou het kunnen dat de makelaar de verkoper aanport het goed sneller te verkopen, ook al ligt de biedprijs onder de verwachtingen van de koper? De cijfers over de snelheid waarmee verkocht wordt, lijken het tegendeel aan te tonen. Vastgoed dat via een makelaar verkocht werd, blijkt langer te koop te staan dan vastgoed dat de eigenaar rechtstreeks verkoopt. Gemiddeld deed 42 procent van de ondervraagden er minder dan een maand over om het goed te verkopen. Een op de vier verkocht het zelfs binnen twee weken na het plaatsen van het bordje 'Te koop'.
Bij een onderhandse verkoop had een derde van de verkopers minder dan twee weken nodig, tegen slechts een op de tien via een makelaar. 20 procent van de ondervraagden die met een makelaar werkten, hadden tussen drie en zes maanden nodig. Dat is het dubbele van hen die het uit de hand verkochten. Dat betekent echter niet dat het pand ook al die tijd door de makelaar werd aangeboden. Sommige verkopers nemen immers een opportunistische houding aan: ze proberen het eerst zelf. Pas als dat niet lukt, schakelen ze een makelaar in.
Nadine Bollen
(tijd) - Hoe gaat het met de vastgoedmarkt? Die vraag wordt meestal benaderd vanuit het standpunt van de kopers, de vraagzijde. De Tijd/Netto wilde wel eens weten hoe het gesteld is met de andere kant van de markt, de aanbodzijde.
Hoe gedragen de verkopers zich? Om dat te doorgronden hield de redactie een enquête bij een nationaal panel bestaande uit 15.600 personen, hoofdzakelijk samengesteld uit de lezers van De Tijd, L'Echo en de websites van deze kranten. Vanuit sociaaleconomisch standpunt is hun profiel dus hoger dan het nationale gemiddelde. De representativiteit van het panel dient niet al te strikt genomen te worden, ook al is het aantal respondenten indrukwekkend: ruim 2.800 (van wie 76 procent Vlamingen). Van hen hebben ruim 1.300 personen al een eigendom verkocht. Het leeuwendeel (57 procent) deed dat meer dan drie jaar geleden. Toch constateren we de laatste drie maanden een lichte opleving van het aantal transacties. 8 procent verkocht de laatste drie maanden een eigendom, 5 procent deed dat drie tot zes maanden geleden. Geen indrukwekkend verschil, maar toch een verschil.
Eerste vaststelling: de verkopers overschatten de prijs die ze kunnen krijgen voor hun eigendom. Amper een op de twee verkopers kreeg wat hij oorspronkelijk gevraagd had. Bijna vier op de tien moesten tevreden zijn met minder. Men zou kunnen vermoeden dat dat komt doordat de verkopers anticiperen op het spel van bod en tegenbod, maar niets is minder waar. De Belg onderhandelt nauwelijks over de prijs als hij een onroerend goed verkoopt. Bijna zes op de tien verkopers vragen van meet af aan het bedrag dat ze wensen te krijgen. Dat geldt zowel voor degenen die een vastgoed verkochten om in te spelen op een financiële opportuniteit en de meerwaarden te verzilveren (20 procent van de ondervraagden), als voor degenen die het verkochten om zelf hun intrek te nemen in een andere woning (35 procent).
Als we toch de indruk zouden hebben dat verkopers de initiële vraagprijs systematisch hoger leggen, dan is dat wellicht voor een deel te wijten aan de 15 procent van de ondervraagden die initieel een vraagprijs afficheerden die minstens 15 procent hoger was dan de prijs waarop ze hoopten.
Wie een onroerend goed verkoopt, kan kiezen tussen verschillende verkoopkanalen: een openbare verkoop, via de notaris, uit de hand of met de hulp van een vastgoedmakelaar. De rechtstreekse verkoop en de makelaar kennen het meeste bijval: 42 procent van de respondenten verkocht het onroerend goed zelf, 38 procent deed een beroep op een makelaar. De notaris (14 procent) en de openbare verkoop (2 procent) zijn minder in trek.
Beïnvloedt het gekozen verkoopkanaal de prijs en de snelheid waarmee het onroerend goed verkocht wordt? Eerst en vooral blijkt dat het verkoopkanaal de prijszetting beïnvloedt. Dat is niet zo verbazend. De verkoper rekent de commissie die hij aan de makelaar moet betalen door aan de potentiële koper door de vraagprijs met het bedrag van de commissie te verhogen. Vaste makelaarstarieven zijn er niet, maar ongeveer 4 procent van de verkoopprijs is een gangbaar tarief.
De troeven van een makelaar - extra promotiekanalen, klantenportefeuille, marktexpertise - zijn geen garantie op het krijgen van een betere prijs, zo blijkt. Bijna zes op de tien verkopers die het goed zelf verkochten, kregen wat ze vroegen. Dat aantal valt terug tot vier op de tien van de eigenaars die het via een makelaar te koop stelden. Maar liefst de helft van de verkopers die een makelaar inschakelden, moest zich tevredenstellen met een lagere prijs. Een op de drie die het onroerend goed uit de hand verkochten, kregen een lagere prijs dan gehoopt. Uiteraard kan het initiële verwachtingspatroon deze resultaten vertekenen: hoe hoger de verwachting, hoe groter de kans op een ontgoocheling.
Kan het feit dat een contract van een makelaar beperkt is in de tijd de lagere prijs verklaren? Met andere woorden: zou het kunnen dat de makelaar de verkoper aanport het goed sneller te verkopen, ook al ligt de biedprijs onder de verwachtingen van de koper? De cijfers over de snelheid waarmee verkocht wordt, lijken het tegendeel aan te tonen. Vastgoed dat via een makelaar verkocht werd, blijkt langer te koop te staan dan vastgoed dat de eigenaar rechtstreeks verkoopt. Gemiddeld deed 42 procent van de ondervraagden er minder dan een maand over om het goed te verkopen. Een op de vier verkocht het zelfs binnen twee weken na het plaatsen van het bordje 'Te koop'.
Bij een onderhandse verkoop had een derde van de verkopers minder dan twee weken nodig, tegen slechts een op de tien via een makelaar. 20 procent van de ondervraagden die met een makelaar werkten, hadden tussen drie en zes maanden nodig. Dat is het dubbele van hen die het uit de hand verkochten. Dat betekent echter niet dat het pand ook al die tijd door de makelaar werd aangeboden. Sommige verkopers nemen immers een opportunistische houding aan: ze proberen het eerst zelf. Pas als dat niet lukt, schakelen ze een makelaar in.
Nadine Bollen
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)