Folding in Poker


Folding in Poker

Back to forum

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-16)
Folding in Poker

We never we able to fold if we just didn't want to play out a 2-7 for instance and get on with the next hand. Then you changed it for the better. I got out of poker for a while, and now when I got back in, it was back the old way. Plus sometimes towards the end of the hand, I would rather not show what I was staying in with even if the bets were all checks, so I would rather just fold. Now that button is "whited out" again and I was wondering why?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-16 19:06:33)
Folding in Poker

Hmm, I didn't change anything... the color doesn't matter (it just means that it is probably not the best move), the button should work. Did you really try it?

Is it the same for other players?

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-17 00:55:59)
Folding in Poker

Sorry Thib, the button is whited out, but it works, :)

Don Groves    (2012-02-18 15:28:32)
Folding in Poker

We still have the problem though of not always showing all both hands in a showdown. The hold-em rules are that each hand in the final showdown is shown starting to the left of the dealer.

If no one folds, then both hands must be shown. If a player doesn't want to show his hand, he can do what Scott has suggested. But if the final bet is called, both hands should be shown.

Garvin Gray    (2012-02-18 17:00:06)
Folding in Poker


I remember making this same comment.

Just to clarify we are talking the same situation- River has been dealt, Player B calls, Player A shows their cards.

Now previously I have argued that Player B is also supposed to show their cards, but from watching quite a bit of the pro's playing poker and what they do in this situation is that if Player B sees that they are beat, they muck their hand.

So it seems that Player B is under no obligation to show their hand and instead can just concede.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-18 18:16:49)
Folding in Poker

@Don, this is the case if one player is all-in, not at every hand... Right?!

Don Groves    (2012-02-18 21:15:08)
Folding in Poker

Every hand. The guiding principle is that if a player is called, they must show their cards even if they lose the hand. The other player has paid for the right to see his hand.

As Garvin points out, this is not always followed these days, but I think it makes good sense. It I call the final bet, I think I'm entitled to see the other player(s) hand(s).

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-18 21:42:26)
Folding in Poker

Yes I agree. I mean, the player called must always show his cards (this is the case at FICGS), but the player who call must show his cards only if one player is all-in, otherwise he's free not to show it even if he has the better hand (here this is automated, so the rules are not fully fullfilled but this is so rare).

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-21 18:48:24)
Folding in Poker

Another change I noticed (a big one) since I got out of the scene for a bit, is that the way the poker ratings are calculated. Did you change something Thib? They used to move up and down a lot faster. If you wanted to change the way the ratings were done then the "whole system" should have started from scratch. The old way, whoever happened to be on top or near the top, now has NO worry, they change so little they would have to lose dozens of games to just drop out of the top ten. At one point I was 2258 (highest ever), with this system nobody would have ever caught me. If you didn't change anything, then my apologies. If you did, then I think the whole system needs to be re-started.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-21 19:46:09)
Folding in Poker

I cannot remember any change for the poker rating rules!? See there:

When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly... And even faster under 2000.

The fact is that Nelson is really hard to catch :)

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-21 20:13:20)
Folding in Poker

Ok thanks Thib, :)

Don Groves    (2012-02-22 15:06:45)
Folding in Poker

The "whole system" should have changed when a few players were allowed to begin at ELO 1800 while the rest of us began at 1600. That was definitely not a fair situation.

What rating do new players begin at now?

Garvin Gray    (2012-02-22 16:38:55)
Folding in Poker

I wonder how different the ratings would be now if they were re-run, considering that players now have established ratings.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-22 18:49:31)
Folding in Poker

New players still start from 1400 to 1800. If ratings would restart right now I'm quite sure that the rating list would be about the same after 2 months or 3... Whatever the rules change (we'll avoid any in the future), players find their place after a few months of play.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-02-23 23:44:10)
Rating in Poker

Hello Thibault,

you wrote: "When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly."

This is no longer true. If both players have the same rating (> 1999), the winner wins 9 points. Even if the loser has 300 points more, the winner gets only 16 points.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 00:21:47)
Folding in Poker

Erratum, you all right! The last change for poker rules occured last year (february 2011):

I just lost a poker game so 12 points:

WhiteELO : 2039 ... 2051
BlackELO : 2160 ... 2148

So, yes ratings move less fast than in january 2011 but it still moves fast enough IMO. If the most doesn't agree with this we can return to the old rating rule, I'm still not sure what is best.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 00:53:52)
Folding in Poker


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 01:22:37)
Folding in Poker

Ok :) .. Any other opinion?

I just looked at a few ratings, in example mine went from 2003 to 2166 between february 2011 and february 2012... So it is still possible to climb the scale. But once more I'm not sure what is best, so please give your advice!

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 03:49:19)
Folding in Poker

Sorry Thib, didn't mean to yell. That was why I had asked you if something had changed. The board moved around a lot quicker. Now it just SEEMS to never move from week to week or even month to month. I realize that when we first started the real strengths of the players were not known, maybe that is the reason. But you do admit you changed something, I would like to vote to change it back. Cheers, Scott

Don Groves    (2012-02-24 05:51:26)
Folding in Poker

Whatever is decided, please no more rules changes without discussion by members.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker

Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.

Also look at the results of Nelson:

vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)

IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 20:56:24)
Folding in Poker

I don't know what you did or why with the rating formula, and it doesn't matter anymore. I took some time off from poker, but now I resolve to be back on top by the end of the year, :) At least my peak of 2258 has never been approached.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 23:00:34)
Folding in Poker

It will be much easier if we change the rules again :)

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 23:13:08)
Folding in Poker

Go for it, :) Make it as easy as possible. And while were at it make some poker silver and gold matches.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 23:46:04)
Folding in Poker

Yeah, that's another "interesting" point. The law is still quite fuzzy in France on all this but it seems that the government is decided to stop every money game including chess... I have no idea if they can do it (and it will probably change in a few months) but I prefer not to take any risk.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 23:49:28)
Folding in Poker

For those who may join the discussion, the question is: should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-25 00:14:22)
Folding in Poker

Can you use the same rules as in chess? That's what I would vote for.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-02-25 01:28:45)
Rating Rules in Poker

I don't know which rule is better. Maybe the old was more attractive.

Garvin Gray    (2012-02-25 13:57:13)
Folding in Poker

Ok, the main question to me is-

Which system is more able to predict the rules of a match before it begins?

If it was the first system, then that should return. If it is the current system, then keep it.

A more responsive system is usually better, but in the case of ficgs, this may not be good for two reasons:

1) While in otb chess/poker, there are very few mass time outs by a player, online this can occur, as is seen 'regularly' on here.
2) In otb chess, players do not have any kind of official rating until they have played a certain number of games.

This then means those early games to not affect all the other players ratings, which is not the case on here.

In terms of predictive accuracy, which is more accurate? That is the only consideration for me.

When I said that the ratings should be re-run, I did not mean we should start the ratings from scratch and begin from day one.

What I was saying is that ALL the previous results should be re-fed back into the system with the new rating formula and the ratings adjusted accordingly.

Then this would give information to compare as it would contain one set of ratings all measured by the same rating formula.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-25 14:23:18)
Folding in Poker

Previous ratings shouldn't be "deleted" IMO. We try some things and we cannot delete everything that happened before each time. Anyway poker ratings will continue to move up & down as chance goes.

I still have no idea of what is more accurate, probably it doesn't mean much for poker... All I have is a feeling and I feel that the current rules may be better at 55/45 than the old ones, so I'll change it if the most want it.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-25 16:21:49)
Folding in Poker

I think Garvin's idea were the most sensible I have ever heard from him. He obviously took a lot of time with this one.

Paul Campanella    (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings

I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.

I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.

Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:

A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).

B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.

Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!

Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker

Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.

But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.

I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)

Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 04:20:26)
Folding in Poker

I may get smash for this comment, but I have to say it.

To me this isn't chess were we have engines that help assist us in own games and to be honest there isn't a lot of luck in corr chess. The odds of getting someone to fall in your "trap" is very small. Personally I don't care about the ratings that much. There is a lot more LUCK in this game, and yes there is some skill. But not like chess, point is the best person in poker on this site can lose to a guy who doesn't know what the hell he is doing. This would never happen in chess or go or any other game on this site besides poker. In short I think the ratings are give in take and we shouldn't flip out because of a few changes.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-27 04:27:27)
Folding in Poker

Jimmy, it may interest you to know it has been proven poker is 95% skill. Of course chess is 100% skill, :)

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 04:35:15)
Folding in Poker

The different between rated player 1-30 or so is probably very little friend, is it really worth all this talking for a few rating points? You can be a head for 4 cards and play your best and get rivered and there is almost nothing you can do. In chess mate is mate and its over.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-27 04:37:26)
Folding in Poker

But what if the guy had to put up his house to see the river??

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 05:33:45)
Folding in Poker

We should also not forget this is basically free poker, I remember playing Nelson once and was playing some good poker. We he started call me a lot of my raise with moderate at best hands and then beat me in the match. And if I remember right I heard him say the calls were made because it was free poker. So this is a whole other animal in itself. :)

Don Groves    (2012-02-27 06:11:21)
Folding in Poker

Jimmy is right that more luck enters the game of poker when it is free. Players tend to play looser than if they had to bet real money which means more pots will be won by luck.

Poker is a game of skill but it can take many games for the difference in skill to become apparent. In free poker that is magnified due to the increased luck factor.

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 06:55:10)
Folding in Poker

Hey Thib, what would be the % to have a possible freestyle event in poker? I would think you could get some people to play in this and has 2 things going for it.

1. You would probably get more numbers in this than freestyle chess (I really believe this, I don't know what the top number is for freestyle chess)

2. Should not last as long as freestyle chess. So this should be a great reason to have it. Can you manage a time in your dates for it?

What do others think?

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 07:01:43)
Folding in Poker

Not only that, but it could be a good measure of who really is the best poker player on the site. I live event is a lot more normal for me, you get a little more info form the player like how long it takes him to make his move.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-27 14:29:11)
Folding in Poker

I'm not sure if a freestyle poker tournament would tell us better than ratings who is the best player, but it would be nice to have one soon anyway! I'll try to do this.

On the money/free poker issue, that's a very complex debate, in my opinion starting to play money poker is just like starting to play another game... But professional players play money poker just like we play free poker, the value of money evolves when playing.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-27 16:39:04)
Folding in Poker

I think freestyle would be fun. I agree with you Thib that we shouldn't have real money poker, it could lead to all kinds of problems IMO.

Don Groves    (2012-02-28 05:26:02)
Folding in Poker

I, for one, do not have the time to sit in front of my computer for several hours to finish one game. There are probably many others here who feel the same. Freestyle is fine for those can do this but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority. So to say that freestyle would find the best player is not true in my opinion.

Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-28 06:16:59)
Folding in Poker

I played Scott in about an hour or so, I don't think its that bad. If it was the best of say just the best of 3 total, it would probably be better. Maybe its just me, I just have a hard time believing that it would take someone several days worth of time to consider the best move in poker, I bet at most its a few minutes. AND yes there are people who do it and I have seen them on everyday with not that many chess games.

Don Groves    (2012-02-29 04:24:06)
Folding in Poker

I agree that poker games are too slow here. Most moves should take seconds, not minutes.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:10:37)
Folding in Poker

To resume the initial discussion and after that the top ranked poker player resigned all his poker games to obviously show that he can regain his points quickly, I propose to continue the discussion in a new thread:

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:15:16)
Folding in Poker

@Scott : By the way Nelson's rating peak is at least 2293 (august 23, 2010)

This occured before the rating rules change.