I’m not posting in that thread anymore.
I don’t play gin. Seven cards is standard for 500 Rummy with three, or more, players…but I only like playing seven cards even if there are only two players. Tougher to hide what you’re trying to do with seven.
I’m not posting in that thread anymore.
I don’t play gin. Seven cards is standard for 500 Rummy with three, or more, players…but I only like playing seven cards even if there are only two players. Tougher to hide what you’re trying to do with seven.
Maybe we can settle on Euchre if we ever meet up to play a card game. Though we would need to find partners.
Will Mission post in other thread again?
No +300
Yes -450
Can I get the, “No?” Never offer a bet where the bettor controls the outcome!
If anyone can lay some serious money on the yes, PM me, and I’ll let you know what my cut is to be. JK.
Euchre? I don’t like partner games. Maybe cards isn’t the way to go. Scattergories? The only Scattergories rule modification is that rounds are to last thirty seconds rather than three minutes.
Haha. Was not a serious line. But I think it’s a pretty fair prediction if there’s no money on the line.
No partner games? Did you really make it through growing up in the Midwest without enjoying Spades or Hearts?
If we are going board games, how about Stratego?
You’ve gotta be shitting me
I wouldn’t shit you. You’re my favorite turd.Originally Posted by mcap
Not much of a betting game, but Crazy Eights can be fun.
What, Me Worry?
I don't usually bet on these sorts of games. (Mostly at MrV) I didn't want to modify the Scattergories time limit because I felt it would give me a betting advantage---I felt it would give me a winning advantage. If I haven't thought of the words for all of the categories (for that letter) in thirty seconds, then I'm not going to anyway. Besides, I've studied the categories in advance of playing (though I am probably rusty) and already have answers on speed dial for most letters. I'd obviously have to brush up to memorize the categories on the lists again and fill them out for each letter independently prior to the game and re-burn that into my head.
UnJon, how about Scrabble or Songburst?
I have never played Spades or Hearts in my life. I do a good enough job LOSING most games by myself, I don't need a partner who will generally make it even more likely that I lose. That's mainly why I don't like Euchre, most partners don't bid conservatively enough for my liking. I don't think I have ever gotten us Euchred on a bid I have made. I do not play screw the dealer, because that's bullshit. Besides, nobody likes my Euchre stipulation which is that if someone goes alone and his/her team fails to get five tricks that hand, then they automatically lose the entire game.
I am average at best at word games. We might not have overlapping Venn Diagrams.
You have to play screw the dealer in Euchre. Otherwise people are way too conservative. It’s fine to not play Steal the Deal, though not as much fun if you are drinking (which I know you don’t anymore).
It sounds like perhaps not overlapping.
Absolutely no on screwing the dealer. I want a more conservative game, ESPECIALLY from my partner. Euchre is not a mathematically nor strategically complicated game, so I would say that it is more, 'Luck,' than not. By itself, that is enough of an indictment against the game, but then you have to factor in the probability of having a reckless partner into the equation.
If you lose, then you lose. If you get Euchred, then you were wrong. I do not want a partner who is ever wrong.
I bid Conservatively because I automatically assume that I am getting no help (0 points) from my partner, and even if my partner's holdings could maybe help us, my partner will fuck up and make the wrong play anyway. Probably overtrump my ace, or something.
Steal the Deal is ridiculous. If someone even tried it, I wouldn't give that person the dignity of a game and would just immediately resign.
Agree there’s a lot of luck in Euchre. And Steal the Deal is only ok if explicitly agreed pregame.
But if you view being Euchre’d as being wrong and never want to be wrong, then that’s suboptimal play. It’s like poker. If you aren’t being caught bluffing a certain % of the time, then you aren’t bluffing enough.
What about Codenames? Amazing game. But again need teams.
You're absolutely right, which might explain why I don't play poker anymore. More than that, I don't really like directly winning money from other (individual) people due to having some advantage in skill over them. That's why I am even less likely to put money on social games that I am good at.
When it comes to these sorts of games, winning is satisfaction enough and gaining money as a result cheapens the experience.
Assuming that I'm not going to play Euchre optimally, which I'm not because I don't care about the game enough to develop that ability, then I can at least control where I make my mistakes. My choice is to bid very conservatively so as to never be Euchred.
Bluffing is a whole different thing altogether because tight-passive nitty players do not get called if their opponents are at all good at poker, unless opponent is holding the nuts or second nuts. You cannot bluff a Euchre bid because, "Pick it up," is an order. It's not like that one game where you can bid something and someone can bid a higher number---except I don't remember what game I'm talking about. There is a card game like that.
My competitive athletics days being behind me, I don't play games with teams. While I may be incompetent at any particular game, I tend to assume that I am less incompetent than any prospective teammates absent evidence to the contrary. To have that evidence, I would have to play or observe the team game in the first place, which I wouldn't do.
TL;DR---I hate games where I have partners as a matter of principle.
One on one. I either win or I lose. No excuses.
I can relate, but there is one exception: marriage.Originally Posted by Mission146
If "life is a game," having a compatible, loving and supportive partner to accompany you through its myriad twists and turns is not a bad thing.
The tough thing is finding the right partner, and if you've chosen wrong, freeing yourself of him / her so that your search can continue.
What, Me Worry?
You can have a partner without being married. Much to the chagrin of your former compatriots, it has finally occurred to me that the only real goal of marriage is to make breaking up more expensive than, "Free."
I made that mistake once, though, but your brothers-in-arms didn't get anything out of me. The court system extracted a little money, unfortunately.
Nothing is unconditional. There is no, "Right partner," or if there is, it varies by degree by days or even hours. A partner is either, "Right, as of right now," or they are not.
"Being coupled," happens or does not happen. Mistakes become more likely when it is pursued (or sought) as if some kind of objective.
I’ve got it. Heads up hold’em freezeout!
Sure. Let's agree to just go all-in on hand one in the dark so we can move on to a better game more quickly.
And miss the easy opportunities to sandbag you when you shove and go all “Weeeeeeeee!” With TPTK? Sounds pretty -EV for me.
Only because I told you I do that! I mean, I'm obviously not going to play you now. People walk right into it with second pair so many times.Originally Posted by unJon
The main problem is that I can't stand getting outdrawn when I get it in ahead and get called. It doesn't tilt me such that I start playing too tight or too loose...it tilts me such that I leave the table and stop playing entirely. I just don't take losing well-enough to be able to play poker.
Besides, knowing the math doesn't necessarily seem to help that much...
The math these days is a lot more complicated than it used to be. You need solvers and everything is about GTO this and GTO that. It’s come a long way since Brunson wrote Supersystem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote