We had poker night this past Friday – as we do once a month now that The Studio is up and running – but as occasionally happens with any social function, the “vibes” were just a little off this time. As usual, we had my man Chris bartending with his as-ever delightful pairing of custom cocktails specially designed for us, we had our Italian thin crust pizza delivered right on schedule, we had our upbeat EDM music bumping through the B&W speakers, we had back-to-school energy for a group of largely middle-aged fathers who always look forward to a night out, and we had what on paper looked to be an exciting mix of styles and abilities… we even had cigars lit this time! Indoors!i
But the evening just fell kinda flat? Like 3/5 flat… so not like there was any out-and-out disaster, but hardly a memorable evening by most accounts, and certainly not up to the level of the last couple of games we’d hosted. But we waver not in search of future fun! So in the spirit of Matt Levine’s eternally insightful observation that “everything is seating charts,” perhaps it was just a matter of us organising ourselves less “randomly” around our Warren Platner poker table. So let’s set the stage and see what Chat you Grok 2ii can suggest for future evenings:
Prompt: Given that Matt Levine says that “everything is seating charts” can you help me improve the quality and excitement of this 9-person poker table game that’s playing 75% PL Omaha and 25% NL Hold Em. Skill level for each player is rated on a scale of 1-5 and each player is also categorized as Tight vs. Loose and Aggressive vs. Passive:
Player 1: 4.5/5 Tight Aggressive
Player 2: 3/5 Loose Aggressive
Player 3: 5/5 Loose Aggressive
Player 4: 5/5 Tight Aggressive
Player 5: 4/5 Tight Passive
Player 6: 4.5/5 Tight Aggressive
Player 7: 4/5 Tight Passive
Player 8: 3.5/5 Loose Passive
Player 9: 3/5 Loose AggressiveOrganize the player numbers in a clockwise circle for maximum action and excitement! Also compare with 3-4-1-6-2-9-8-5-7 or 1-8-4-9-3-6-7-5-2iii arrangements in terms of excitement. Factor in your analysis that we’re playing a cash game with multiple rounds of the button.
Answer: Let’s compare the three seating arrangements in terms of potential excitement:
Arrangement 1: 3-9-2-8-5-1-6-4-7
Pros: The initial high aggression can still set a fast pace, which might be beneficial in cash games where players might be looking to make quick profits or establish table dominance early. However, since players can wait out the aggression or rebuy, the impact of this might be less about forcing immediate big decisions and more about setting a psychological tone.
Cons: The dip in aggression at the end might not be as significant since players know they’ll see the button multiple times, reducing the urgency to act before the button moves.Arrangement 2: 3-4-1-6-2-9-8-5-7
Pros: The blend of strategy and action remains advantageous. In cash games, this could lead to a more dynamic table where players are constantly adapting, which can be exciting and keep the game lively over many hands. The strategic placement might encourage more nuanced play over time rather than just immediate action.
Cons: The placement of the tight passive player at the end might be even less of an issue since the game’s pace can naturally reset with each new hand dealt.Arrangement 3: 1-8-4-9-3-6-7-5-2
Pros: This setup might actually benefit more from the cash game format. The gradual build of excitement could lead to deeper strategic play, which can be more rewarding in cash games where the focus is on long-term profit rather than survival. The varied play styles could lead to a more educational game for less experienced players.
Cons: While the slower build might not be as detrimental in cash games, if the table is looking for quick action, this arrangement might initially disappoint. However, over multiple rounds, this could lead to a very engaging game.Additional Considerations for Cash Games:
Player Adaptability: Cash game players often adapt over time. A seating arrangement that encourages varied play can lead to more interesting long-term dynamics as players learn each other’s styles.Rebuys and Stack Sizes: Since players can top up their stacks, the impact of early big pots might be less about eliminating players and more about setting up for future plays. This might make Arrangement 2 particularly interesting as it mixes immediate action with strategic depth.
Long-term Table Image: In cash games, table image over multiple sessions can be crucial. Arrangements that foster a mix of play styles (like Arrangement 3) could help in developing complex table dynamics where players’ reputations play a larger role.
Conclusion:
Arrangement 1 still offers immediate excitement but might be more about setting a psychological advantage rather than forcing immediate big plays.
Arrangement 2 could be the most balanced for cash games, offering both action and strategic depth, which can be exploited over multiple rounds.
Arrangement 3 might be the most intellectually stimulating over time, as it encourages a gradual build-up of action and strategy, fitting well with the nature of cash games where players look for long-term engagement and profit.
Given the additional X factors of personality and table style, I’m inclined to also pick Arrangement 3! Of course future games won’t have the exact same participants – we have a list of almost 20 guys and the table max is 9 – but this seems like an intelligent and worthwhile use of organizational time for future games: spend a few minutes thinking through potential seatings charts and enjoy the sweet, sweet fruits of fun thereafter.
Hardly a productivity miracle, but Dark Ages are mostly about good-spiritedness anyways. Might as well take advantage if we can!
- Or at least my father and I had them lit! The rest of my homeboys… passed on the offer? Basically, I bought a dozen pretty solid Nicaraguan sticks for nothing… ↩
- ChatGPT is soooo January 2023. All the cool kids use Elon’s X’s Grok now. Grok’s just funnier! ↩
- From earlier prompts to Grok 2 mini. ↩