The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-07-12


club smoking room. "for the simple
reason that the percentages of the
game do not make it advisable. in my
judgment TO draw to a four-hush very
often. The odds against filling it, are.
OF course. just thirty-eight to nine.
That is. there are thirty-eight cards in
the forty-seven you have not seen, any
one OF which viii be worthless TO you
or at best will give YOU a single pair,
and there are nine in the fOrty-seven.
any one OF which will I'll your flush IL
you get 1T.
Figuring on that basis, a good many
players consider it conservative poker
TO stay on a four-hush If they can get
odds of four to one in the betting.
which is approximately, Of course a
set-off to the four and a fraction TO one
against them in the draw. This, how
ever, does not commend itself to me as
a matter of habitual play. because the
small percentage remaining will beat
any player In the long run, il he con-
tinues to buck against it long enough,
unless he should happen to have luck
enough to beat a mathematical aver
age.
But this IS not, by any means, the
whole of the problem. If the flush
when filed were a sure winner the
player would certainly be justified in
staying on a four-hush whenever the
odds on in the betting were equal TO
the odds against in the draw. But the
flush is by no means a sure winner.
The Four-fush Habit.
ct is frequently beaten, and the
man who has played Il before the draw
Is almost exactly in the predicament of
one who should take odds of to 1,
betting on a certain horse to be entered
IN a race against four others, when he
had no knowledge of what four other
horses were to run. lie might know his
horse was a pretty good one. but he
wouldn't bet on that basis alone.
AT least that's the way 1 figure It
out for my own play. I don't quarrel
with any other players theories, and
know that a good many do consider
such play as I have described to be
good poker. ] don't consider it so, and
consequently 1 never contracted the
four-fius habit.
And, OF course, the four straight is
n still more hazardous thing than
fOur-fush. The odds against filing it
are thirty-nine to eight, and when you
have filled it. il is not so strong a hand.
This seems like a contradiction Of the
principle Of poker that the value of a
hand depends on the difficulty of get
ting it, but it is not real contradiction
Tor there are a great many more four
straights in the deck than there are
four-fiushes.
But, although neither of these hands
IS a particularly tempting proposition
TO me, there are times, of course, when
7 viii play one or the other. The great
beauty of poker to me is the elasticity
of the game and the necessity that
exists OF deciding on each play accord
ing TO the circumstances Of the DEAL
and because OF this elasticity I never
allow myself to be governed by any
hard and fast rule.
Running in Hard Luck.
ct remember one game in which
very pretty situation arose simply be-
cause I disregarded my general rule.
The sequel, too, was a good deal Of a
surprise
1T had been running in pretty hard
luck for a whole season when it hap
pened. It was before L had fairly made
a start in the world. and I was strug-
Cling hard TO get a little ahead. Being
naturally adventurous, I had ups and
downs i'm plenty, but at this time it
had been mostly downs for nearly
year.
THE business I had started in a
western city promised well, but made
some bad debts that crippled me, and
the crops failed. so that trade fell off
till was seriously hampered for ready
money. I was so hampered, in fact.
that / neglected my insurance, and, as
might have been expected, my store
burned down, making total loss, just
week after the policy expired.
81 hadn't been playing cards much
while the business was going on, fear
ing that it would hurt my credit, but
when found myself entirely out I be-
came a little reckless and turned
everything I had into cash, so that 1
got together about S3Oc in ready money
and determined to go still further west.
But before starting spent an evening
al poker
Now. $500 is a good bit Of money or
very little, according to how you look
at il. It seemed a very little to me. and
I was sore enough besides to be little
reckless, so I played a more open game
than I generally do. and for while l
suffered in consequence.
Played at One Man.
THE party was a pleasant one. There
were no professionals in it, but the i've
men / was playing with were all true
sports. keen in their play. but square
as a die. good losers and good winners
There wasn't a man there VINO
wouldn't have taken my money as a
matter of course If he had won it, but
they all knew how I was situated, and
none of them would begrudge me the
money If I should win IT was the
best sort of a game TO play in-no
mercy and no tricks in it.
II was friendly with all OF the play
ers but one That was a merchant
named Bolton, who had. as L believed,
been guilty of some sharp practice in Il
business deal with me some months
before.
There had not been any open
quarrel between US. but the thing ran
Killed. I'm my mind. and he knew that II
cid He had had the best end Of the
transaction. so he felt no enmity to
me- but was rather inclined. on the
contrary. to be friendly 70 a degree, bu.
I had received his overtures coOlly, and
was as a matter OF fact. figuring on
the possibility of winning from him the
balance Of between $500 and $500 which
I considered that he really owed me,
but which 1 had no hope of collecting.
.'Of course that was a bad frame OF
mind to be in while playing. I have
noticed that when 1 find myself playing
at one particular antagonist in party
my game suffers. can do best. and
believe every other player can do best
when he eliminates all personal feeling
from the game and plays against the
combination he is opposed TO, without
singing out an individual.
Reckless Plays.
However. 1 was playing, and was
reckless. as L said, and 1 was feeling
particularly hostile to Bolton, so il was
no great wonder that I was losing, as
= was, pretty steadily for the first half
hour The effect on me at first was 20