Tic-Tac-Dough, for the
casino, that is
7 June 2004
By Mark Pilarski
Dear Mark,
I'm not sure if my Uncle is pulling my leg, but
he said that there is a casino that offers you
the opportunity to play Tic-Tac-Toe against a
chicken. I thought a chicken dinner bet was
sufficient enough to prove him wrong. Do you
mind dispelling his preposterous claim? Mary H.
While paying off your losing wager to your
Uncle, Mary, you certainly won't be gobbling on
Ginger, the chicken extraordinaire that two
casinos that I know of have used to cook the
goose of many intrepids who wanted to go up
against a live chicken. They are the Tropicana
in Atlantic City and the Trump 29 Casino in Palm
Springs, not unknown Poultry Farms.
Furthermore, Mary, the ha-ha bettor is not
playing against some dumb, clucking capon.
Ginger, along with 14 other rotating hens (some
of her understudies won't work either late-swing
or graveyard shift) is well educated,
reward-trained, that is, using methods
popularized by psychologist B.F. Skinner, at the
Boger Chicken University in Springdale,
Arkansas.
Known as the "Tic-Tac-Toe Chicken Challenge,"
this specific tic-tac-toe match-up has casino
patrons challenging a chicken in Tic-Tac-Toe for
$10,000. The object of the game remains the same
as what we all learned as kids: the first player
to get three marks in a row wins; but the house
has a built-in advantage (they wouldn't have it
any other way, of course) since the chicken
always goes first. Another understated casino
edge is that the chicken is probably smarter
than a lot of people we all know.
If you ever plan to join the line of daily
contenders at either casino, if you don't mind,
Mary, the historical odds will have me betting
on the chicken. Ginger has played for more than
three years at the Tropicana and has lost only
five times.
Dear Mark,
I thought I might give you a poker laugh to
start your day. My husband is a most
conservative poker player. One night he was
sitting next to a fellow who picked up his cards
whereby my husband could clearly see what cards
he was holding. After a while, my husband
quietly said, "Sir, when you pick up your cards
I can see what you are holding." The fellow
turned to my husband and said, "What do I care?
You never play a hand anyway." Louise G.
There are certain adjectives that refer to the
playing style of most poker players, such as,
"loose" and "tight", "passive", and
"aggressive". "Loose" versus "tight" refers to a
player's starting hand requirements. Your
husband is tight because he plays fewer starting
hands. Poker players are also labeled as either
"passive" or "aggressive". Passive players
seldom raise, and favor a check or call
approach. That said, I would categorize your
husband's play as "tight-passive" and note that
he's probably the most readable player at any
poker table.
A tight-passive (or, in gamblingo, "a rock")
plays few hands, and those very carefully. If a
tight-passive player all of a sudden starts
raising, it is likely that he's got the "nuts"
(the best possible hand on the board).
The plus side your husband's play is that he
won't lose much money, but the down side is that
he won't win much either. Tight-passives like
your husband are very predictable and
consistent, but, Louise, that is why you married
him, right?
Gambling quote of the week: "As soon as you can
accept the possibility of losing
philosophically, you automatically improve your
chances of winning." -- Darwin Ortiz, Casino
Gambling for the Clueless (1986)
|
