you sit down at a video online poker games machine
you'll be faced with the following buttons:
Draw Hold Hold Hold Hold Hold
Deal Cancel Cancel Cancel cancel Cancel
Thus, there is a hold/cancel button under each card
in addition to the draw/deal button off to one side.
There may be other buttons for choosing credit or
cash in payoffs, but for the time being we'll concentrate
on the draw/deal and hold/ cancel buttons, for they'll
permit you to play the games correctly, and make decisions
that will determine whether or not you're going to
end up a winner on any particular hand.
There's also a slot to take in the coins. Let's assume
you've put in five coins. What you'll see on the screen
all this time is the previous hand that was played.
Perhaps you've just sat down at the video online poker
games machine. Disregard the previous hand played.
It doesn't affect you at all. First, insert your coins.
The previous hand will still show, but when you press
the Deal/ draw button, a new set of five cards will
appear on the screen. Let's assume you see the following:
5(H) 10(S) K(C) 8(D) 2(H)
So far you see a pile of junk, with no payoff available
immediately. Now, even if the hand was one in which
you didn't have to draw a single card-if you had five
cards of the same suit, which qualifies as a flush
for example-you'd still have to go through the second
step of video online poker games before you can get
paid off. That step is the draw. With the flush, you'd
press the hold/cancel button under each card, and
a "hold" would show under each card. Make
sure that you see that word "hold" under
each card on the screen. After you do, press the deal/draw
button, and all five cards of the flush will remain.
Then you'll get your payoff.
happens with Phil, I think, is that he makes the normal
attribution error: when he wins he crows, when he
loses he thinks the cause is something outside of
himself. But since he doesn't really internalize ideas
of chance and randomness that external cause can't
just be happenstance, he has to put a face on it-it's
got to be the other guy. I don't mean to be picking
on Phil, he's just the best-known example of attribution
error in poker. We all do it to some extent.
I think many poker players suffer from this. They
want there to be a reason for everything. They know
probability, and they know odds, but in their gut
they don't accept it. There has to be a reason. This
could have been avoided if someone hadn't screwed
I think Phil falls into this category. He knows the
odds. But deep in his gut he doesn't accept the idea
that things just happen, that things can really be
And it takes a very long time for this randomness
to start to look stable.