Internet Multitasking

As I mentioned in a previous column, I am now playing some low-stakes ($1-$2 or $2-$4 blinds) no-limit hold'em and pot-limit Omaha on the Internet. For certain, it is a disadvantage not to be able to see the people I am playing against, and not be able to socialize with them. But consider these advantages: I am playing in my own home. I can start playing without any waiting (there always is a seat in some poker game that is OK for at least a temporary perch). I can quit for a while or for the day, without any drive home. The air is always clean. My opponents are often unspeakably bad. No one knows who I am unless I choose to tell them. I do not have to toke anyone if I win. It should be obvious that the advantages of playing on the Internet outweigh the disadvantages.

To give you an idea of how badly some people play poker on these Internet sites, I'll relate a couple of hands. In a pot-limit hold'em game, I picked up two queens. An early-position player opened for a raise, and I reraised the maximum. Some donkey called the whole load with an A-9 offsuit. When the flop came down 5-4-3, I moved all in with a bet the size of the pot. Despite the fact that I bought a queen at the river, he still beat me, buying the gutshot deuce on the turn. Here's another one: In a pot-limit Omaha game, some dude picked up the Q 10 6 2 and managed to get all in preflop (he had $2 in and jumped the fence for about $80 more at one point) for a multihanded pot that included me. My A A 9 6 lost to his queens up. There are some reasonable players, but also many rookies and crazies. One time, my player notes for four of the players in an Omaha game were "hopeless," "clueless," "imbecile," and "idiot."

There is another advantage of playing on the Internet, one that counts for a lot with me. I can do something else while also playing in a poker game. That "something else" could be cleaning up my office, writing a column for Card Player – or playing in another poker game. One could call this doing extras while playing in a poker game "multitasking." I would like to discuss this in some depth.

From talking with my poker students, I am of the opinion that it is common for Internet players to play in more than one game at the same time. Some people will even take on three games at once, but I have tried only two. In certain respects, the software makes it easier to do two or more things at once. Whenever the action is on you, the screen that shows that game is made to be the one that pops into prominence. Whether I am writing a column or playing in another game, I know to divert my attention to the proper place.

I am able to switch back and forth between two games and stay focused most of the time, although it probably takes a fair amount of poker experience to do this. I did have a small accident once. While writing this column, I clicked to paste a sentence in – and raised the pot. That's right. Just as I clicked my mouse, a pop-up menu appeared, and I managed to nail the "raise" button. My hand was what Everett Goolsby used to call "deuce-rag," not exactly material for a preflop raise. I got only one caller, so I ventured a stone-cold bluff on the flop. After getting popped, I of course had to abandon ship. Maybe I was lucky. Suppose I had hit the "call any" button at the wrong time! (What the heck do they need a "call any" button for; would you leave the table when holding a hand that big?)

Multitasking could be made a lot easier than it is if the software and graphics on poker sites were improved. I have played on half a dozen sites, some worse than others, but none fully satisfactory. Here are some of the frustrating experiences I have had:

On my screen, I am not able to show the entirety of two games at the same time. (I doubt whether this could be done in a manner that would not harmfully affect many other programs that I use.) So, I try to get end seats, one on each side of the table, where I can at least view both of my hands at once. However, if you do not get the seat you want at the start, it is very difficult to change seats. When there is a list for the game, someone occupies a vacant seat right away. But if there is no list, you would think there would be some way a player in the game could get that vacant seat. But when I asked how to do this, I was told, "You must quit the game, then come back in by locking up the seat you want." As fate would have it, the instant I quit, both the open seat and the one I just vacated were taken by incoming players. Color me gone.

When a big pot develops at one table, I naturally prefer to give it my full attention. If I do not have a clear playing hand at the other table, I want to fold. So, when I see I have a bad hand, and the pop-up menu is stuck in my face with the options of fold, check, or bet, my gut reaction is to click on fold, getting back to the big pot ASAP. Many of you know what happens next. I get back to the big pot for about one second, when another pop-up menu from the other table is again thrust in front of my face, saying, "Are you sure you want to fold? You are already in for the bet." Grrr. All of this nonsense could be avoided if the pop-up menu did not even present the option of "fold" when no one has bet. (There is always the auto-fold button for folding if you wish to simply get out of the hand.)

Some sites really irritate me. Here is an example: I am in the big blind and go broke on a hand. I am dealt out the next hand without any chance to post. (In a brick-and-mortar cardroom, I would simply say, "Deal me in," while reaching into my wallet.) When the button goes by, there is no menu asking whether I wish to rejoin the game. I have to hit an "I'm Back" button just to be asked if I want to get dealt in.

On one site, the playing area looked like a photographer's darkroom. Was this normal? Maybe some big shot died that day; it sure looked more like a funeral than a poker game.

On another site, it looked to me like I had to type in the amount I wished to wager, instead of using a slider. It took me at least 10 minutes to notice the little inconspicuous slider on the tabletop (instead of near me) before I realized my error.

Memorable was a site whose small type used in various postings on the layout made 6-point pica look giant in comparison. What did they do with the space saved by using this miniature type? Well, there was a space used for chatting that took up nearly a fifth of the screen; a real friendly place.

How much time should a player be given to act on his hand? I'm not sure. But I am sure that he should be given longer when playing a big pot than when deciding whether to call the big blind (and is probably not even at the table if there is more than a flicker of hesitation). Yet, most sites give the same amount of time for every situation. Some sites use a "time bank," so a player can use more than the standard flat-rate allotment of time if need be. But what good is that if the time bank's time is used up waiting for the player to take the big blind? It is really uncomfortable to wait for 15 seconds when a player is obviously gone. Heck, five seconds is plenty of time if the decision is simply whether to take the big blind or sit out, or whether to call the blind or fold. Time equals money – especially in poker.

As you can see, I think we can do a much better job of providing good info and graphics to Internet poker players, especially in no-limit games. I would be happy to help on this project with a site that might be interested in having me work with its programmers.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's latest book, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, co-authored with Jim Brier, is available (332 pages, $25 plus $7 shipping and handling). This work and his other poker books, Pot-Limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered through Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail [email protected] or call (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free.