I spent the bulk of last week in Vegas; we stayed at the Bellagio, which is definitely up there with the Wynn for my favorite casino.
I ended up playing between 3-6 hours for the 4 days we were there. I started off quite well, consistently winning (albeit modest amounts) at $1/$3 and $2/$5 no-limit tables, at the Bellagio and Madalay Bay.
I suffered a serious setback, however in a game at the Wynn. It was a good, tough table with a lot of all-in action--surprisingly strong for a $1/$3 table.
There was a (not famous) pro from L.A. at the far end of the table who won a nearly-$1,000 pot when he pushed the kid beside me all-in. The kid turned over KK. The pro had an open-ended straight: 8 outs, two times. And he'd pushed the kid all-in! Well you can guess what happened next: the pro rivered the straight, and the kid went ballistic, splashing his chips all over the table. The floor manager had to be called over, and it took a good 10 minutes until we were playing again.
Once we got going, it was my turn for a whole lotta' fun. I had about $180 and was in middle position. I looked down and saw pocket QQ--my nemisis--queens always seem to be a disaster for me! There was a straddle on, so it was $6 to call. But I wasn't going to call: I bet the pot, making it $20 to go. To my surprise, I had two callers in late position--including the pro.
The flop came 7,8,10--a rainbow. A straight was possible, but would be fairly unusual for someone to call a big raise with a 6,9 or a 9,J. That said, I wasn't going to sit around and let my two opponents draw out on me. The pot was now about $80, and I was first to act. I bet $60. The first opponent folded. So far, so good. The pro looks at me. "How much you got back there?" I tell him I have $100 remaining, figuring he is trying to intimidate me. But Badger will most certainly not be knocked off his overpair.
"I put you all-in," he declares.
I ponder his push: I had seen him make a semi-bluff all-in before. If he was drawing to the straight, I was a definitive favorite. Then I looked at the odds: I was having to put $100 into a $240 pot: nearly 2:7 odds.
I call. Since I am all-in, I turn over the queens. And he, you guessed, it turns over the nuts: 9,J!
That was the start of a mini-Vegas slump for me. I had a poor session later that evening, but then the next--and final--night I had a good, late $2/$5 session at the Bellagio, which put me back in black for the trip.
Overall, it was a great experience. I "graduated" to the $2/$5 game, which I find a lot more fun: the $1/$3's tend to have a couple players at each table who really don't know what they are doing--it doesn't feel great winning money from them. And there are so many small pots. But at a $2/$5, even the modest pots have my full attention!
Looking back, I am not certain whether to look at the experience as very cheap entertainment (with free drinks!)...or as sweat-shop wages (about $2/hour). I suppose I'll have to tell you next time I get back from Vegas!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Badger: March Meekness
Well, I've been back in North America for a couple weeks, and have been playing online more frequently--to sadly very mixed results.
My low-stakes cash games are going well, but my tourneys (generally 1-table sit-n-gos) have been far less successful. In terms of making $, I should be sticking to the cash games, but I am a stubborn badger who genuinely loves the competitive elements of tourneys. Tourneys seem to be where my heart lies. But, alas (not yet) my talent.
In an effort to improve my tourney play, I have been spending some time with the FullTilt tourney guide. It is far better than I expected--on par with Harrington (and them's some big boots to fill). In a nutshell, gents like "Jesus" Ferguson and Howard Lederer focus a lot more on NOT limping into pots and disguising your play. This echoes advice that both Herr and D'bag have given me (especially about not limping into pots). I now realize that even in cash games, I have done a poor job at disguising the strength of my hands--both my starting hand and the extent to which the flop hit/missed me.
I have been playing this way for the last couple days--basically not allowing myself to limp in, unless someone has before me, as well as disguising my hands. I don't know if I fully agree with the no-limp rule (what if you have, say, A-4? J-10? I am not inclined to raise with these types of hands...but on the other hand, I am not thrilled about throwing them away).
Bottom line, I am learning to raise more--and to limp far less. Another leak in my (especially tourney) game is that I probably have not been aggressive enough with my mid-pocket pairs (say 6,6 through 10,10). Heads-up, these are great hands; and if I let too many callers in against them, I am doomed to defeat--except in the unlikely event (1:7.5) that I hit a set on the flop. So I am pushing these (pocket pairs) harder now. Deep down, I know that a 5-5 is favored against A-K...I just seem to have had trouble playing on that basis!
In the two weeks that I've been back, I have cycled between the low-$100s and the mid-$100s. A pretty meek range, but at least I am holding my own. The strange thing is that I have made a total (profit) of about $350 in my two brief appearances at the local casino. Granted, I had some cards. But this just gives me more cause to think I am a better cash player than tourney player.
Anyhoo, I am disappointed to report a meek balance of $113.03 (I should really go back to cash game and build it up).
On a brighter note, I am off to Vegas tomorrow. I anticipate playing a fair amount of low-stakes cash games (few, if any tourneys 'til I get my game in gear). Wish me luck--I probably need it!
My low-stakes cash games are going well, but my tourneys (generally 1-table sit-n-gos) have been far less successful. In terms of making $, I should be sticking to the cash games, but I am a stubborn badger who genuinely loves the competitive elements of tourneys. Tourneys seem to be where my heart lies. But, alas (not yet) my talent.
In an effort to improve my tourney play, I have been spending some time with the FullTilt tourney guide. It is far better than I expected--on par with Harrington (and them's some big boots to fill). In a nutshell, gents like "Jesus" Ferguson and Howard Lederer focus a lot more on NOT limping into pots and disguising your play. This echoes advice that both Herr and D'bag have given me (especially about not limping into pots). I now realize that even in cash games, I have done a poor job at disguising the strength of my hands--both my starting hand and the extent to which the flop hit/missed me.
I have been playing this way for the last couple days--basically not allowing myself to limp in, unless someone has before me, as well as disguising my hands. I don't know if I fully agree with the no-limp rule (what if you have, say, A-4? J-10? I am not inclined to raise with these types of hands...but on the other hand, I am not thrilled about throwing them away).
Bottom line, I am learning to raise more--and to limp far less. Another leak in my (especially tourney) game is that I probably have not been aggressive enough with my mid-pocket pairs (say 6,6 through 10,10). Heads-up, these are great hands; and if I let too many callers in against them, I am doomed to defeat--except in the unlikely event (1:7.5) that I hit a set on the flop. So I am pushing these (pocket pairs) harder now. Deep down, I know that a 5-5 is favored against A-K...I just seem to have had trouble playing on that basis!
In the two weeks that I've been back, I have cycled between the low-$100s and the mid-$100s. A pretty meek range, but at least I am holding my own. The strange thing is that I have made a total (profit) of about $350 in my two brief appearances at the local casino. Granted, I had some cards. But this just gives me more cause to think I am a better cash player than tourney player.
Anyhoo, I am disappointed to report a meek balance of $113.03 (I should really go back to cash game and build it up).
On a brighter note, I am off to Vegas tomorrow. I anticipate playing a fair amount of low-stakes cash games (few, if any tourneys 'til I get my game in gear). Wish me luck--I probably need it!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The weekend amateurs
Armed with a new 23'' widescreen monitor hooked up to my laptop, I set out to take advantage of all the weekend players. I now have plenty of room for 8 tables or more, though I seem to struggle with more than 5 sit-n-gos at a time when we get shorthanded and the action intense. Pokerstars normally see about 160,000 players at peaktimes during the weekdays, but on weekends they push 250,000. Most of these extra players are losing players.
I managed about 60 $20 SNGs over Saturday and Sunday, and mainly because I went 12-3 in headsup matches I saw my balance grow from $737.37 to $989.37 though I did peak at $1063 before I have to admit fatigue set in. I also had a significant number of 4th places but I think they are the price of going for the win. Overall it seems like I have gotten nowhere really since I was originally boomswitched a few weeks ago though I hope I have learned several lessons that will prevent me from going on as brutal a downswing again. Wishful thinking probably.
Apart from having by far the most online players and making some serious coin that way, PokerStars probably have the worst deals for their players - mainly because they don't offer rakeback. Rakeback might sound like a small thing, but it really adds up. Looking at my spreadsheet for this challenge, in the span I have gone from $100 to $1000 I have paid $1073 in buy-in fees for SNGs. Essentially, while I have done well to grow my roll 900%, PokerStars still made more off me than I did off them! These numbers would be ugly with equally busy but losing player. With a standard 30% rakeback deal my balance would be $300 higher. Instead I have gathered a silly amount of PokerStars points that I can trade in for mainly crap.
So far I can get 4 cookie baskets, a DVD player, 18 Pokerstars T-shirts or 4 'Harrington on Hold'em' in either Italian or German. However if I get 2,988,000 more points I get a Porsche Cayman S. Combined with one of the worst bonus offers going, they really are taking the piss. I guess you can when you have 250,000 players though...
I managed about 60 $20 SNGs over Saturday and Sunday, and mainly because I went 12-3 in headsup matches I saw my balance grow from $737.37 to $989.37 though I did peak at $1063 before I have to admit fatigue set in. I also had a significant number of 4th places but I think they are the price of going for the win. Overall it seems like I have gotten nowhere really since I was originally boomswitched a few weeks ago though I hope I have learned several lessons that will prevent me from going on as brutal a downswing again. Wishful thinking probably.
Apart from having by far the most online players and making some serious coin that way, PokerStars probably have the worst deals for their players - mainly because they don't offer rakeback. Rakeback might sound like a small thing, but it really adds up. Looking at my spreadsheet for this challenge, in the span I have gone from $100 to $1000 I have paid $1073 in buy-in fees for SNGs. Essentially, while I have done well to grow my roll 900%, PokerStars still made more off me than I did off them! These numbers would be ugly with equally busy but losing player. With a standard 30% rakeback deal my balance would be $300 higher. Instead I have gathered a silly amount of PokerStars points that I can trade in for mainly crap.
So far I can get 4 cookie baskets, a DVD player, 18 Pokerstars T-shirts or 4 'Harrington on Hold'em' in either Italian or German. However if I get 2,988,000 more points I get a Porsche Cayman S. Combined with one of the worst bonus offers going, they really are taking the piss. I guess you can when you have 250,000 players though...
Friday, February 13, 2009
V: Sign of the devil...or is it?
Gentlemen, this much we can agree on: Despite the mark of the Beast everywhere, Jesus loves me the best.
While tweaking my smallball strategy in the micro-games, the devil pays a most unwelcome visit as I manage to run headlong into 666 not once but twice. Twice! Granted, I could have believed either or both of them when they refused to bend to my hammering the pots on the strength of top pair, but still, truly, we are a cursed people.
The first appearance of the Devil leaves me with about 2200 chips, or 1/2 my stack, and blinds at 25/50. Not great, clearly, but ok. His second appearance, though, is beyond crippling: Blinds are 100/200, and that's me in the big blind all-in with my remaining 125 chips. On the bubble no less, which makes it even more humiliating.
So...all-in with my 125 chips ... sadly they are riding on 54os ... which, when my 5 pairs, is good enough to beat the AJ and A4 callers. I am tripled up to 375.
Oh, but I think we all know where this is going.
Next hand: KQos. All in, of course. Mr. Second 666, the guy with all my chips, calls with pure rags - - either as an act of arrogance or charity, hard to say - and I doubled up again when my K pairs.
Two hands later: 44. All in, of course. Now determined to take me out, Mr. Second 666 calls me with Q6s. This time his 6 cannot summon any brethren at all, my pair holds up, and I am back in the blinds-stealing business with about 2000 chips.
A few more legitimate hands in which I am not only the favorite but my cards stand up, and I'm in the money.
Three handed - me against both Devils. While I should feel beleagured, I am actually quite smug. I am the goddamn chip leader and am having great fun cherry picking the blinds. I have more than a bit of trouble when my 22 runs into First Devil's 77, but I stay the aggressor despite losing chip lead: it's steal, steal, steal until I have the enormous satisfaction of taking out Mr. Second 666 when he himself tries a steal with an unfortunate 96os, and me sitting on JJ. Get thee behind me, Satan, and onto the rail, muthafucka.
HU bodes ill, as First Devil, as the 2:1 chip leader, is putting the pressure on me with heavy raises each time I call from the SB. I figure I have long exhausted any borrowed time anyway, so make good on my promise to him to start gambling. All in with A7, he calls with AQ ... Jesus, of course, sends a 7 my way, and the worm, as they say, has turned. On the next hand, my pimpslap of a reraise his attempted blind steal takes the wind and about 1600 more chips out of him out him, and two hands later I put paid to First Devil when I call his T6 all-in with J9 and the board misses us both.
From 125 to first place. Take a moment to savor it. The 13 bucks didn't do wonders for my bankroll, but we play this game for other reasons as well.
A chip, chair, and a tiny bit of intervention by Haysoo Christos himself: all a boy needs.
While tweaking my smallball strategy in the micro-games, the devil pays a most unwelcome visit as I manage to run headlong into 666 not once but twice. Twice! Granted, I could have believed either or both of them when they refused to bend to my hammering the pots on the strength of top pair, but still, truly, we are a cursed people.
The first appearance of the Devil leaves me with about 2200 chips, or 1/2 my stack, and blinds at 25/50. Not great, clearly, but ok. His second appearance, though, is beyond crippling: Blinds are 100/200, and that's me in the big blind all-in with my remaining 125 chips. On the bubble no less, which makes it even more humiliating.
So...all-in with my 125 chips ... sadly they are riding on 54os ... which, when my 5 pairs, is good enough to beat the AJ and A4 callers. I am tripled up to 375.
Oh, but I think we all know where this is going.
Next hand: KQos. All in, of course. Mr. Second 666, the guy with all my chips, calls with pure rags - - either as an act of arrogance or charity, hard to say - and I doubled up again when my K pairs.
Two hands later: 44. All in, of course. Now determined to take me out, Mr. Second 666 calls me with Q6s. This time his 6 cannot summon any brethren at all, my pair holds up, and I am back in the blinds-stealing business with about 2000 chips.
A few more legitimate hands in which I am not only the favorite but my cards stand up, and I'm in the money.
Three handed - me against both Devils. While I should feel beleagured, I am actually quite smug. I am the goddamn chip leader and am having great fun cherry picking the blinds. I have more than a bit of trouble when my 22 runs into First Devil's 77, but I stay the aggressor despite losing chip lead: it's steal, steal, steal until I have the enormous satisfaction of taking out Mr. Second 666 when he himself tries a steal with an unfortunate 96os, and me sitting on JJ. Get thee behind me, Satan, and onto the rail, muthafucka.
HU bodes ill, as First Devil, as the 2:1 chip leader, is putting the pressure on me with heavy raises each time I call from the SB. I figure I have long exhausted any borrowed time anyway, so make good on my promise to him to start gambling. All in with A7, he calls with AQ ... Jesus, of course, sends a 7 my way, and the worm, as they say, has turned. On the next hand, my pimpslap of a reraise his attempted blind steal takes the wind and about 1600 more chips out of him out him, and two hands later I put paid to First Devil when I call his T6 all-in with J9 and the board misses us both.
From 125 to first place. Take a moment to savor it. The 13 bucks didn't do wonders for my bankroll, but we play this game for other reasons as well.
A chip, chair, and a tiny bit of intervention by Haysoo Christos himself: all a boy needs.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
V: Mixing it up, or a sick joke about Daniel Negreanu
So I was playing online today -- having downshifted to $3 SNGs to keep the blood loss to a minimum while I try to regain my equilibrium -- and some baboon made a sick and pointless joke about Daniel Negreanu being killed in a head-on collision. A quick Google and Yahoo search of the subject yielded nothing, and a quick sharkscope of said baboon made it clear that, as baboons will, he was compensating for his lack of talent by acting out.
Nonetheless, it got me thinking about Daniel Negreanu and I searched him out on youtube, where I found a series of three instructional videos of his on -- what else? -- how to win at Hold Em. Here's the link to the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeeozbb2_FQ&feature=PlayList&p=8A637CFF3C497E4F&index=0&playnext=1
In truth, these lessons are aimed at taking a strong player and making them pro, a profile I must concede that I don't fit, but they were very helpful, perhaps because they picked up on the "modest gains" approach that I stumbled on recently. In fact, playing "smallball" was the whole thrust of the lessons, but in a way that is very different from mine.
Negreanu says that beginners play "two card" poker -- that is, the lion share of the decision-making is done pre-flop. Pros, on the other hand, make the hard calls after the flop. He advised seeing many more hands combined with a strategy of savvy value betting and blind-stealing. This way, you confuse other players as to what you might have at any time, you can press a hand should you hit while keeping your losses small if you don't, and you trap other players when you do make a monster because they figure you can't catch something every flop.
So, given that my incredibly tight-but-aggressive play has been so feast or famine and typically much more famine, and given my itch to want to play more hands, I thought I'd give this a try.
I stuck to a few of Negreanu's principles:
(1) I played many more hands, especially with low blinds and in late position, and even more so if I could limp in or call for just 2xBB.
(2) From one or two off the button until the button, I would raise 3-4xBB if I had anything playable, and -- critically -- even if I had great starting cards. However, I only did this if there were no previous callers.
(3) If I raised, I followed up post-flop with a bet about 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot. I took down a surpringly large number of pots right then and there. If someone raised hard, I'd typically fold (when I failed to fold because I had a middling hand, disaster typically ensued). If I did flop a monster, though, I got paid big time.
I executed this the most consistently in the last SNG that I played today...and it worked! My stack grew steadily while for the most part I dodged disaster. I did have one terrible, TERRIBLE hand, where I raised preflop with A4os, the flop came A x x, and I went down to the river only to lose to A8. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This took me from 3500 to about 900 chips, with 50/100 blinds, so I wasn't happy at all with my boneheaded play. So much for mixing it up.
Nonetheless...I doubled-up soon after when I made a flush all in with JTh, and then I stuck to the program. And sure enough...1st place, having (semi-)stolen thousands of chips in blinds, picking up pots with value bets, and staying clear of disaster. Oh, and by trapping Mr. A8 to get my chips back with considerable interest: I had raised 4xBB preflop, he called, for about 1600 in the pot. I had 99 and the flop came 678, so I bet 1000, he raised, I went all in, and he called to show AT. A five came, then a ten (for sweet justice), and I was untouchably the big dog.
This strategy worked well three handed as well, though I folded some hands I might ordinarily have pushed, wanting the two shortstacks to cut each other's throats without me doubling them up. In the end, I not only had first, but I felt -- for a change -- that I had executed a strategy that worked and that suited my style.
I think I will stick in the laboratory of the micro-stakes for a bit while I try on this New-greanu suit of clothes. And I will watch those videos many times more.
Nonetheless, it got me thinking about Daniel Negreanu and I searched him out on youtube, where I found a series of three instructional videos of his on -- what else? -- how to win at Hold Em. Here's the link to the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeeozbb2_FQ&feature=PlayList&p=8A637CFF3C497E4F&index=0&playnext=1
In truth, these lessons are aimed at taking a strong player and making them pro, a profile I must concede that I don't fit, but they were very helpful, perhaps because they picked up on the "modest gains" approach that I stumbled on recently. In fact, playing "smallball" was the whole thrust of the lessons, but in a way that is very different from mine.
Negreanu says that beginners play "two card" poker -- that is, the lion share of the decision-making is done pre-flop. Pros, on the other hand, make the hard calls after the flop. He advised seeing many more hands combined with a strategy of savvy value betting and blind-stealing. This way, you confuse other players as to what you might have at any time, you can press a hand should you hit while keeping your losses small if you don't, and you trap other players when you do make a monster because they figure you can't catch something every flop.
So, given that my incredibly tight-but-aggressive play has been so feast or famine and typically much more famine, and given my itch to want to play more hands, I thought I'd give this a try.
I stuck to a few of Negreanu's principles:
(1) I played many more hands, especially with low blinds and in late position, and even more so if I could limp in or call for just 2xBB.
(2) From one or two off the button until the button, I would raise 3-4xBB if I had anything playable, and -- critically -- even if I had great starting cards. However, I only did this if there were no previous callers.
(3) If I raised, I followed up post-flop with a bet about 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot. I took down a surpringly large number of pots right then and there. If someone raised hard, I'd typically fold (when I failed to fold because I had a middling hand, disaster typically ensued). If I did flop a monster, though, I got paid big time.
I executed this the most consistently in the last SNG that I played today...and it worked! My stack grew steadily while for the most part I dodged disaster. I did have one terrible, TERRIBLE hand, where I raised preflop with A4os, the flop came A x x, and I went down to the river only to lose to A8. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This took me from 3500 to about 900 chips, with 50/100 blinds, so I wasn't happy at all with my boneheaded play. So much for mixing it up.
Nonetheless...I doubled-up soon after when I made a flush all in with JTh, and then I stuck to the program. And sure enough...1st place, having (semi-)stolen thousands of chips in blinds, picking up pots with value bets, and staying clear of disaster. Oh, and by trapping Mr. A8 to get my chips back with considerable interest: I had raised 4xBB preflop, he called, for about 1600 in the pot. I had 99 and the flop came 678, so I bet 1000, he raised, I went all in, and he called to show AT. A five came, then a ten (for sweet justice), and I was untouchably the big dog.
This strategy worked well three handed as well, though I folded some hands I might ordinarily have pushed, wanting the two shortstacks to cut each other's throats without me doubling them up. In the end, I not only had first, but I felt -- for a change -- that I had executed a strategy that worked and that suited my style.
I think I will stick in the laboratory of the micro-stakes for a bit while I try on this New-greanu suit of clothes. And I will watch those videos many times more.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
V: Aargh!
Starting balance: $412.80
Cannot win no matter what. Tourney or cash game, makes no difference. JJ cracked by A6, JJ cracked by KT, top pair chased to the river by AK who of course catches his A, all-in flush draws catching their flushes, KcKs cracked by QdQh when four hearts hit the board, ATd cracked by J6, and so on and so on and so on... I am getting deep new insights into tilt, I will grant that, and it would seem that the laws of chance have chosen to spread their cheeks and demonstrate quite graphically what they feel about my Freudian musings.
Ending balance: $350.35
No no no no....$289.35
Time for another few days off. Another afternoon of this and I'll be rebuying for sure.
Cannot win no matter what. Tourney or cash game, makes no difference. JJ cracked by A6, JJ cracked by KT, top pair chased to the river by AK who of course catches his A, all-in flush draws catching their flushes, KcKs cracked by QdQh when four hearts hit the board, ATd cracked by J6, and so on and so on and so on... I am getting deep new insights into tilt, I will grant that, and it would seem that the laws of chance have chosen to spread their cheeks and demonstrate quite graphically what they feel about my Freudian musings.
Ending balance: $350.35
No no no no....$289.35
Time for another few days off. Another afternoon of this and I'll be rebuying for sure.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
V: Plugging leaks
Caution: Annyoing psychological insights ahead
As Douchebag and I were saying last night, when things click, it feels like it will stay that way forever, like you've finally figured it out, but that never seems to be the case. So far at least, Douchebag and I are prone to the same rhythms of dramatic swings both up and down (granted, his swings up are both longer and upper). For sure I at least vacillate between tight controlled poker that makes me proud to have a seat at the table, and the card-table equivalent of sitting in the sandbox and smearing myself with my own droppings.
So, lo and behold, maybe this exercise and this blog are actually doing what we'd hoped they would do: make us really focus on our leaks and get to plugging them. I've always known mine was impatience -- that's no surprise -- but I am starting to realize the many forms that impatience takes. I always viewed it as the ill-timed bluff when I am bored, or a late-game tendency to get wildly over-involved in pots where I am a sure loser. And that's part of it. But it's also betting way beyond value in the hopes of taking down a pot then and there, thus cheating myself of possible value while overexposing myself in the event that things don't go as planned. It's falling in love with my cards because I don't want to do the difficult work of arriving at a considered judgment that takes the board, position and the simple humanity of the other players into account. It's resorting to all-in rather than value betting. And so on, and so on. I realize that I have an extraordinary amount of work to do, but this insight is a start at least.
For Douchebag, the big leak is apparently lack of confidence, and for Badger, a strong tendency towards passivity (a close cousin but not an identical twin). The problem too, of course, is that, while identifying leaks is hard enough, plugging them is much, much harder. Quite obviously so, because they wouldn't be leaks if they were so easily fixed. Being both a literary geek and a Freudian-minded Jew, I am inclined to think about the deeper psychological roots of why I fuck up, inspired in large measure by an essay written by the playwright David Mamet, who was himself a very strong player.
In "The Things Poker Teaches," Mamet wrote:
Poker reveals to the frank observer something else of import--it will teach him about his own nature. Many bad players do not improve because they cannot bear self-knowledge. The bad player will not deign to determine what he thinks by watching what he does. To do so might, and frequently would, reveal a need to be abused (in calling what must be a superior hand); a need to be loved (in staying for "that one magic card"); a need to have Daddy relent (in trying to bluff out the obvious best hand), etc. It is painful to observe this sort of thing about oneself. Many times we'd rather suffer on than fix it....
The same is said of Go, of chess, of any great game truly worth engaging with: whatever your personality, its strengths and most definitely its flaws, are mirrored right back at you if you are only able and willing to see them. And at least as far as I go, Mamet (and others) was spot on, though I'll spare you the details.
This all is perhaps deeper and more uncomfortable than a jokey poker blog is supposed to be, but, well, making people uncomfortable has been my speciality since the mid-1970's. Besides, I think about all those hours I spent plumbing my own murky depths on the psychologist's couch and figure "hell, why shouldn't they suffer too?"
Something to consider, at any rate. Who knows? Maybe we'll all emerge from all this slightly better people and not just slightly better card players.
As Douchebag and I were saying last night, when things click, it feels like it will stay that way forever, like you've finally figured it out, but that never seems to be the case. So far at least, Douchebag and I are prone to the same rhythms of dramatic swings both up and down (granted, his swings up are both longer and upper). For sure I at least vacillate between tight controlled poker that makes me proud to have a seat at the table, and the card-table equivalent of sitting in the sandbox and smearing myself with my own droppings.
So, lo and behold, maybe this exercise and this blog are actually doing what we'd hoped they would do: make us really focus on our leaks and get to plugging them. I've always known mine was impatience -- that's no surprise -- but I am starting to realize the many forms that impatience takes. I always viewed it as the ill-timed bluff when I am bored, or a late-game tendency to get wildly over-involved in pots where I am a sure loser. And that's part of it. But it's also betting way beyond value in the hopes of taking down a pot then and there, thus cheating myself of possible value while overexposing myself in the event that things don't go as planned. It's falling in love with my cards because I don't want to do the difficult work of arriving at a considered judgment that takes the board, position and the simple humanity of the other players into account. It's resorting to all-in rather than value betting. And so on, and so on. I realize that I have an extraordinary amount of work to do, but this insight is a start at least.
For Douchebag, the big leak is apparently lack of confidence, and for Badger, a strong tendency towards passivity (a close cousin but not an identical twin). The problem too, of course, is that, while identifying leaks is hard enough, plugging them is much, much harder. Quite obviously so, because they wouldn't be leaks if they were so easily fixed. Being both a literary geek and a Freudian-minded Jew, I am inclined to think about the deeper psychological roots of why I fuck up, inspired in large measure by an essay written by the playwright David Mamet, who was himself a very strong player.
In "The Things Poker Teaches," Mamet wrote:
Poker reveals to the frank observer something else of import--it will teach him about his own nature. Many bad players do not improve because they cannot bear self-knowledge. The bad player will not deign to determine what he thinks by watching what he does. To do so might, and frequently would, reveal a need to be abused (in calling what must be a superior hand); a need to be loved (in staying for "that one magic card"); a need to have Daddy relent (in trying to bluff out the obvious best hand), etc. It is painful to observe this sort of thing about oneself. Many times we'd rather suffer on than fix it....
The same is said of Go, of chess, of any great game truly worth engaging with: whatever your personality, its strengths and most definitely its flaws, are mirrored right back at you if you are only able and willing to see them. And at least as far as I go, Mamet (and others) was spot on, though I'll spare you the details.
This all is perhaps deeper and more uncomfortable than a jokey poker blog is supposed to be, but, well, making people uncomfortable has been my speciality since the mid-1970's. Besides, I think about all those hours I spent plumbing my own murky depths on the psychologist's couch and figure "hell, why shouldn't they suffer too?"
Something to consider, at any rate. Who knows? Maybe we'll all emerge from all this slightly better people and not just slightly better card players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
