*Sorry J… I know you said let’s agree to disagree but I had already written this and now feel obliged to post it. How bout them Bruins huh?*
All right J, I’ve got DJ Khaled name-dropping in the background but my focus is on our recent series of posts. I now have the time, privacy, and more importantly the caffeine to thoroughly read everything and reply. I only hope that you waited until I post this instead of responding to my earlier, off-the-cuff reply. I have no control over that though.
The first thing I should do is reset the poker scene. You have corrected me and jogged my memory a bit.
The event in question took place at the Hustler Casino. It’s been so long that I can’t remember all the details such as if Hustler plays 9 or 10 handed. I’ll do my best though. We were playing $1-$2 No Limit Hold’em. Seat 1 had a tight, mild player in his mid-20s to early 30s. A blonde I think. I remembered him because his girlfriend was attractive and also playing at the table with us. I’ll get to her later. Next to the boyfriend was a weak tight player not worth remembering. Seat 3 had an older gentleman, late 40s+, who at times wanted to play sheriff and would move all-in or call all-in with a middle pocket pair. I remember twice where I was involved in one of these hands against him and was holding a larger pocket pair. Next to him was a hot Asian chick. I don’t remember much about her other than that Jun and some of our other friends kept “slickly” walking by to see the hot girls at our table. I was in seat 5. J, you were to my left. I can’t remember if you were next to me in seat 6 or if someone was between us. To your left was the other hot chick, the girlfriend of the guy in seat one. She was a brunette in her mid-20s with a smile that reminded me of a girl I once dated. She was tight and aggressive, familiar with pot odds, and probably the best player seated besides you and me. She had a hat, not a baseball cap, but a more fashionable, modern-hippy, Santa-Cruz-ish hat. There also may have been one other person somewhere to our left but since I can’t remember he was probably weak tight. Finally, to the right of the dealer was our dinner, a loose passive calling station. He was a guy in his mid to late thirties who had probably spent his life playing weakly in home games and decided to try playing at a casino after seeing poker on TV. He probably chose the Hustler because of some Freudian tendency and he definitely was not a veteran of the card room scene
We had been playing at this table for quite some time and financially were doing poorly with you being worse-off. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt buddy and say that you were faking the tilt so well that I still don’t fully believe you. This isn’t the first time we’ve publicly disagreed about whether you were on tilt so let’s just agree to disagree.
Now, onto to the hand in question. You raised to $30 preflop in middle position. You have A-K and our calling station calls with A-9. Before the dealer presents the flop, you announce you are going all-in blind. The caller waits and sees that he hit top pair on a 9 high flop. He calls. Turn is a miss and the river is a third 9. You much your hand, pretend you had a high pocket pair, and spend the rest of the night bullying the calling station.
This had its “intended” effect. The calling station began to doubt himself. Where before he would call all the way to showdown, he now was calling only until he saw the river.
Do we agree on all this?
Now, onto my original analysis of your strategy.
“The Loud, Obnoxious Berating
Pros -
1) You can change how multiple people are playing without expending more effort than if you were trying to change how one is playing.
2) You release some of the steam that is fueling your own tilt.
3) You are creating an opportunity to make more money.
Cons -
1) You are risking scaring away both the target and others at the table.
2) You are going to make others at the table play better so that you won’t notice them.
3) You are looking like a prick and others are going to think less of you for it. Even your own companions if it happens too often.”
I disliked your choice of strategy for that situation and went so far as to call your play for the evening fishy.
I think this catches us up with my original post. You took offense and posted in reply. I expected no less. I took offense when, before I left, you told me to go read a book. Now I am saying you played like a fish. Seems as if my hiatus is surrounded by drama. What do you think co-writer? Just disagreements and no long-term hard feelings I hope. I know at least that’s how it is on my side.
But like I said, you took offense. You said your strategy “can work effectively in certain situations, against a particular type of opponent.” I agree. I even originally said, “That’s not saying you should never perform” your method of choice. But so far we agree and are on the same page.
Then you said, “Billy has made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on short-term results -- namely me ending the night a loser.” While I may, in general, place too much emphasis on the short-term, and sometimes I feel that you place too little, you overlooked that I had said, “It was only one example.” I know it’s a sample size of one and that’s practically meaningless. I’m a biologist, I must remind you. Sample size has been beaten into me almost to a fault. But that doesn’t mean that specific examples aren’t worth examining or that they won’t reveal any truths. (My overall sample size is much larger and while it doesn’t include playing poker in casinos other than this one example, it incorporates what poker writers who have been playing for years think, my own experiences playing online, and my own experiences playing blackjack in casinos.)
Also, you seemed to miss my point as to why I felt your strategy didn’t work. It has nothing to do with you ending the night down a few buy-ins. That completes the picture of how the night went but it isn’t why I chose to criticize your strategy. Instead I felt it was a poor choice because you focused your attention on a fish, on someone already loose and passive and willing to give you money. I felt it didn’t work well because you used all this energy on a player who we both know you could easily beat.
The other reason I criticized your method is because it makes the game less enjoyable for others. You yourself “feel lucky to be at a table with even one or two complete poker novices at a casino” so why engage in a strategy where you risk losing the few that do play at your table? For an analogy, why kill the cow today when you can milk it for years?
Another thing you mentioned is that I have “too narrow a definition of correct play.” I’m not sure how to take this. It’s not a criticism I would have heaped on myself despite the fact that I am easily my biggest poker critic. (Again with the too much emphasis on short-term results thing. I don’t deny it.) But I will keep this in mind and see if I find it to be true. Any examples of when I have been “too narrow” in the past would be helpful.
You wondered why I called fishy and you assumed its because you lost money or were over betting. It’s not that. Instead it is because I did not think you were playing up to the standards I hold you to. You went off on a fish that you could have beat without doing so. That’s typically an amateur mistake but you claim it was your entire strategy. If your goal was to create a loose, crazy, tilting table image, you could have easily chosen one of the weak tight players to attack. They weren’t doing anything for the table while the calling station was already handing out money.
What else…
You mentioned that when others see you on tilt and that you are trying to bully the table, they will play back at you with weak hands instead of playing better. Point taken. I hadn’t thought about this. Your opponents may try to play beyond themselves and right into your hands. It’s a good trap. I guess the bottom line is which type of players are at your table.
One more point to make. You said poker authors tell you to wait “for the good cards, raising 3-4x the big blind, and continuation betting on the flop” because “they want to win your money!” I disagree (obviously). I think they tell you to do these things because it is the quickest and easiest way to improve your results and because if they write something that works, more people will buy their books.
Also, every good poker player knows poker is about exploiting the tendencies of your opponents. However, great players realize that you also need to prevent others from exploiting your tendencies. Thus you bet a standard 3 or 4 times the big blind and half-pot sized or pot sized bets to prevent others from picking up tells based on the size of your bet. You make continuation bets to disguise whether you connected with the flop. You wait for good cards because, if all else fails, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you had the best hand when you started.
No comments:
Post a Comment