Well, it’s been a while since I’ve written one of these. That's mostly because I’ve wised up a little bit and started doing the things I tell other people to do. But even I am not immune to relapses, and last night turned out to be just what I needed – a big fat hunking slice of humble pie.
Today, I’m going to talk about game selection. This is a concept I haven’t really worried too much about since I started to consistently play at Level 3 and above. I’m at the point now where I can pretty much play any style of poker. If the game is loose, I’ll be tight and aggressive – wait for the good hands and let the donkeys pay me off. If the game is fairly rocky, then I can LAG it up and make money that way. I’ve grown fairly adept at finding the correct gear in which to play in order to make the most money at a given table. So game selection hasn’t really been at the forefront of my poker mind.
My last session was an example of why game selection is a key concept of which to be mindful, even for the advanced player. I drove down to Hollywood Park (HP) after bubbling out of a Sit n Go, feeling pretty good about my game and the way I’ve been playing lately. I know that generally, HP has a reputation for housing the loosest, craziest players in town. But since I’ve mostly only played limit there, I figured the no limit game would be loose, but beatable if I played tight enough.
Once I arrived, I sat down in the $100 buy-in game and soon discovered that loose did not begin to describe this table. It was a full blown all-in festival – no exaggeration. Seven hands went by before I found anything playable, and at least one player got all his money in on each of those seven hands. I realized quickly that my only hope of winning here was playing ridiculously tight preflop and hoping that the odds held up. I strapped myself in.
My playable hand turned out to be AA in the big blind. The guy under the gun immediately pushed all in for his remaining $50. The second big stack at the table (who should have been a huge donator but was getting insanely lucky time after time) called him cold from middle position. In my head, I started doing a little victory dance. It was folded to me, and I pushed for my stack of $95. Donator called. Time to see if the bullets could work their magic.
Didn’t work out well at all. The flop was nice, but a runner-runner gave Donator the nut straight with his QJ offsuit. I rebought, steamed for another ten hands, then stacked off again when A-2 called my Queens all in preflop and spiked an Ace. At that point I realized that this wasn’t a game I could beat with my bankroll. Goodbye, Hollywood Park!
So okay, you could say that I just got severely unlucky last night. You could say that I should have made a quick $500 or $600 easily at that table. You could say it just wasn’t my night, Sklansky dollars, it wasn’t my fault what happened, whatever. You win some, you lose some, right?
I see it differently. It’s possible that I was just destined to lose my money last night, wherever I went. But still, I must take some responsibility for dropping $200 so quickly. This is supposed to be an instructional post, not just a glorified bad beat story. :-) I should have realized early on that this was not a game that I could beat, not with the big stacks at the table willing to see every hand down to the river. While I still believe that I am able to hang tough in any style of poker game by adapting my own style of play, I should have realized that this ability did not apply to the table at HP last night because we weren’t playing poker. We were simply putting all of our money in and seeing how the cards fell.
These types of games are out there, and at times can be very profitable. But this was not the type of game that I want to be playing in. Just putting it in before the flop takes away the advantages good players have over weak ones, similar to the “Kill Phil” strategies that amateurs often use in tournaments to make up for their lack of experience. Moving in preflop doesn’t allow me to bring my poker skill set to bear. I just have to hope my good hands hold up.
So as you can see, game selection is a relevant poker principle across all skill levels and poker formats. Learn to recognize when you’re in a situation or game that is not advantageous to your particular skills, and get out as early as possible. It’ll probably save you a bunch of money.
Remember, this is just advice – you can take it or leave it. But if I had taken my own advice last night, I would have saved myself a couple hundred and probably could have even made some money down the road at the Hustler.
So like always, Do as I say, not as I do …
Showing posts with label Do As I Say. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Do As I Say. Show all posts
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Saturday, December 16, 2006
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 6]: Gambling with the Rent
This is one of the biggest no-no’s of being a serious poker player. The reasons for this are myriad. The first and most obvious is that if you lose, you’ll either get evicted or have to borrow money somewhere. From what I’ve heard, getting evicted sucks. And if you do end up borrowing, you’re probably going to have to lie as well so you don’t have to admit to your family/friends that you lost the rent money gambling.
Second, you are more likely to lose than you normally would be, because typically the consequences of a loss will hang over your head the whole session. This will cause 99% of players to either A) play too conservatively in order to avoid big losses, or B) play too loosely in order to make a big score in a hurry. Either way you’re not playing your best poker.
Third, gambling with money that you need to pay other obligations is a major indicator of addiction. It suggests a lack of self-control, and that gambling has gone beyond recreation or profession and has become compulsive. Once you begin to ignore your financial obligations just to satiate an internal drive, you have lost touch with reason, and may need professional help.
I don’t consider myself above this rule. In fact, out of all the poker axioms that I have passed on to you (bankroll management, not letting it get personal, etc.), this is the only one I have never violated … until now.
However, my situation was a little different than most. Generally, the rule is meant to caution people against deliberately waiting to pay their bills and instead trying to make some returns on the money first. In my case, I was actually about $150 short on what I needed. So for me, losing what I gambled with would not have been much worse than not playing at all – either way, I wouldn’t have had enough. It was a lose-lose situation. But if I played, at least I would have a chance to pay things off. And I decided it was worth a try.
Nevertheless, I was reminded of the rule. Had I lost and ended up borrowing money, it would have been easier to borrow $150 than $300. I took a risk, and it worked out for me. I earned what I needed, plus a little extra. But by no means do I ever want to be backed into a corner like that again … it’s just not a good feeling.
This is just advice … you can take it or leave it. Any pro will tell you not to risk money that isn’t unencumbered, and I would agree with them wholeheartedly. If you are a compulsive gambler and are going to play regardless, try to manage your bankroll so that the need to play doesn’t infringe upon your other liabilities. Your quality of life, and overall happiness will be exponentially better.
So like always, Do as I say, not as I do …
Second, you are more likely to lose than you normally would be, because typically the consequences of a loss will hang over your head the whole session. This will cause 99% of players to either A) play too conservatively in order to avoid big losses, or B) play too loosely in order to make a big score in a hurry. Either way you’re not playing your best poker.
Third, gambling with money that you need to pay other obligations is a major indicator of addiction. It suggests a lack of self-control, and that gambling has gone beyond recreation or profession and has become compulsive. Once you begin to ignore your financial obligations just to satiate an internal drive, you have lost touch with reason, and may need professional help.
I don’t consider myself above this rule. In fact, out of all the poker axioms that I have passed on to you (bankroll management, not letting it get personal, etc.), this is the only one I have never violated … until now.
However, my situation was a little different than most. Generally, the rule is meant to caution people against deliberately waiting to pay their bills and instead trying to make some returns on the money first. In my case, I was actually about $150 short on what I needed. So for me, losing what I gambled with would not have been much worse than not playing at all – either way, I wouldn’t have had enough. It was a lose-lose situation. But if I played, at least I would have a chance to pay things off. And I decided it was worth a try.
Nevertheless, I was reminded of the rule. Had I lost and ended up borrowing money, it would have been easier to borrow $150 than $300. I took a risk, and it worked out for me. I earned what I needed, plus a little extra. But by no means do I ever want to be backed into a corner like that again … it’s just not a good feeling.
This is just advice … you can take it or leave it. Any pro will tell you not to risk money that isn’t unencumbered, and I would agree with them wholeheartedly. If you are a compulsive gambler and are going to play regardless, try to manage your bankroll so that the need to play doesn’t infringe upon your other liabilities. Your quality of life, and overall happiness will be exponentially better.
So like always, Do as I say, not as I do …
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 5]: I'm a Better Coach than a Player
Ever see D2, the sequel to The Mighty Ducks? If not, you've missed a great film, and you need to rent it on VHS immediately. If you still own a VCR, that is. Anyway, there's a line in that movie where the kid says to the Emilio Estevez character something like, "You know how you always said I'd make a better coach than a player?"
Well, that line has pretty much been the story of my life. For a long time, I felt that way about basketball. I felt like I understood the game on a technical level very well. I knew how to move without the basketball, how to spread the floor on offense and rotate on defense. I knew how to make solid passes, when to set screens, when to gamble and dive in the passing lanes. I guess you would say that I was blessed with pretty good court vision and basketball IQ.
Unfortunately, that never translated to prowess on the hardwood. I was always a good defender, always a good setup guy, a good role-player. But whenever I was counted on to lead my team in scoring, we usually lost. My shot wasn't that great, and most of the time I was too unselfish with the basketball. I'll never be the offensive star of a team. But I feel like I would make a fine coach.
Well, this is a poker blog, not a basketball blog. As such, you might be able to anticipate where I'm going with this. I've acquired quite a bit of poker knowledge in the short time I've been playing, mostly because poker has become my obsession. I think, speak, and live in poker terminology. I see life as one big poker game full of value bets, gambles, checks, and folds. I feel like I understand the game -- what works and what doesn't. A lot of this has come from reading books and periodicals about poker, and an equal amount has come from simple trial and error. I can come up with a viable solution to almost any situation in poker, given adequate time to think it over.
However, much like basketball, that knowledge is not always brought to bear when I'm in the middle of a game. I know the moves of correct play, I know the rules of bankroll management, etc. ... but I don't apply them. I can tell Billy how he should have played a hand any time he asks ... but that's no guarantee that I would play the hand that way in the same situation. Like in basketball, I make a better coach than a player.
Recently I advised Billy that he might consider working out before playing his next session. That way he could exhaust himself, and take out all his frustration on the weights or the treadmill. By the time he finished, his head would be clear, and the bad beats would be less likely to send him on tilt. I told him I played some of my best poker after working out. So he tried it out, and made a bunch of money that night. Something must have gone right with it, because he's off working up a sweat even as I type this. Must be getting ready for a session tonight.
Now I'm sharing my secret with you as well. Try working out before playing to clear your head. If you saw my bankroll, you would probably laugh at me. You might think of me as a fat personal trainer ... and wonder why you should listen to me. Well trust me, the advice I give you is sound. I just don't always follow it, and that's why I'm broke.
Remember, this is just advice -- you can take it or leave it. But if I worked out more often before my sessions, I think I'd find that I tilted much less frequently, and less severely.
So like always, do as I say, not as I do ...
Well, that line has pretty much been the story of my life. For a long time, I felt that way about basketball. I felt like I understood the game on a technical level very well. I knew how to move without the basketball, how to spread the floor on offense and rotate on defense. I knew how to make solid passes, when to set screens, when to gamble and dive in the passing lanes. I guess you would say that I was blessed with pretty good court vision and basketball IQ.
Unfortunately, that never translated to prowess on the hardwood. I was always a good defender, always a good setup guy, a good role-player. But whenever I was counted on to lead my team in scoring, we usually lost. My shot wasn't that great, and most of the time I was too unselfish with the basketball. I'll never be the offensive star of a team. But I feel like I would make a fine coach.
Well, this is a poker blog, not a basketball blog. As such, you might be able to anticipate where I'm going with this. I've acquired quite a bit of poker knowledge in the short time I've been playing, mostly because poker has become my obsession. I think, speak, and live in poker terminology. I see life as one big poker game full of value bets, gambles, checks, and folds. I feel like I understand the game -- what works and what doesn't. A lot of this has come from reading books and periodicals about poker, and an equal amount has come from simple trial and error. I can come up with a viable solution to almost any situation in poker, given adequate time to think it over.
However, much like basketball, that knowledge is not always brought to bear when I'm in the middle of a game. I know the moves of correct play, I know the rules of bankroll management, etc. ... but I don't apply them. I can tell Billy how he should have played a hand any time he asks ... but that's no guarantee that I would play the hand that way in the same situation. Like in basketball, I make a better coach than a player.
Recently I advised Billy that he might consider working out before playing his next session. That way he could exhaust himself, and take out all his frustration on the weights or the treadmill. By the time he finished, his head would be clear, and the bad beats would be less likely to send him on tilt. I told him I played some of my best poker after working out. So he tried it out, and made a bunch of money that night. Something must have gone right with it, because he's off working up a sweat even as I type this. Must be getting ready for a session tonight.
Now I'm sharing my secret with you as well. Try working out before playing to clear your head. If you saw my bankroll, you would probably laugh at me. You might think of me as a fat personal trainer ... and wonder why you should listen to me. Well trust me, the advice I give you is sound. I just don't always follow it, and that's why I'm broke.
Remember, this is just advice -- you can take it or leave it. But if I worked out more often before my sessions, I think I'd find that I tilted much less frequently, and less severely.
So like always, do as I say, not as I do ...
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 4]: Don't Let it Get Personal
There’s a back-story to this, that’s interesting in itself, but due to its minimal relevance I will only relate some of the highlights. I’m at the Hustler Casino, and on the first hand I am dealt, I river the nut straight on a guy that turned two-pair and under-bet. So a little bit of acting, some gamesmanship, yadda yadda yadda, I busted him. After this, he and his buddy go “V for Vendetta” on my ass, raising every time I limp, re-raising every time I raise, encouraging others not to give me action when they think I have a monster. And so we come to the hand that will serve to exemplify today’s discussion …
Jamin: Until I pick up A-8 on the button …
Jamin: One of the guys raises UTG [under the gun] pre-flop to 5 bucks, and I call because I'm tired of being pushed around. A few other guys call. The flop comes 9-8-2 rainbow. The same guy bets 7, one guy between us calls, and I call. The turn is an ace, giving me dead man's hand ... which turns out to be symbolic.
Billy: 9s?
Jamin: Close enough. He bets 20, the other guy in the hand folds, and I get excited and push all in for 90 (he has me covered). The guy calls immediately, and shows me pocket 8s.
Jamin: And no, I didn't river the ace.
Billy: Ouch.
Jamin: Yeah.
Jamin: I was too shaken up to re-buy.
Jamin: So my next chapter is going to be about not letting it get personal.
Billy: Hahaha
So what’s the lesson here? Any poker player will tell you it’s hard to get away from Aces Up, especially with a board so seemingly-innocuous. There’s no way I’m going to just fold to a $20 bet when I have what figures to be the best hand.
The mistake I made (and what I want to caution you against) was playing with emotion. I didn’t push all in because it was the correct play. I over-bet the pot by a large margin. I could have easily just called his bet, and waited for more information on the river (which would have showed a third flush card, and may have given me pause). Or I could have made a smaller raise. I could have recognized that his was a value bet, not trying to push me out of the pot at all. Had I been playing my best poker, I would have stopped and considered the size of his bet. But I wanted to punish him for his attacks on me and my stack. I wanted to show him I was the better player. I wanted to take over the big stack at the table and show him how it feels to be pushed around.
I let it get personal.
Big mistake.
As always, this is just advice – you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, I could have waited a few more hands for him to make a mistake. I could have taken down his stack little-by-little rather than going for the big score. I read something in a poker book yesterday that has changed the way I look at the game. The writer said, “Don’t try to beat the other players; let the other players try to beat you.” Words of wisdom.
So do as I say, not as I do …
Jamin: Until I pick up A-8 on the button …
Jamin: One of the guys raises UTG [under the gun] pre-flop to 5 bucks, and I call because I'm tired of being pushed around. A few other guys call. The flop comes 9-8-2 rainbow. The same guy bets 7, one guy between us calls, and I call. The turn is an ace, giving me dead man's hand ... which turns out to be symbolic.
Billy: 9s?
Jamin: Close enough. He bets 20, the other guy in the hand folds, and I get excited and push all in for 90 (he has me covered). The guy calls immediately, and shows me pocket 8s.
Jamin: And no, I didn't river the ace.
Billy: Ouch.
Jamin: Yeah.
Jamin: I was too shaken up to re-buy.
Jamin: So my next chapter is going to be about not letting it get personal.
Billy: Hahaha
So what’s the lesson here? Any poker player will tell you it’s hard to get away from Aces Up, especially with a board so seemingly-innocuous. There’s no way I’m going to just fold to a $20 bet when I have what figures to be the best hand.
The mistake I made (and what I want to caution you against) was playing with emotion. I didn’t push all in because it was the correct play. I over-bet the pot by a large margin. I could have easily just called his bet, and waited for more information on the river (which would have showed a third flush card, and may have given me pause). Or I could have made a smaller raise. I could have recognized that his was a value bet, not trying to push me out of the pot at all. Had I been playing my best poker, I would have stopped and considered the size of his bet. But I wanted to punish him for his attacks on me and my stack. I wanted to show him I was the better player. I wanted to take over the big stack at the table and show him how it feels to be pushed around.
I let it get personal.
Big mistake.
As always, this is just advice – you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, I could have waited a few more hands for him to make a mistake. I could have taken down his stack little-by-little rather than going for the big score. I read something in a poker book yesterday that has changed the way I look at the game. The writer said, “Don’t try to beat the other players; let the other players try to beat you.” Words of wisdom.
So do as I say, not as I do …
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 3]: When You're Raised Big
You find yourself in middle position, and wake up with Jack-10 of spades. You’ve played pretty tight tonight, and since a few others have limped in before you, it seems like the pot is big enough to play a drawing hand like this. Jack-Ten is one of your favorite connectors, because it can make so many straights. Furthermore, the straights you’re likely to make with Jack-Ten are often the nut straights, and are often well-concealed. If the flop comes Ace-King-Queen rainbow, who’s going to put you on Jack-Ten? If it comes Queen-Nine-Eight? Two pair will give you a ton of action. But back to the story. You decide to come along for the ride, and call the big blind. No one raises after you … what a relief.
The flop comes Ten-Five-Deuce, rainbow – about as good a flop as you could have reasonably hoped for. Of course, it isn’t a miracle flop like the ones described above, but it’s fairly strong. It’s checked to you, so you bet out 2/3 of the pot. Don’t want to get too fancy with top pair of tens. You just want to make it more difficult for players with over-cards or smaller pairs to call you.
The rest of the table folds, with one exception. One of the limpers who checked the flop to you is suddenly interested in the pot. When the action returns to her, without hesitation, the lone girl at the table moves all-in, and she has you covered. Being check-raised is rarely a good feeling, with the exception of times you have the nuts or near-nuts. What do you do? You’re left with the most fundamental decision in poker: call or fold? How do you respond to being raised when you have a decent hand (although your pair of tens seems to have suddenly shriveled up, doesn’t it)?
Finally we get to the meat of the article. I’m writing today to remind you to think about why your opponent is doing what he or she is doing. With your pair of tens, and jack kicker, about the only thing you can beat is a bluff. So you must put your opponent on a range of hands. What could she possibly be holding? Because no one raised before the flop, the girl could have limped in with almost any two cards. So there is a chance she flopped two pair, or a small set, or that she decided to merely call with an over-pair.
Time after time, I see people call blindly, when a moment of thought would save them so much money in the long run! Just remember, your opponent probably suspects that you’re holding something substantial, that you’re not (completely) bluffing. What cards could they have that would make them fearless of your cards? That moment of pondering should cause you to fold more often than you really want to (when your ego is screaming at you to call), but trust me, they’re just keeping your chips warm for you. If they’ve bluffed you, you’ll get them back when they try the same maneuver and you’re holding a stronger hand.
So am I telling you to fold every time you’re raised big? Of course not! There are certainly times when a call is the correct play (perhaps more often than you think). What I’m advocating here is the thought process. Ask the dealer for time, do whatever you have to. But at least consider what your opponent could possibly be raising with. If it turns out that the only hand you could beat is a bluff, chances are you should muck it.
There are, of course, exceptions. If you’ve been watching a player and you’ve noticed that they bluff a bit too often, then calling is more likely to be correct. Or if they have fairly obvious tells. Or if your hand also gives you some draws or redraws. Sheer curiosity, however, is not a good reason to shove in your entire stack.
As always, this is just advice … you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, I think I’d find myself on the wrong side of a kicker battle a lot less often.
So do as I say, not as I do …
The flop comes Ten-Five-Deuce, rainbow – about as good a flop as you could have reasonably hoped for. Of course, it isn’t a miracle flop like the ones described above, but it’s fairly strong. It’s checked to you, so you bet out 2/3 of the pot. Don’t want to get too fancy with top pair of tens. You just want to make it more difficult for players with over-cards or smaller pairs to call you.
The rest of the table folds, with one exception. One of the limpers who checked the flop to you is suddenly interested in the pot. When the action returns to her, without hesitation, the lone girl at the table moves all-in, and she has you covered. Being check-raised is rarely a good feeling, with the exception of times you have the nuts or near-nuts. What do you do? You’re left with the most fundamental decision in poker: call or fold? How do you respond to being raised when you have a decent hand (although your pair of tens seems to have suddenly shriveled up, doesn’t it)?
Finally we get to the meat of the article. I’m writing today to remind you to think about why your opponent is doing what he or she is doing. With your pair of tens, and jack kicker, about the only thing you can beat is a bluff. So you must put your opponent on a range of hands. What could she possibly be holding? Because no one raised before the flop, the girl could have limped in with almost any two cards. So there is a chance she flopped two pair, or a small set, or that she decided to merely call with an over-pair.
Time after time, I see people call blindly, when a moment of thought would save them so much money in the long run! Just remember, your opponent probably suspects that you’re holding something substantial, that you’re not (completely) bluffing. What cards could they have that would make them fearless of your cards? That moment of pondering should cause you to fold more often than you really want to (when your ego is screaming at you to call), but trust me, they’re just keeping your chips warm for you. If they’ve bluffed you, you’ll get them back when they try the same maneuver and you’re holding a stronger hand.
So am I telling you to fold every time you’re raised big? Of course not! There are certainly times when a call is the correct play (perhaps more often than you think). What I’m advocating here is the thought process. Ask the dealer for time, do whatever you have to. But at least consider what your opponent could possibly be raising with. If it turns out that the only hand you could beat is a bluff, chances are you should muck it.
There are, of course, exceptions. If you’ve been watching a player and you’ve noticed that they bluff a bit too often, then calling is more likely to be correct. Or if they have fairly obvious tells. Or if your hand also gives you some draws or redraws. Sheer curiosity, however, is not a good reason to shove in your entire stack.
As always, this is just advice … you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, I think I’d find myself on the wrong side of a kicker battle a lot less often.
So do as I say, not as I do …
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 2]: Levels
Preface: My last article was concerning bankroll management – one of those concepts that a successful poker player absolutely needs to have a handle on. This article may not be as essential and basic, but I feel a player should at least be aware of it.
Note also that whenever I use the pronoun “he,” it should be read “he or she.” It is well documented that poker is no longer just a man’s game; “he” is used only for writer’s convenience.
~~
Today we’re going to talk about levels of poker. The levels in my scheme roughly correlate to more common degrees of skill. That is, Level 1 is similar to “Beginner,” Level 2 is similar to “Intermediate,” Level 3 is similar to “Advanced,” and Level 4 is similar to “Expert.” As you read this treatise, you will realize that the iterations allow for infinite levels, but after Level 4, these iterations become somewhat elaborate and tedious. Once you’ve reached Level 4, I wouldn’t say you’ve arrived (even a professional poker player can always improve his game), but you should be winning consistently enough that any higher level would be overkill.
Level 1 is the most basic skill-set a poker player must have. At Level 1, a player knows relative hand strength, knows what starting hands are the strongest (and thus the most playable), and knows about position. More important for my theory, however, is the basis on which the player makes his decisions. A Level 1 player acts (bets, raises, calls, and folds) according to the strength of his own cards and position. A Level 1 player will win sometimes, when their strong hands hold up for them, but will probably lose money in the long run.
A Level 2 player has developed some ability to put opponents on a range of hands. That is, a Level 2 player is able to guess some of the hands their opponent could be holding, and acts accordingly. This player considers how his opponent’s actions give information about what that opponent might have, evaluates his own hand strength in relation to that, and responds. This level of player will win much more often than when he was at Level 1, but not as much as he would at Level 3.
At Level 3 (the level at which I generally find myself), a player should win consistently. This player now has the ability to predict how his actions will influence his opponent’s reading of him. In other words, he is thinking about what his opponent is thinking about his hand strength. Confused? Understandable, but let’s see if we can’t break it down a bit. When I’m playing at Level 3, I carefully consider how every action I take will affect my table image. For instance, if I bet or raise, will my opponents think that I’m strong, or that I’m bluffing? If I check or call, will they believe that I’m weak or that I’m trapping them? As a general rule, you want your opponents to believe the opposite of the truth in order to get them to act in a manner that profits you and not them. But simply acting the opposite of your hand strength is not always going to deceive people. A Level 3 player realizes this, and disguises his strength (or lack thereof) with a fairly unpredictable playing style.
Level 4 (as you may have guessed) is simply the next iteration. You’re thinking about how your opponent is acting to disguise his hand, based on what he thinks you think he has. If you’re not confused by now, I applaud you. To simplify: your actions are all made considering his Level 3 play. This sounds simple enough, but in practice, this ability requires continual concentration at the poker table. For an online player multi-tabling, I would say it’s nearly impossible. It’s extremely difficult to maintain this level at a single table, much less two or more. This is the level at which most professionals are able to play a significant portion of the time. My play (on very rare occasions) reaches this echelon, but for the most part, I’m relegated to Level 3 and below.
The purpose of this treatise is not to teach you how to play at the higher levels. That will require practice and experience on your part. But you should be aware that these levels exist. Why do you care? How exactly does this information improve your bankroll? The answer is simple: it will help you in selecting your opponents. The object of poker is to make money, and you will make the most by taking on players that are playing at levels beneath your own. The farther beneath, the better, in my book – but that subject has been debated. But you definitely don’t want to play against players at your level or higher, at least not for substantial stakes. Once in a while I will play against Billy or some of our other friends for a few meaningless bucks, just to spar a bit and sharpen our skill-sets. But never for the amounts I play for with strangers. Why not just take the easy money?
As you continue to play, you will find yourself rising gradually from one level to the next, without any conscious effort. And occasionally (i.e., when you tilt) you will temporarily slip back down to lower levels. That’s just a part of the game.
As always, this is just advice ... you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, and always played at as high a level as I’m capable, I would see fewer downswings, and the downswings I do see would be smaller.
So like always, Do as I say, not as I do …
Note also that whenever I use the pronoun “he,” it should be read “he or she.” It is well documented that poker is no longer just a man’s game; “he” is used only for writer’s convenience.
~~
Today we’re going to talk about levels of poker. The levels in my scheme roughly correlate to more common degrees of skill. That is, Level 1 is similar to “Beginner,” Level 2 is similar to “Intermediate,” Level 3 is similar to “Advanced,” and Level 4 is similar to “Expert.” As you read this treatise, you will realize that the iterations allow for infinite levels, but after Level 4, these iterations become somewhat elaborate and tedious. Once you’ve reached Level 4, I wouldn’t say you’ve arrived (even a professional poker player can always improve his game), but you should be winning consistently enough that any higher level would be overkill.
Level 1 is the most basic skill-set a poker player must have. At Level 1, a player knows relative hand strength, knows what starting hands are the strongest (and thus the most playable), and knows about position. More important for my theory, however, is the basis on which the player makes his decisions. A Level 1 player acts (bets, raises, calls, and folds) according to the strength of his own cards and position. A Level 1 player will win sometimes, when their strong hands hold up for them, but will probably lose money in the long run.
A Level 2 player has developed some ability to put opponents on a range of hands. That is, a Level 2 player is able to guess some of the hands their opponent could be holding, and acts accordingly. This player considers how his opponent’s actions give information about what that opponent might have, evaluates his own hand strength in relation to that, and responds. This level of player will win much more often than when he was at Level 1, but not as much as he would at Level 3.
At Level 3 (the level at which I generally find myself), a player should win consistently. This player now has the ability to predict how his actions will influence his opponent’s reading of him. In other words, he is thinking about what his opponent is thinking about his hand strength. Confused? Understandable, but let’s see if we can’t break it down a bit. When I’m playing at Level 3, I carefully consider how every action I take will affect my table image. For instance, if I bet or raise, will my opponents think that I’m strong, or that I’m bluffing? If I check or call, will they believe that I’m weak or that I’m trapping them? As a general rule, you want your opponents to believe the opposite of the truth in order to get them to act in a manner that profits you and not them. But simply acting the opposite of your hand strength is not always going to deceive people. A Level 3 player realizes this, and disguises his strength (or lack thereof) with a fairly unpredictable playing style.
Level 4 (as you may have guessed) is simply the next iteration. You’re thinking about how your opponent is acting to disguise his hand, based on what he thinks you think he has. If you’re not confused by now, I applaud you. To simplify: your actions are all made considering his Level 3 play. This sounds simple enough, but in practice, this ability requires continual concentration at the poker table. For an online player multi-tabling, I would say it’s nearly impossible. It’s extremely difficult to maintain this level at a single table, much less two or more. This is the level at which most professionals are able to play a significant portion of the time. My play (on very rare occasions) reaches this echelon, but for the most part, I’m relegated to Level 3 and below.
The purpose of this treatise is not to teach you how to play at the higher levels. That will require practice and experience on your part. But you should be aware that these levels exist. Why do you care? How exactly does this information improve your bankroll? The answer is simple: it will help you in selecting your opponents. The object of poker is to make money, and you will make the most by taking on players that are playing at levels beneath your own. The farther beneath, the better, in my book – but that subject has been debated. But you definitely don’t want to play against players at your level or higher, at least not for substantial stakes. Once in a while I will play against Billy or some of our other friends for a few meaningless bucks, just to spar a bit and sharpen our skill-sets. But never for the amounts I play for with strangers. Why not just take the easy money?
As you continue to play, you will find yourself rising gradually from one level to the next, without any conscious effort. And occasionally (i.e., when you tilt) you will temporarily slip back down to lower levels. That’s just a part of the game.
As always, this is just advice ... you can take it or leave it. But if I took my own advice, and always played at as high a level as I’m capable, I would see fewer downswings, and the downswings I do see would be smaller.
So like always, Do as I say, not as I do …
"Do as I say ..." [Chapter 1]: Your Bankroll
Preface: The veterans out there can probably skip this article. This advice is more suitable reading for beginning to intermediate players. More for the vets forthcoming. Still, it can’t hurt to look it over.
-The Gambler
Bankroll management is one of the most valuable skills a poker player can learn – even more essential to a rounder’s arsenal than the vaunted “check-raise.” I emphasize valuable for a reason: the size of a player’s profits and losses are often the direct results of how that player manages his or her roll.
So what exactly is “bankroll management?” Like many poker concepts, it kind of depends on who you ask. To my knowledge, there isn’t an authoritative poker encyclopedia where one can just look anything up. So I’ll give you what I’ve scraped together from various articles and my own experience:
“Bankroll management is the process by which a player budgets his money to handle the swings inherent to poker.”
Seems simple enough right? You’d think so, but I struggle with this one all the time. I’ve set some basic guidelines a player should follow:
1) Don’t play above your head! Ask any poker pro the number one rule of bankroll management, and they’ll tell you the same thing. What does this mean though? How do you know what bet or blind level is right for you? Some say (and I’m inclined to agree) that a bankroll of 20 buy-ins for your bet/blind level will allow you to play comfortably in cash games, and 100 buy-ins will do the same for large tournaments. That way, if you do the unthinkable and have ten or so losing sessions in a row (don’t laugh at my misfortunes!), you’re still doing okay, not completely down and out. If your downswing lasts more than 20 cash sessions or 100 tournaments, you might want to reconsider your decision to play poker at all.
On second thought, you’re invited to play in my home game anytime you want. :)
2) Number two is – Try to keep your poker bankroll separate from your general spending cash. I know, I know – the point of playing poker is to make money, and if you’re winning, you should definitely be able to reap the benefits. My advice, though, is to only make withdrawals when absolutely necessary (like when your bankroll is swollen enough for you to finally afford that Ferrari). That way, if you have a few losing sessions, you’re not sweating over your rent or mortgage payments, or begging your Mommy for another buy-in so you can “get back to even.” If you’re playing poker for a living – which, if you are, you probably don’t need this article – then sure, you’re going to be dipping into the roll from time to time. But even so, I would suggest trying to maintain a certain level for your bankroll, and periodically withdrawing the profits to keep in a separate account for expenses.
As always, this is just advice … you can take it or leave it. But I’m pretty sure if I took my own advice, my bank account would see fewer debits and more credits.
So like always: Do as I say, not as I do …
-The Gambler
Bankroll management is one of the most valuable skills a poker player can learn – even more essential to a rounder’s arsenal than the vaunted “check-raise.” I emphasize valuable for a reason: the size of a player’s profits and losses are often the direct results of how that player manages his or her roll.
So what exactly is “bankroll management?” Like many poker concepts, it kind of depends on who you ask. To my knowledge, there isn’t an authoritative poker encyclopedia where one can just look anything up. So I’ll give you what I’ve scraped together from various articles and my own experience:
“Bankroll management is the process by which a player budgets his money to handle the swings inherent to poker.”
Seems simple enough right? You’d think so, but I struggle with this one all the time. I’ve set some basic guidelines a player should follow:
1) Don’t play above your head! Ask any poker pro the number one rule of bankroll management, and they’ll tell you the same thing. What does this mean though? How do you know what bet or blind level is right for you? Some say (and I’m inclined to agree) that a bankroll of 20 buy-ins for your bet/blind level will allow you to play comfortably in cash games, and 100 buy-ins will do the same for large tournaments. That way, if you do the unthinkable and have ten or so losing sessions in a row (don’t laugh at my misfortunes!), you’re still doing okay, not completely down and out. If your downswing lasts more than 20 cash sessions or 100 tournaments, you might want to reconsider your decision to play poker at all.
On second thought, you’re invited to play in my home game anytime you want. :)
2) Number two is – Try to keep your poker bankroll separate from your general spending cash. I know, I know – the point of playing poker is to make money, and if you’re winning, you should definitely be able to reap the benefits. My advice, though, is to only make withdrawals when absolutely necessary (like when your bankroll is swollen enough for you to finally afford that Ferrari). That way, if you have a few losing sessions, you’re not sweating over your rent or mortgage payments, or begging your Mommy for another buy-in so you can “get back to even.” If you’re playing poker for a living – which, if you are, you probably don’t need this article – then sure, you’re going to be dipping into the roll from time to time. But even so, I would suggest trying to maintain a certain level for your bankroll, and periodically withdrawing the profits to keep in a separate account for expenses.
As always, this is just advice … you can take it or leave it. But I’m pretty sure if I took my own advice, my bank account would see fewer debits and more credits.
So like always: Do as I say, not as I do …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
