You, The Machine

[peterbirks]

In John Feeney's excellent Inside The Poker Mind he writes at the end about "The Professional Attitude" and has a section called "You, The Machine". In it he hypothesized that you had compiled a computer program that could beat a certain game at a certain level. Would you, he asked, be annoyed if you checked in on the program one afternoon, saw that it was $900 ahead over the previous 24 hours, but that someone haf just hit "the machine" for a two-outer in a big pot? No, you wouldn't be upset, Feeney answered correctly. You would realize that it was part of the variance of poker.

Feeney's point was that you, as a player with a professional attitude, should aim to "think of yourself as a computer, playing on, playing correctly, hand after hand in a game that never ends".

All very sensible, you might think. Unfortunately Feeney then went on to shoot himself in the foot, because he quit the game.

The problem is, we aren't machines. We get bored playing the same way at the same level, hand after hand in a game that never ends. On other words, Feeney's recommendation is no use, because in metagaming terms it fails. It failed even for Feeney, since he stopped playing, presumably because mentally he no longer enjoyed the game. We have to find a solution that not only allows us to win, but also allows us to go on enjoying winning.

Time and again we see the impact of our being human, not being machines, on otherwise successful players. In no particular order (but because they spring to mind), players come up with various solutions. John Feeney, Demis Hassabis and Guy Bowles basically quit the game; Jackstrauss had, and Ram Vaswami and TJ Cloutier seem to have, an uncanny knack for burning up the money somehow at other, negative EV games that do not bore them. Ted Forrest went through a patch like that himself. Decker2003 and Washington DC-based blogger -EV moved up in stakes. Chris Fargis tried other games, tried more live games. Wintermute just acts like a dick to stop the boredom setting in -- the winning of money becomes secondary to psychological domination. Others go into the business side of the game (Bobby Baldwin, Howard Lederer, Doyle Brunson, Daniel Negreanu) while others turn to drugs (Ungar, Matusow).

But few, if any, can carry on "like a machine, hand after hand, in a game that never ends". In fact, to be able to do so would require that you have either a severe lack of ambition, a severe lack of imagination, or a very high threshold of boredom.

I try very hard to "play like a machine" and I probably succeed more than most. I'm not an action junkie and I don't tend to tilt. Provided my bankroll is large enough (like, er, mega-big for the stakes at which I am playing) a bad beat here and there doesn't bother me. If I feel a succession of them bothering me, I quit the tables for a few hours.

And yet, there's still ennui and hubris. After a couple of months of winning at more than 3 big bets a hundred, you get bored (ennui) and you start thinking that all you need to do to win is turn up and sit down (hubris). In fact, the money still has to be won. Your opponents do not want to give you that cash. You still need to concentrate.

What solutions are there? Well, some people have "fun time" at the poker table. This can be at a game that you do not know that well, or can even be a game that you do know well, but at very low stakes, so you can "just have some fun".

Other people severely restrict their hours, on the principle that absence makes the heart, if not grow fonder, at least not grow any less fond.

I've had a good couple of months, and I have begun to feel the two factors of "I'm bored with this, I'f better move up in stakes" and "this is a doddle, I'm going to play 4 tables four six hours a day and really earn some cake" factors come into play. Both are dangerous paths down which to travel. And yet, I'm not a machine. Feeney's apparent solution has turned out to be a fool's gold, because in metagame terms, it fails.

Perhaps meditation might be a (partial) solution.


Ommmmmmmmm

Comments

[countingmyouts.livejournal.com]

Very interesting read, Peter.

There is a lot to be said for be moving up a bit in limits if you have been running well and finding a bit of boredom kicking in. Moving up will re-energize you as you will be playing a better group of players (on average, that is) and give you the opportunity to challenge yourself further as a poker player.

Michael

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Michael:

I forgot one other "boredom avoider", and that is to switch between sites. I try to play three different sites a day, which is definitely negative EV compared with getting a handle on a particular set of tables on one site and playing for a long time at those tables, but is positive EV in that you don't head off into non-thinking mode.

Another trick that I play on myself is to start new accounts. As has been observed, this has the effect of creating a large number of "little pots of money" and I had previously thought this to be a flaw. But perhaps it was my own way of keeping myself aware of the value of money. After all, it's a bit difficult to take $2-$4 seriously when you have $5,000 sitting in your account. But, if we look at my current situation on Full Tilt, where I started with just my initial deposit of $600, I had to focus as if that were my "last" $600. This helps to stop me becoming a calling station with top pair -- a hole that I have to avoid falling into and which I still think is one of my greatest leaks in the weak-tight land that I normally find myself.

That said, I have deliberately structured my Party account so that it is hard to withdraw money. In other words, this is the account where I will be moving up in stakes. There is a certain "fiscal drag" at the other sites, but I have to get the Neteller monthly money from some place, which necessitates playing at at least one other profitable site besides Party.

PJ

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I wish it were possible to play like a (well-programmed) machine! Possible for me, that is - I'm sure there are those out there who can, and I expect they enjoy all their money.

Perhaps it's because of the machine-like aspect that I am so fond of Razz - it's so straightforward (for the most part) to sit and grind away, watching the numbers slowly increase (again, for the most part).

Of course, I'm saying that as I sit here up 40BB for 320-odd hand 2-tabling the $1/$2 on Stars, so maybe I'm being a bit disingenuous.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

The only bit of disingenuity here is that 320 hands doesn't count. It's a bit of therapeutic brain rest time. But suppose you had to get up every morning and do it for six hours through to 2pm -- could you manage it?

Part of your advantage, Mike, is that you don't play all that many hours, and many of those hours that you do play are varied, "leisure" poker. That's good. Indeed, it's probably best. Now, let's say that playing this Razz is your most profitable game, by some long way, could you play it all the time? I think not. You would choose less positive EV games to stave off the boredom. In other words, the "you, the machine" argument simply doesn't work for anyone with a brain.

Look at all the pro's blogs -- they all play different games, seek variety, seek even break-even or slightly negative EV gambles, all to keep some variety and, yes, enjoyment in the the game. If you look at BDD's post, he also mentions that, despite hitting the downswing, he was actually enjoying playing poker.

I wish that I'd gone to the Iggy site before posting the above because, well, here's the quote:

The past two years of poker has been a fascinating experience, one which I can't properly explain unless you've done it yourself. All the hyperbole and mixed metaphors can't do it justice. I've learned a lot about myself since quitting my job and being left to my own devices.

But I'm burnt out. And bored. This hasn't been the easiest of decisions, but it's one I'm sure is correct. I'm ready to give poker some space in my life - some room to breathe so I can enjoy it again.

I think that, to survive long-term as a profitable poker player, you need to take some decisions that in economic terms don't seem to make much sense. If you don't, your mental health is going to go to shit. If you want the challenge, Mikey, try playing just Razz $1-$2 for the next two months -- nothing else.

PJ

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I won't dispute that I'm a leisure player (why on earth would I!) but playing for fun requires playing for - and accumulating - money. So it's leisure rather than social, but you knew that. Apart from any other consideration I make far too much money from the 9-to-5 and can't conceive of ever being a good enough poker player to earn more.

If you want the challenge, Mikey, try playing just Razz $1-$2 for the next two months -- nothing else.

Hmm. This is actually tempting, partly because of the thrown-down gauntlet aspect and partly because of the potential to get a well-grooved game (and make a bunch of money). 8am to 2pm sounds a bit grim, though. I'd be more inclined to go for 9pm to 3am, when my market's a bit more lively. Ideally 1am to 7am but that's a touch impractical if I still have to go to the office.

If I were to try such an experiment, I think I'd have to wimp a bit. This is what could work (without serious risk of cheating by slipping into a O8 SNG...)

• 31 days. Would probably have start in October because I plan on playing at least one WCOOP tournament in September. That may also allow clearing any Stars bonus associated with the WCOOP and probably rack up a VIP freeroll entry or two for the following month. And it would have to run into November because I expect to be taking the family away for half-term.


• Any site spreading Razz (I have accounts at FTP and Stars, obviously, does anywhere else offer it? I think I may have seen Absolute mentioned? UB?).


• I think I need a couple of extra games to increase the likelihood of finding ones that have reasonable potential to be +EV; I don't like to sit down at a table with less than 30% seeing fourth street. Add $2/$4 and $3/$6?


• Multi-tabling to whatever number I can manage. More than two is currently tricky because of the need to see all the door cards as part of the decision about playing. Fortunately, memorising dead cards thereafter aren't a major consideration. I reckon I can get up to four tables with practice


• Aim to play at least 50 hours over the month, with a minimum of 100 table hours in total with an expectation of seeing about 8K hands in that time. More if possible. I think that's on the low side, actually.


• Are tournaments allowed if they're Razz?

Were my current earn rate to be maintained (about 5BB/100) that would have an expectation of 400BB or $800 at $1/$2. Throw in a bonus and maybe some rakeback (assuming another viable Razz site exists) and we could be looking at about a $1K month, which would be a very good month for me.

What do you think? Worth doing?

Restrictions

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, you can play Razz at different sites, and you can play at different stakes. But you can't play tournaments, because they require a distinctly different strategy.

Those are (kind of) the restrictions that I place on myself. And I won't restrict you to ring games only, mainly because I guess razz would automatically get short-handed anyway.

Your line of "expected profit" here (and this is a bit of a warning) is not that different from my analysis at the end of May, and I ended up losing nearly $400 in June, rather than the anticipated $2,000 gain, when I tried to apply it.

Give it a go, and see what you think about Razz at the end of a month. 50 hours might be a bit too short to get seriously fed up with a game, but it will be interesting to see how enthusiastic you feel about "one more session" at the end of the 31 days. A good chance to "know thyself" without much financial risk.

PJ