![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On live poker
Jul. 24th, 2005 09:46 amI definitely sometimes wonder whether I should post about poker (especially when I don't get paid for it!). I suspect that there's hundreds of sharks out there, taking in every word, mumbling to themselves "ahh, that's how he plays..." and then taking the useful bits and incorporating them into their game. Meanwhile, muggins here gets no plus out of it at all. Well, there is one plus. The more time they spend trawling the web looking for the latest thoughts, the less time they can be at the tables making money.
Big Dave wrote in his recent Stan James article that most winnings maximization at Limit comes from the simple strategy of playing more hands. Play well at four tables rather than brilliantly at one. There is a downside here, in that if you eventual aim is to improve your win rate, rather than maximize it at its current level, then playing at one table at a higher level could be seen as part research and development costs. Glaxo SmithKline Beecham Wellcome (or whatever they are called now) could maximize earnings by doing no R&D, but it wouldn't be a sound business strategy.
The same applies to thinking about the game when you aren't playing. Unlike most people, I'm rarely in a situation where I can't play the game but I can think about it (few long train journeys, car drives, etc). So all the time that I spend thinking about the game, I am potentially giving up an earn. It's the R&D syndrome again. A specific amount of time needs to be allocated to R&D but, the big question is, how much?
Anyway, that wasn't what I was going to write about. My eyes were caught by a post that Felicia Lee's husband Glenn posted re live NL poker. He made two comments. One was that he was in a game where even the dealer was moved to comment "wow, we've seen a flop". Dealers hate no-action games, because no-action games mean no-action tips, and they carry on working for between $5.50 and $7 an hour. It's unprofessional for a dealer to do this (I once saw a dealer say "let's have a scramble" before giving the cards a good mix-up because the game was as dead as a doornail! I'm only surprised she didn't call for a new deck.) but hardly unsurprising.
You will get more and more of these no-action games in LV because, to be blunt, a higher and higher percentage of players will be playing the ultra-tight game needed when blinds are low compared to average-size pots. As the no-action games develop, either the blinds will have to be increased to stimulate action, or the games will become unprofitable for all-and-sundry. There just won't be enough NL fish to go round.
A second point he made was that with, say a hand like QQ in the SB where you have raised and been called in one spot, you should watch the player rather than the flop and fire out if the guy doesn't seem that interested in what he sees.
This "watch the player" tip can be quite useful, but I find it being used by player who have read that it's a good idea, but don't know what to do with it. And, in some games, it can have hilarious consequences. I can spot a "watch the player"-type player pretty quickly, and my usual response is simply to stare back at them. Against one young guy in Bellagio (this guy was quite good, so we both had a laugh about it), we played an entire hand without either of us looking at the board, because neither would break eye contact. In the end my AQ lost to his AK on a rag board.
The question is, how to respond to this type of player? There are numerous possibilities:
1) Look them in the eye and say "what are you staring at, pal? The cards are that way." (The "jeez, is this guy a dangerous sociopath?" tactic).
2) Close your eyes and don't look at the board for 10 seconds. Tell yourself that the board has helped you. Pretend that you have fallen asleep. Wait to be nudged by another player. Anything to throw the "starer" of his or her stroke (the "I am playing at such low stakes that I don't really care what the flop is" tactic).
3) If you are first to act, fire out a bet at exactly the split second that the dealer spreads the three cards if ANY of those cards looks vaguely helpful. This gives the "starer" very little time to get any read on you at all, but any read that he or she is likely to get will be that your hand is good.
4) Stare back at them and say "I can do this as well. Shall we look at the board and play some cards?" Smile. Look at the board. Say "well, it don't help me much, but I can see that it helped you even less". Yes, moody territory at work, I know. Fuck 'em. Let 'em complain.
Big Dave wrote in his recent Stan James article that most winnings maximization at Limit comes from the simple strategy of playing more hands. Play well at four tables rather than brilliantly at one. There is a downside here, in that if you eventual aim is to improve your win rate, rather than maximize it at its current level, then playing at one table at a higher level could be seen as part research and development costs. Glaxo SmithKline Beecham Wellcome (or whatever they are called now) could maximize earnings by doing no R&D, but it wouldn't be a sound business strategy.
The same applies to thinking about the game when you aren't playing. Unlike most people, I'm rarely in a situation where I can't play the game but I can think about it (few long train journeys, car drives, etc). So all the time that I spend thinking about the game, I am potentially giving up an earn. It's the R&D syndrome again. A specific amount of time needs to be allocated to R&D but, the big question is, how much?
Anyway, that wasn't what I was going to write about. My eyes were caught by a post that Felicia Lee's husband Glenn posted re live NL poker. He made two comments. One was that he was in a game where even the dealer was moved to comment "wow, we've seen a flop". Dealers hate no-action games, because no-action games mean no-action tips, and they carry on working for between $5.50 and $7 an hour. It's unprofessional for a dealer to do this (I once saw a dealer say "let's have a scramble" before giving the cards a good mix-up because the game was as dead as a doornail! I'm only surprised she didn't call for a new deck.) but hardly unsurprising.
You will get more and more of these no-action games in LV because, to be blunt, a higher and higher percentage of players will be playing the ultra-tight game needed when blinds are low compared to average-size pots. As the no-action games develop, either the blinds will have to be increased to stimulate action, or the games will become unprofitable for all-and-sundry. There just won't be enough NL fish to go round.
A second point he made was that with, say a hand like QQ in the SB where you have raised and been called in one spot, you should watch the player rather than the flop and fire out if the guy doesn't seem that interested in what he sees.
This "watch the player" tip can be quite useful, but I find it being used by player who have read that it's a good idea, but don't know what to do with it. And, in some games, it can have hilarious consequences. I can spot a "watch the player"-type player pretty quickly, and my usual response is simply to stare back at them. Against one young guy in Bellagio (this guy was quite good, so we both had a laugh about it), we played an entire hand without either of us looking at the board, because neither would break eye contact. In the end my AQ lost to his AK on a rag board.
The question is, how to respond to this type of player? There are numerous possibilities:
1) Look them in the eye and say "what are you staring at, pal? The cards are that way." (The "jeez, is this guy a dangerous sociopath?" tactic).
2) Close your eyes and don't look at the board for 10 seconds. Tell yourself that the board has helped you. Pretend that you have fallen asleep. Wait to be nudged by another player. Anything to throw the "starer" of his or her stroke (the "I am playing at such low stakes that I don't really care what the flop is" tactic).
3) If you are first to act, fire out a bet at exactly the split second that the dealer spreads the three cards if ANY of those cards looks vaguely helpful. This gives the "starer" very little time to get any read on you at all, but any read that he or she is likely to get will be that your hand is good.
4) Stare back at them and say "I can do this as well. Shall we look at the board and play some cards?" Smile. Look at the board. Say "well, it don't help me much, but I can see that it helped you even less". Yes, moody territory at work, I know. Fuck 'em. Let 'em complain.
