![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)
Jun. 10th, 2006 01:22 pmIn Iggy's latest über-post he links to a 1999 RGP thread - www.tinyurl.com/s9cqb - that immediately got me thinking of the master poker writer of them all, John Fox.
The thread, which gained contributions from the like of Abdul Jalib, Negreanu, Carson and many others, basically involved asking what you should do on the flop with a pair of 4s in a live 30/60 game in Vegas, where there has been a three-bet-behind you pre-flop and ... well, that's not important. You can read the thread for the details of the hand.
All people studying this hand avidly could do worse than turn to page 51 of Fox's Play Poker, Quit Work And Sleep Till Noon!, where Fox writes:
Unfortunately I have frequently seen some sharp but inexperienced young player learn a new technical play and then enthusiastically run off to play. ... Such a player does not realize that his new play adds about one-hundredth of one per cent to his effectiveness.
I'm not saying that the thread isn't interesting, but I might argue about whether understanding it will make you much of a better player.
John Fox reckons that "technical plays" are about 7% of a decent card player's armoury. "Feeling well" and "Finding a weak game", together, make up 60%. Together, "presenting an image" and "picking up reads" add 19%.
If there are 200 contributions to a technical point in poker, the one thing that I would predict with absolute certainty is that the play is marginal. In other words, (in the case mentioned in this thread that was based on a real Malmuth hand that, surprise surprise, Malmuth won) it probably didn't make much difference if you folded, called, or raised. In a sense that makes the hand "interesting" because, in most cases, it does make a significant difference to your EV if you fold, call, or raise.
The closest to an update of the John Fox book is Greenstein's Ace In The Hole (if only the bastard book wasn't so heavy) but I think that there is a space in the market for the real "Why You Lose At Poker" book (although I hear that Fox's namesake Russell is indeed producing just such a work).
This should start Chapter One with "We assume that you know the basics, that you are a competent player. But, you still lose. This book will show you why".
It will include such questions as "do you throw away your winnings on satellite entries because you are counting that as "fun" and therefore not to be included in your overall figures?" and "do you sometimes play on a Friday night when you have had too much to drink?"
It will move on to "have you ever stayed in a bad game, when you are tired, because you are stuck?" and will tell you how to break such patterns of behaviour. In other words, it won't say "Don't play when tired, ill, or drunk". It will tell you how not to play when tired, ill or drunk. It will also tell you how and when to get away from bad games. it will cover such online strategems as "sit down, post behind the button, play aggressively and, if you are down when the blinds get round to you, leave. Otherwise, stay for as long as you are maintainng a dominant, aggressive and unpredictable image. When you hit a bit of a bad patch, leave, because most of your opponents won't have been there when you were winning".
I probably spend a lot of time projecting an image. The main one is the "I'm just here to gambooool" image. If I make a play that comes off but which an ABC player might think was a bit nutty (say, three-betting a tight player who has raised first in one off the button. I happen to know that the opponent uses his tight image to steal pots from this position, but is liable to lay down a hand on the turn if he has missed, so my three-bet can be from some very odd holdings indeed) I do not explain my real thought processes. I project the "gambooooling" image. How many players do you see doing that online? Most of them seem keen to tell the rest of the table how good they are. Well, duh, if you're that good, you'll be good enough to keep it a secret.
You can learn a lot from player's chat (and from their silence) and the "I'm not the fish, he is" kind of comment is one of the most revealing of all. You can almost predict an entire pattern of play from that comment alone.
So, the next time you get drawn into a deep debate about the technical strength of a play, enjoy the debate, but don't think that it is the route to poker winnings. There are simpler solutions around, but they have to do with what makes you the person you are, not what chance a pair of 4s has of winning in a particular situation.
PJ
The thread, which gained contributions from the like of Abdul Jalib, Negreanu, Carson and many others, basically involved asking what you should do on the flop with a pair of 4s in a live 30/60 game in Vegas, where there has been a three-bet-behind you pre-flop and ... well, that's not important. You can read the thread for the details of the hand.
All people studying this hand avidly could do worse than turn to page 51 of Fox's Play Poker, Quit Work And Sleep Till Noon!, where Fox writes:
Unfortunately I have frequently seen some sharp but inexperienced young player learn a new technical play and then enthusiastically run off to play. ... Such a player does not realize that his new play adds about one-hundredth of one per cent to his effectiveness.
I'm not saying that the thread isn't interesting, but I might argue about whether understanding it will make you much of a better player.
John Fox reckons that "technical plays" are about 7% of a decent card player's armoury. "Feeling well" and "Finding a weak game", together, make up 60%. Together, "presenting an image" and "picking up reads" add 19%.
If there are 200 contributions to a technical point in poker, the one thing that I would predict with absolute certainty is that the play is marginal. In other words, (in the case mentioned in this thread that was based on a real Malmuth hand that, surprise surprise, Malmuth won) it probably didn't make much difference if you folded, called, or raised. In a sense that makes the hand "interesting" because, in most cases, it does make a significant difference to your EV if you fold, call, or raise.
The closest to an update of the John Fox book is Greenstein's Ace In The Hole (if only the bastard book wasn't so heavy) but I think that there is a space in the market for the real "Why You Lose At Poker" book (although I hear that Fox's namesake Russell is indeed producing just such a work).
This should start Chapter One with "We assume that you know the basics, that you are a competent player. But, you still lose. This book will show you why".
It will include such questions as "do you throw away your winnings on satellite entries because you are counting that as "fun" and therefore not to be included in your overall figures?" and "do you sometimes play on a Friday night when you have had too much to drink?"
It will move on to "have you ever stayed in a bad game, when you are tired, because you are stuck?" and will tell you how to break such patterns of behaviour. In other words, it won't say "Don't play when tired, ill, or drunk". It will tell you how not to play when tired, ill or drunk. It will also tell you how and when to get away from bad games. it will cover such online strategems as "sit down, post behind the button, play aggressively and, if you are down when the blinds get round to you, leave. Otherwise, stay for as long as you are maintainng a dominant, aggressive and unpredictable image. When you hit a bit of a bad patch, leave, because most of your opponents won't have been there when you were winning".
I probably spend a lot of time projecting an image. The main one is the "I'm just here to gambooool" image. If I make a play that comes off but which an ABC player might think was a bit nutty (say, three-betting a tight player who has raised first in one off the button. I happen to know that the opponent uses his tight image to steal pots from this position, but is liable to lay down a hand on the turn if he has missed, so my three-bet can be from some very odd holdings indeed) I do not explain my real thought processes. I project the "gambooooling" image. How many players do you see doing that online? Most of them seem keen to tell the rest of the table how good they are. Well, duh, if you're that good, you'll be good enough to keep it a secret.
You can learn a lot from player's chat (and from their silence) and the "I'm not the fish, he is" kind of comment is one of the most revealing of all. You can almost predict an entire pattern of play from that comment alone.
So, the next time you get drawn into a deep debate about the technical strength of a play, enjoy the debate, but don't think that it is the route to poker winnings. There are simpler solutions around, but they have to do with what makes you the person you are, not what chance a pair of 4s has of winning in a particular situation.
PJ
