You, The Machine
Aug. 27th, 2006 10:59 amIn 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
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