![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's all very well your desktop telling you what it's like outside, but sometimes the accuracy leaves a little to be desired. I looked outside this evening, and I think that I can say that, with absolute certainty, the sun was not shining.
++++++++++
And now, some more talk about sustainability. No, nothing to do with carbon emissions and keeping the human race alive for longer than it deserves. I mean, of course, poker.
I've long been of the opinion that a number of the "young bucks'" poker books ignore the concept of sustanability. I was very disappointed when Feeney (who wrote the excellent Inside The Poker Mind was reported to have given up the game. But I see that Matt Maroon, another author and respected player, has come to hate the game -- or, rather, hate making a living at it.
The problem is, a number of these books written by technically good poker players are written by players who haven't been playing long enough to realize that burn-out is a major problem. If they were to title the books "How to win at poker and then move on to something else when you get bored with it", then that would be fine.
A read of Matt's comments on poker (http://www.thepokerchronicles.com/) is worthwhile (bypass all the tech stuff and the Fantasy Sports Leagues; hell, we were playing stuff like that by fax a decade ago) because it seems to me to sum up what will happen to a large number of the current poker crop in their 20s. They will move on. Because, well, that's what people in their 20s do. They try lots of things, and move on from each, eventually "settling down".
Some of us, on the other hand, never grow up, and never grow out of poker.
Matt sums up some of the deep psychological paradoxes associated with poker, particulary for the American psyche (sorry if that sounds a bit Jungian), where reward is still associated with effort, rather than with a healthy slice of luck. But he makes some great points about the unique nature of playing poker for a living; the best of which, I think was, that in most jobs, even ones where you own the company, it's better to go in to work and to function sub-optimally at 90% of your best. In poker, it's probably better to stay at home (with the computer turned off), because functioning at 90% will cost you money.
In terms of sustainability, this is a strong argument in favour of playing below your optimal level -- preferably at one where you can still be a winner even if you are functioning sub-optimally. But have you read that piece of advice in any of the poker books by the young bucks? I don't thnk so. Testosterone is still a powerful force.
Matt also commented in a post earlyish last year (when the disillusion was setting in) that poker had the merit of being a genuine meritocracy, "one where racism and sexism can only cost you money".
Compare and contrast this with Terrence Chan's recent post on just this matter on December 31:
As Terrence points out, distasteful it may be, but the Phil Hellmuth route probably has more going for it in terms of sustainability than paying your own way and taking the concomitant stress.
What Terrence doesn't mention, of course, that this financial backing is not a free lunch. You have to turn up, you have to maintain a public image. If that comes naturally to you, then fine. And if you like "the tour", then fine. But if those things do not appeal to you, then you suddently find yourself in a business that is less merit-based and more "does your face fit" based.
If I were a live tournament player without company backing, this wouldn't bother me. If you think that players play better when their entry fees are paid for, look at it this way. Which opponent would you prefer -- the player who only enters when feeling good, when focused, who is playing for his own money, or the player who is contractually obliged to enter this tournament and who would rather be poolside with a bevy of beauties?
It would be nice if one of these names wrote about "How to make a living out of poker without being particularly good, and how to hang on to your money". That would have an element of sustainability (and truth) about it.
Matt Maroon echoed a point made sometime ago by Paul Phillips, one of many poker dilettantes of the past few years who wandered off elsewhere when they got bored (ahh, the enthusiasm of youth!). Phillips (and no criticism intended of him for moving on -- hell, he can afford to do what he likes) observed that nearly all people who can make a living playing poker for a living could probably make far more money elsewhere (in the long run) by applying their talents to business. I'm not sure that's quite true; some people have an ability at poker but are absolutely hopeless at the inter-personal talents required to make real cash in the business world; but I take his point. The dedication and intelligence required to make it in professional poker as a player are such that ayone who can succeed as a player would have a head start in other business-related areas.
So, who should I read and listen to in the poker world? One reason that I pay so much respect to the stuff written by BluffThis! is that I know that he has been there, done that. He's been a poker pro for a long while, both live and online, and he does the background work as well as the "obvious" work. Another man whose opinion is worth listening to is Greenstein. By comparison (for example) people such as BlueScouse simply don't count. I don't look down or up to this kind of player. That they play at the highest stakes they can find is of no interest to me.
What's worrying, however, is that a large percentage of the other poker books also seem to be written by guys in their 20s or 30s. I can't help but feel that anyone who only came to poker post-Rounders (or, more worryingly, post 2003) just can't have the wide breadth of experience needed to be able to give advice that will necessarily be solid. It might be accurate for the game 2003-2007, but that's just a very short time in Poker History. What won for you in that period won't necessarily win for you in the future.
++++++++
I know that I promised to write fewer hand histories, but I just have to put this one in, only because it made me chuckle to recall Hector's comment that such situations were rare (of course, what he meant was that they were very opponent-dependent, which meant that you were unlikely to see such a similar situation against the same opponent that often, but it was still a bit spooky to come up with two hands so similar within a week).
No macro run on this, so apologies for the primitive notation.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table Esquel
Seat 1: jayjaypg7922 ($202.63 in chips)
Seat 2: iTouchU ($42.50 in chips)
Seat 4: villain ($114.64 in chips)
Seat 5: hero ($97.50 in chips)
Seat 6: nicobln30 ($57.04 in chips)
Seat 7: ShipItshiiipIT ($32.00 in chips) DEALER
Seat 10: frenchbulldog ($59.00 in chips)
frenchbulldog: Post SB $0.50
jayjaypg7922: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain (27%/8% on small sample) [Kd Td]
Dealt to Hero [Jd Ad]
iTouchU: Fold
Villain: Call $1.00
Hero: Raise $5.00
Early Saturday evening, so this kind of raise can often end the argument there and then or, if it fails so to do, can win it on the flop. There's an argument for just raising to $3 (because the hand is suited and there are multi-way possibilities as well as heads-up), but I like the bigger raise here because it tends to get rid of any AQoffsuit that might be sitting behind you. If the players behind you treat $3 and $5 the same, I might go for the smaller raise. I don't want opponents getting emotionally committed to a hand where I want them to fold.
nicobln30: Fold
ShipItshiiipIT: Fold
frenchbulldog: Fold
jayjaypg7922: Fold
Villain: Call $4.00
*** FLOP *** [5d 2h 2d]
Villain: Check
Hero: Bet $9.00
Villain: Call $9.00
You might recall Hector's observation on the merits and demerits of Check-calling here.
*** TURN *** [3c]
Villain: Check
I think that this rules out a pair of threes at this level.
Hero: Check
*** RIVER *** [7d] completes my nut flush
Villain: Bet $15.00
LOL, as I said to myself. I have been here before, but holding the other hand. I can't see Villain holding a full house here, and I can't see him betting $15 into a $31 pot with a full house (say, if he holds 77). It could be a blocking bet with trips (say, A2s?), it could be a value bet with a lower flush. Either way, I think I can extract a call for a smallish raise. But, how much? I went with a gut instinct here and put in a bit more than I would normally. If opponent has 77, then I'm getting stacked off, but I can't see him holding any other hand that beats me.
Hero: Raise (to) $50.00
Villain: Call $35.00
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $126.50 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $126.50
++++++++
And, for those of you who thought I had drifted irredemably to the right, I took the American presidential test:
Blues are Democrats in the odd US colouring system of political preference.
Actually, the results rather surprised me (not that the top three are no-hopers, that's only to be expected) in that I thought my views would find at least some reflection amongst the more socially liberal Republicans.
++++++++++
And now, some more talk about sustainability. No, nothing to do with carbon emissions and keeping the human race alive for longer than it deserves. I mean, of course, poker.
I've long been of the opinion that a number of the "young bucks'" poker books ignore the concept of sustanability. I was very disappointed when Feeney (who wrote the excellent Inside The Poker Mind was reported to have given up the game. But I see that Matt Maroon, another author and respected player, has come to hate the game -- or, rather, hate making a living at it.
The problem is, a number of these books written by technically good poker players are written by players who haven't been playing long enough to realize that burn-out is a major problem. If they were to title the books "How to win at poker and then move on to something else when you get bored with it", then that would be fine.
A read of Matt's comments on poker (http://www.thepokerchronicles.com/) is worthwhile (bypass all the tech stuff and the Fantasy Sports Leagues; hell, we were playing stuff like that by fax a decade ago) because it seems to me to sum up what will happen to a large number of the current poker crop in their 20s. They will move on. Because, well, that's what people in their 20s do. They try lots of things, and move on from each, eventually "settling down".
Some of us, on the other hand, never grow up, and never grow out of poker.
Matt sums up some of the deep psychological paradoxes associated with poker, particulary for the American psyche (sorry if that sounds a bit Jungian), where reward is still associated with effort, rather than with a healthy slice of luck. But he makes some great points about the unique nature of playing poker for a living; the best of which, I think was, that in most jobs, even ones where you own the company, it's better to go in to work and to function sub-optimally at 90% of your best. In poker, it's probably better to stay at home (with the computer turned off), because functioning at 90% will cost you money.
In terms of sustainability, this is a strong argument in favour of playing below your optimal level -- preferably at one where you can still be a winner even if you are functioning sub-optimally. But have you read that piece of advice in any of the poker books by the young bucks? I don't thnk so. Testosterone is still a powerful force.
Matt also commented in a post earlyish last year (when the disillusion was setting in) that poker had the merit of being a genuine meritocracy, "one where racism and sexism can only cost you money".
Compare and contrast this with Terrence Chan's recent post on just this matter on December 31:
As distasteful as it is to my soul, I have flirted with the idea of becoming a "name" tournament player. It's distasteful because I've always thought of poker as one of the truly merit-based businesses. But that's becoming less and less the case. For the first time in the history of poker, the biggest winners aren't the people winning in the biggest cash games; they're the people having their buy-ins and expenses paid for, getting salaried by poker sites, and occasionally cashing in some tournament because it was inevitable they would eventually do so. And no one really talks about this, either.
As Terrence points out, distasteful it may be, but the Phil Hellmuth route probably has more going for it in terms of sustainability than paying your own way and taking the concomitant stress.
What Terrence doesn't mention, of course, that this financial backing is not a free lunch. You have to turn up, you have to maintain a public image. If that comes naturally to you, then fine. And if you like "the tour", then fine. But if those things do not appeal to you, then you suddently find yourself in a business that is less merit-based and more "does your face fit" based.
If I were a live tournament player without company backing, this wouldn't bother me. If you think that players play better when their entry fees are paid for, look at it this way. Which opponent would you prefer -- the player who only enters when feeling good, when focused, who is playing for his own money, or the player who is contractually obliged to enter this tournament and who would rather be poolside with a bevy of beauties?
It would be nice if one of these names wrote about "How to make a living out of poker without being particularly good, and how to hang on to your money". That would have an element of sustainability (and truth) about it.
Matt Maroon echoed a point made sometime ago by Paul Phillips, one of many poker dilettantes of the past few years who wandered off elsewhere when they got bored (ahh, the enthusiasm of youth!). Phillips (and no criticism intended of him for moving on -- hell, he can afford to do what he likes) observed that nearly all people who can make a living playing poker for a living could probably make far more money elsewhere (in the long run) by applying their talents to business. I'm not sure that's quite true; some people have an ability at poker but are absolutely hopeless at the inter-personal talents required to make real cash in the business world; but I take his point. The dedication and intelligence required to make it in professional poker as a player are such that ayone who can succeed as a player would have a head start in other business-related areas.
So, who should I read and listen to in the poker world? One reason that I pay so much respect to the stuff written by BluffThis! is that I know that he has been there, done that. He's been a poker pro for a long while, both live and online, and he does the background work as well as the "obvious" work. Another man whose opinion is worth listening to is Greenstein. By comparison (for example) people such as BlueScouse simply don't count. I don't look down or up to this kind of player. That they play at the highest stakes they can find is of no interest to me.
What's worrying, however, is that a large percentage of the other poker books also seem to be written by guys in their 20s or 30s. I can't help but feel that anyone who only came to poker post-Rounders (or, more worryingly, post 2003) just can't have the wide breadth of experience needed to be able to give advice that will necessarily be solid. It might be accurate for the game 2003-2007, but that's just a very short time in Poker History. What won for you in that period won't necessarily win for you in the future.
++++++++
I know that I promised to write fewer hand histories, but I just have to put this one in, only because it made me chuckle to recall Hector's comment that such situations were rare (of course, what he meant was that they were very opponent-dependent, which meant that you were unlikely to see such a similar situation against the same opponent that often, but it was still a bit spooky to come up with two hands so similar within a week).
No macro run on this, so apologies for the primitive notation.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table Esquel
Seat 1: jayjaypg7922 ($202.63 in chips)
Seat 2: iTouchU ($42.50 in chips)
Seat 4: villain ($114.64 in chips)
Seat 5: hero ($97.50 in chips)
Seat 6: nicobln30 ($57.04 in chips)
Seat 7: ShipItshiiipIT ($32.00 in chips) DEALER
Seat 10: frenchbulldog ($59.00 in chips)
frenchbulldog: Post SB $0.50
jayjaypg7922: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain (27%/8% on small sample) [Kd Td]
Dealt to Hero [Jd Ad]
iTouchU: Fold
Villain: Call $1.00
Hero: Raise $5.00
Early Saturday evening, so this kind of raise can often end the argument there and then or, if it fails so to do, can win it on the flop. There's an argument for just raising to $3 (because the hand is suited and there are multi-way possibilities as well as heads-up), but I like the bigger raise here because it tends to get rid of any AQoffsuit that might be sitting behind you. If the players behind you treat $3 and $5 the same, I might go for the smaller raise. I don't want opponents getting emotionally committed to a hand where I want them to fold.
nicobln30: Fold
ShipItshiiipIT: Fold
frenchbulldog: Fold
jayjaypg7922: Fold
Villain: Call $4.00
*** FLOP *** [5d 2h 2d]
Villain: Check
Hero: Bet $9.00
Villain: Call $9.00
You might recall Hector's observation on the merits and demerits of Check-calling here.
*** TURN *** [3c]
Villain: Check
I think that this rules out a pair of threes at this level.
Hero: Check
*** RIVER *** [7d] completes my nut flush
Villain: Bet $15.00
LOL, as I said to myself. I have been here before, but holding the other hand. I can't see Villain holding a full house here, and I can't see him betting $15 into a $31 pot with a full house (say, if he holds 77). It could be a blocking bet with trips (say, A2s?), it could be a value bet with a lower flush. Either way, I think I can extract a call for a smallish raise. But, how much? I went with a gut instinct here and put in a bit more than I would normally. If opponent has 77, then I'm getting stacked off, but I can't see him holding any other hand that beats me.
Hero: Raise (to) $50.00
Villain: Call $35.00
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $126.50 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $126.50
++++++++
And, for those of you who thought I had drifted irredemably to the right, I took the American presidential test:
69% Dennis Kucinich
68% Mike Gravel
68% Chris Dodd
64% Barack Obama
62% Hillary Clinton
62% Bill Richardson
60% Joe Biden
60% John Edwards
51% Rudy Giuliani
47% Ron Paul
47% Mitt Romney
39% John McCain
34% Fred Thompson
33% Mike Huckabee
27% Tom Tancredo
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
Blues are Democrats in the odd US colouring system of political preference.
Actually, the results rather surprised me (not that the top three are no-hopers, that's only to be expected) in that I thought my views would find at least some reflection amongst the more socially liberal Republicans.
