our global life
Nov. 24th, 2005 07:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAbout 20 years ago I doubt that I would have even known that it was Thanksgiving weekend. Nowadays it affects most of my life. News is thin on the ground (Malawi ground-nut drought insurance anyone?) at work, but in online poker, the poor players online all come out to play. Certainly last night it seemed remarkably easy. Then again, the game is always easy when things go according to plan. It's a long weekend and it's a good idea to get in as many hours as possible. Last night I saw one player who saw 100% of flops and did not raise preflop with anything. Tended to call flop and turn with one overcard or any gutshot and then would lay down on the river if he had failed to pair. This went on for about 100 hands and, somehow, he didn't lose all that much money.
I tried to make both my tables as light and chatty as possible, but there was the predictable minority of alpha-male-wannabees who were more concerned with convincing the table that they were the best player than they were with keeping the social players happy.
I particularly liked the line from one of the social players in response to the comment "f u loser". She said:
You mean that you do this for a living? My, what a terrible life. I do sympathize.
Not really much that the wank-pot could say in answer to that.
+++++
One of my beefs in life is players showing cards after winning a pot to show that another player has folded the winning hand. Now, as far as I am concerned, any strategy that has plus EV meta-game implications is fine. I don't happen to think that showing cards usually has these implications, but that is not the point of my argument. My beef is, nearly all players who show cards will claim that they did it "to loosen up the game" or (with more dubious long-term value) because they "wanted to put the other guy on tilt" (I say dubious because this might gain over one session, but it is also likely to stop a guy wanting to play with you for future sessions or, indeed, wanting to play at all).
But it's my opinion that this is not the real reason that they are showing their cards. The real reason is: "Look at me, I'm a better player than you. I've just pushed you off a hand, and I want the rest of the table to know it".
Yes, we are back to alpha-male land and attempting to establish psychological dominance in a group.
Now, once we know this, the mere act of a player showing cards when he has bluffed someone off a pot tells you a lot about that player. You understand his psychological needs, what gives him subconscious pleasure and what is likely to subconsciously disturb him (being "unmanned"). Oh, plus the fact that he probably bluffs very rarely, so making a laydown is usually the best move when he puts in a big bet.
I tried to make both my tables as light and chatty as possible, but there was the predictable minority of alpha-male-wannabees who were more concerned with convincing the table that they were the best player than they were with keeping the social players happy.
I particularly liked the line from one of the social players in response to the comment "f u loser". She said:
You mean that you do this for a living? My, what a terrible life. I do sympathize.
Not really much that the wank-pot could say in answer to that.
+++++
One of my beefs in life is players showing cards after winning a pot to show that another player has folded the winning hand. Now, as far as I am concerned, any strategy that has plus EV meta-game implications is fine. I don't happen to think that showing cards usually has these implications, but that is not the point of my argument. My beef is, nearly all players who show cards will claim that they did it "to loosen up the game" or (with more dubious long-term value) because they "wanted to put the other guy on tilt" (I say dubious because this might gain over one session, but it is also likely to stop a guy wanting to play with you for future sessions or, indeed, wanting to play at all).
But it's my opinion that this is not the real reason that they are showing their cards. The real reason is: "Look at me, I'm a better player than you. I've just pushed you off a hand, and I want the rest of the table to know it".
Yes, we are back to alpha-male land and attempting to establish psychological dominance in a group.
Now, once we know this, the mere act of a player showing cards when he has bluffed someone off a pot tells you a lot about that player. You understand his psychological needs, what gives him subconscious pleasure and what is likely to subconsciously disturb him (being "unmanned"). Oh, plus the fact that he probably bluffs very rarely, so making a laydown is usually the best move when he puts in a big bet.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
chaos
Date: 2005-11-24 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-24 03:08 pm (UTC)The advantages are nebulous and difficult to weigh unless one knows the opponent(s) exceedingly well. I would suggest there are very few times when the advantage is clear enough to be worth trying for.
So, obvious disadvantage weighed against nebulous advantage?
I never, ever show hands. I don't want any opponent ever to be better-informed.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-24 03:22 pm (UTC)chaos
no subject
Date: 2005-11-24 03:25 pm (UTC)chaos
no subject
Date: 2005-11-24 04:06 pm (UTC)My point being...
Date: 2005-11-24 05:37 pm (UTC)However, if I can refer back to my post: I don't happen to think that showing cards usually has these implications, but that is not the point of my argument.
My argument was that most players (and I exclude chaos from this group) claim that they are revealing their cards for one reason, when in fact they are revealing their cards for another, deeper, psychological reason. Their argument is a post hoc justification for what they probably know, deep inside, is not a clever move.
To this extent, the validity of the play (exposing cards that you do not need to) is irrelevant. This was a piece on "know yourself".
Thanks rib for the food shift. I can always trust you to get to the real kernel of the matter. Coming soon -- why nothing can beat roast rib of beef, bone-in.
PJ
Re: My point being...
Date: 2005-11-24 11:08 pm (UTC)chaos
Showing Uncalled Hands
Date: 2005-11-25 03:55 am (UTC)I would agree in general Peter that showing your uncalled hands, whether they be the nuts or a bluff is a bad practice. Particularly since I only play pot-limit and no-limit games, anything you do that might have an adverse effect in the long run rates to cost you not just a partial bet long term, but a lot of money. In particular, if you run a successful bluff and show, you are now playing a mind game about the levels of thought the next time you make a bet: I know he did this last time, and he knows that I know, etc. The problem is that even with regular opponents you cannot judge accurately at what level they will stop and thus will have an unpredictable outcome as a response to your bet. This can only be desireable if you use a perfect game theory optimized percentage of bluffing, not just in the game as a whole, but also against a particular opponent.
In practice however, whether you should bluff or not depends upon lots of things like the particular opponent, the number of opponents, and the texture of the board. But if you introduce an extra factor that might make your opponent's reaction unpredictable, especially when the pot size is smaller and his response is not dictated by pot odds, then you might well be hurting yourself in the long run. And I agree with your view that basically showing cards, unless for very clear and good reasons, is usually an ego thing either way.
BluffTHIS!
P.S. to Ribbo: funny how you make an off-topic comment here but didn't respond to my comments about hi/lo that Peter repeated a few posts ago. Oh well.
Re: Showing Uncalled Hands
Date: 2005-11-25 11:46 am (UTC)In limit these things can burn out so quickly (as they scar less), and often the benefit and or the 'cost' of that play is short term. Of course all the short terms collect up, but a unique hand is unlikely to have long term implications, I suspect.
There is little doubt in my mind that an individuals perception of probability is distorted, heavily distorted. The reason being we weight events with emotion - classically, we always remember the bad beats. My common example is in BJ, if I didn't know it was wrong, I'd take insurance every time. If say losing to the BJ feels 50% worse than winning a bet then its going to feel like and even money shot in our weighted store of hands.
Now also, if a tight player shows me all his bluffs in an evening, say 3% of all hands. Am I convinced that he has just bluffed 3% of the time? Probably not, and even if I am up in the neo-cortex, I'm likely not going to be down in the emotional centres or the subconscious. If I feel that his bluffing is 3% then he has made a mistake, but if I believe that it is 6% then he is advantaged, especially as I might have *felt* it was 3% before.
I certainly agree the 'he knows that I know problem arises', but that shouldn't put us off, it is still zero-sum, someones gaining or losing - I think we all believe that we're going to be out thought by our oppo - which is why I often shy away from doing it. But I suspect that's insecurity and fear of operating outside our comfort zone.
On the net, in particular, we/I sometimes see past hands flash up and distort the picture, mainly from our amygdala (I believe), and justify a play as a result. It is a difficult area, and one I'm far from comfortable with, but there are benefits to be had, of that I'm sure.
chaos
Re: Showing Uncalled Hands
Date: 2005-11-25 01:10 pm (UTC)chaos