After writing the epic-sized last post about my day trip to AC, I got into a long series of emails with PokerMeister and Josh, one of the participants in my WSOP pool. The topic of conversation was overplaying trips, based on the couple of trip-hands I had in AC. The specifics are largely unimportant, though, for today’s post, because what really caught my attention was the amazing difference with which certain players approach the game.
I will admit that for the largest part of this year, my poker game has been stagnant. The largest culprit, in my estimation, is merely the lack of live action available to me. No matter what I may want, I am first and foremost a live game player. Without the ample amount of live games, formerly supplied by the Wall Street Poker game and then the Tuna Club (and before those, the Salami Club and Nice Look Club), I just don’t have the opportunity to play as many hands as I would like. This, naturally, leads to less analysis and stagnation.
But besides the lack of live play, the other reason for my stagnation is the simple fact that I am not taking the time to really analyze the game. Sure, there is no better teacher than experience, but experience has taught me that it teaches best when there is a review class. In other words, experience the poker, and then experience the analysis of the same hand and the game in general.
This has all come to the forefront of my mind largely because of my conversations with PokerMeister. In the world of poker blogging, you can rub elbows with a wide swath of people, all with one commonality, the love of the game. Meister fits securely in that love-the-game category, but his approach to the game is so different than mine that sometimes I wonder what the hell I am doing.
Sometimes it feels like I am on auto-pilot and he is a test-pilot.
At least online. Look, live is a different story. I can get by with understanding how people act and picking up on social cues, although I could benefit from more “study.” Online, though, is where the real differences come to light.
Let me say this. I respect Meister a lot. He has been trying to help me improve, which is something I wholeheartedly appreciate and enjoy. Case in point, he got me to finally bite the bullet and install Holdem Manager, a program that keeps stats on your opponents and then displays the stats on top of the FT or PS screen so that you know who is capable of what. I’m still in the Demo trial period, but just using it for one tournament has assured me that I will end up making the full purchase. He has also brought me in on some poker hand conversations that got me to think critically about the game. And what amazes me is how his brain works in regards to poker. He has a certain tenacity and appetite for knowledge and analysis that just doesn’t naturally come my way.
I wonder if it is the difference between a traditional live player (me) and a predominantly online player (Meister). Meister seems to approach the game as though it is a math problem to be solved. No, he doesn’t necessarily focus on math (although in his hand history analysis, he does rely on stats of his opponents), but I don’t necessarily ignore math either. It’s like the difference between solving a math problem (Meister) and painting a picture (me). Meister seems to want to figure out how the game works using logic and statistics, and I want to create success through social tools.
Hopefully, some of Meister will rub off on me. Hell, it already has. And to thank him for his encouragement and help, I think its time for me to open up my blogroll.
So, there it is. PokerMeister in the sidebar. Check it out.
And while I am at it, check out the wholly unrelated link in the sidebar for We Delivery, a pet project started by my wife chronicling misspelled signs and menus. Hence, “We Delivery” a typo we once saw on a Chinese food takeout menu.
Until next time, make mine poker!
August 4th, 2010 - 11:43 am
Ego = HUGE
Thanks for the addition to the blogroll!
August 4th, 2010 - 12:15 pm
Digesting what you wrote, I think there is a ton of truth in your evaluation. In my experience, there are two professions that dominate poker: engineers & lawyers. Perhaps this is an offshoot of our chosen professions.
You are a lawyer by trade, with a superb understanding of game theory. It is what they teach you in law school (among other things), and it is what you use in your non-poker life. Your goal is two bring two or more parties together to reach an agreement. I think the game theory world very much delves into psychology, akin to your artist analogy above… the classic left / right half of your brain (don’t know which it is).
In contrast, I, as the career engineer, approach the game in much the same way I approach my job. I look at a poker hand as a problem to be solved. There is an optimal solution that I am intent on finding. I use logic and numbers to get there, as those are the tools I was taught to use in my schooling.
I happen to think the engineer works much better in the online poker setting, whereas the lawyer works better in the live poker setting. The lawyer can gain a feel for an opponent’s mood or feelings, while the engineer can quickly dissect a situation based on the numbers on the screen in front of him. However, the two are not mutually exclusive; they mix constantly, which is where our conversation spawned.
Back to the main point of my response: I look at Tom Dwan and Phil Galfond as yardsticks. My goal in my poker ‘career” is to be like either of them or eLkY or any of the other young guns. Phil & Tom, for example, have a “stable” of poker players, each other as the core, to bounce ideas off of, replay hands, discuss thoughts and talk general philosophy. Side note: While I think a lot of the “diversity inclusion” in corporate culture nowadays is a TON OF BS, I think it lends itself nicely to the poker table.
The reality is, most of my friends are in engineering-related / technical fields. Among us, we can have differing opinions, but it always comes back to statistics and number-crunching. Including you in the mix begins to get that “diversity inclusion” that is so needed in the conversation. It’s a win-win for all parties involved; you gain a better technical understanding, while the engineers gain a game theory / psychology perspective.
As you get more into online poker and I into live poker, I think the trade becomes more & more critical. So there I stand; I have put my cards on the proverbial table
. Looks like we have a match.
Standard disclaimer / “Diversity inclusion”: I am making a broad generalization about the law / engineer professions dominating the world of poker. In my experience, I have found that the better poker player are in those lines of work, but that does not necessarily exclude other professions from succeeding. Obviously, there are TONS of exceptions!
August 4th, 2010 - 1:54 pm
Fun reading today, Jordan and Meister. I agree that it seems like many poker players are engineers and lawyers, but I’d also add techies. Throw in some guys like me who comes from a different discipline, and we have the makings for interesting poker — and conversations.
The interesting thing is, I see both of you as having a good capacity to understand the differences, thus having great potential to continually improve your game. I cannot say that about everyone with whom I play.
August 4th, 2010 - 3:58 pm
Couldn’t agree more with these comments and the post. As it pertains to hand analysis, would be interested to get HoP’s and PMeister’s (other others) views on the 10-8-7 hand HoP described in his last post (mid-way or so in the Odyssey).
@HoP — why do you rule out 88, 77, and presumably 10-8 so quickly, the first two you did based on the lack of a pf raise? Been a while since I played a live 1-2 game in AC, but I recall lots of people limping those hands. I certainly would in 1-2 and 2-5 live games depending on stack sizes. Against shorties, the money could easily go in post-flop anyway if both hit. If deep, getting 3bet is not a great spot live (especially with the pockets). Are obvious advantages to raising, especially if it gets you position too of course. Just curious why you did not consider those hands more.
August 4th, 2010 - 4:33 pm
@ClassClown20: The T 8 7 hand was crappy. With a ton of limpers, I’ve been staying out of trouble by pricing out stupid hands. In other words, I’m putting out $10 + $2 / limper. Given Jordan bet $10, it invited everyone to come along as he correctly points out in the retelling. If the villain, Marc, is a TPTK kinda guy – willing to go to town with that hand, then I think Jordan’s right in making that call. Given the PFR, though, and the possibilities for 87, J9 (my favorite hand
), and 77, 88 flopped sets, I have to be questioning calling a $40 flop raise. I think Jordan’s right in taking pause, but he needs to re-evaluate his PF decision of raising to $10. Anyone with literally ATC can be in there – as has been my experience with live poker. Literally, unless you’re raising to $15+ at a 1/2 game, any suited cards, gappers, Ax, (I’ve even seen) Kx hands are invited to come along for the thrill ride. Obviously, this don’t fly in online poker, but your standard 1/2 player has no problem throwing 5BBs away on poor odds. Assuming Jordan makes the flop call, he is shoved on at the turn with an innocuous 5. The 5 does not complete anything – 6 9 was already there, as was J9. The question I have is how much was the turn shove? I agree, though. If you’re calling $40 more on the flop, and the remaining stack is less than or close to $40, then it’s an easy call. It is correct to realize that Jordan’s playing for stacks by calling on the flop.
The conversation really spawned, though, out of an email about the J 6 7 hand. I sent Jordan a reference to the Baluga Theorem, which says that when facing an unexpected raise on the turn, your TP is no good. Baluga does not exactly apply here, as he was unexpectedly raised at the river, but the idea is still the same. Goomba guy calls the flop bet and bets the turn. I have to place him on a range of hands including Kx (spades), AsKs (I have seen numerous people limp AK in live games), KJ (DOMINATED!), 8s9s (not possible; Jordan has the 9s), 4s5s, sets, etc. I can likely discount the drawing OESFD hands… I don’t think Goomba is leading $25 on another connecting card for Jordan. Whatever, though; given Jordan’s flopped monster, I’m calling here or maybe even raising. Jordan’s hand is SO strong on the flop – TP + FD – that I’m bet bet betting and check / raising. I don’t know that I’m controlling the pot size on the turn unless I feel like the guy can have squarely KJ, which is a hand that can withstand the c/r turn. Okay… so the river: Jordan rivers his TP to make trips. What kind of value can he ever expect from this hand? He led the flop and gets bet into on his checked turn.
I think I go for the check / call because I have no idea where I am in the hand. It’s a really hard fold on the river to his min raise, but now I have most of my stack in (assuming $200 effectives stacks). He’s either got me beat or he’s trying to bluff me off which is a rarity online (and I’m assuming live 1/2 as well). He’s polarized with his raise. That’s why I check / call. Sorry for the book again. Just describing what kicked off the discussion.
August 4th, 2010 - 4:34 pm
BTW, standard disclaimer: As Jordan pointed out in his original post, I’m an online guy. Obviously, I wasn’t there, so it’s really easy to criticize how the hand went down in reading about it later.
August 4th, 2010 - 5:56 pm
Thanks for the comments, guys. Let me just touch on that T87 hand. Marc is my brother-in-law, so I know him well. He is a savvy player and a competitive guy. Given the amount of limpers before him, if he had 77, 88 or TT, he wouldn’t have just limped. He would’ve raised. As for the other guy to his left who actually had the 99, I wasn’t as sure when it came to him, but he was playing passively and showed no capacity to slowplay, which led me to think he was less of a concern post-flop. If he had 77, 88, or TT on that flop, I would’ve expected him to re-raise Marc.
Now, why did I think Marc would be willing to re-raise $40 on top with TPTK? It’s because Marc knows me, and I am known as an aggressive player. So, I figured he thought I was betting light and he wanted to take the pot away with his “superior” TPTK hand. I didn’t expect that he would take my aggression as an excuse to call me preflop with T8. Then again, I fully admit that my $10 bet was too small, and in later hands, I was raising to $15 to thin the herd preflop.
I’ve already told Meister in an email that I messed up the Goomba hand on the river. Up until the river, I think my play was justified, but the river raise told me that I was beat, and I still gave away another $50.
Just one last note. 1/2 tables are not all alike. At one table, a raise to $8 will win a pot preflop and at others, you can raise to $27 and get multiple callers preflop. This was a relatively controlled table. A raise of $15 preflop made most hands heads-up, if it didn’t take down the pot outright. $10 got some callers later in the evening, but at first, it was getting maybe one caller per hand, as the table warmed up. So, preflop bet sizing is really table dependent at the 1/2 stakes.
August 5th, 2010 - 1:58 pm
Love the discussion. I actually don’t mind the $10 raise pf, IF you are doing it with the intention of playing for stacks by juicing the pot such that you will push on the flop or maybe the turn if you hit big. I’m always shocked by how many people live will call off with marginal hands that they think are monsters (TPTK, top and bottom, etc.). That said, you often have to fold missed flops resulting in a dwindling down of your stack. Which is why my general pf approach differs from Jordan’s.
As we all know, live is a different animal than online, especially when comparing to 1-2 live. There are plays at 1-2 that are overall +EV which are absurd online, and even which are -EV live for that particular live hand. I’d lump limping with mid-pockets (55-JJ even) in there too. Especially if it’s that $27 type table Jordan described when everyone calls anyway. I found the interview at the back of SS/II, I’m blanking on his name, but he’s one of the best cash game pros, to be incredibly helpful. Kind of inverted the way I think through live cash game hands. Even helpful up to 5-10 I’ve found. Certainly at 2-5. One of the ways I’ve been able to translate it to smaller stake live games is by diguising my plays greatly with more passivity pf with middle-strength hands (and, relatedly, occasionally open-raising UTG/UTG+1 with purely specualtive hands like 65s). I base this on the fact that with effective stacks of 100BB (which is NOT deep live at all), you often waste much money raising middling hands and then having to fold on the flop where if you limp or limp-call you likely get the stacks in by the river anyway, but when you miss you save yourself lots of money. Plus, you are disguised when you have the hands like 65s UTG cause people usually think you have a monster so continuation bets have more value; similarly, sets of Js on the cutoff in a limped pot are disguised. Generally, in live 1-2/2-5 I’m not too worried about polarizing my range — usually you are not with the same people long enough for it to matter so there’s little need to raise the middle-type hands from any position.
Never played with Jordan (yet), but sounds like he’s much more aggro than me pf live. That style works well too, I just find that to stay afloat after a few missed flops it often means putting myself in marginal/tough decisions post-flop on the one hand I kind of hit. BTW, playing the bro-in-law brings into play social bragging rights and knowledge of a player that go way beyond what I just discussed. Anyway, sorry to change this to more of a general pf strategy discussion than hand specific.
Like the Baluga theory. Wish I followed it last night at PLO8 when I was c/c on the 88J flop and c/r on the K turn. Who plays a hand with an 8 and either a J or a K in it in O8 versus a pfr? That guy does.
August 5th, 2010 - 5:50 pm
ClassClown, we should definitely find a time to play together.
One thing that you said stood out to me. I am an aggressive pf raiser. I am also a bit rusty with live play, but I noticed toward the end of my session that I was more often than not raising when I was coming in on pots. I sometimes limp a lot, but that’s only when it is a limpy table and I can play ATC and get paid if I hit an unlikely hand.
August 6th, 2010 - 12:13 pm
I’m down. Nothing like a car ride to discuss hands in.
I guess our pf discussion in a way is more about post-flop play. I’m with you if you do not think you can get stacks in by the turn/river if you limp. Just never found that to a problem at AC 1-2/2-5.