Poker Perambulation

Do you have a friend that quotes such stats like he knows what they mean? Does he? There an old saw about figures don’t lie but a liar figures. He may throw in that he’s only had one losing session in the last ten.

What does this have to do with winning poker? A lot of the time nothing. It may only provide a convenient spot to rationalize from. The analysis programs can help you spot a leak and that helps out. But when you get involved with statistics without a Economics degree you might be getting into more trouble than you want or need. Tiger Wood changed his golf swing a while back. That led to a dry spell. We share somewhat similar cost structures. I too am struggling with that comment; but we both have tournament fees or rake. What we don’t have is a Nike contract to see us through the dry spell.

There are many ways to play poker. I did an article on getting off a table while you are ahead. It is a solid premise for some. Some people mistakenly make it a mantra. That guy above that I mentioned that had the winning sessions–save one””made it a point of pride. Well, if that losing session was a hummer because he was trying to keep his string intact, he just might be way behind those modest wins he booked while making it a point to leave a winner.

Analysis system can only tell you so much about yourself and the players you face. If a computer programs did such great analysis, then we’d be worrying a lot more than we do about Bots. If you are sitting at a NL ring game, you should take some risks when the right opportunity presents itself. It is called implied odds. If you leave that out of your arsenal, you are a weaker player for it. On the analysis machine it is one more probable mark in the -EV column. Most implied hands fail and the analysis system notes that.

The other night I watched a bit of a tournament for a Aussie Million seat on FullTilt. I followed Andy Bloch’s play. With the blinds at 80/160 he called early-late position with a stack of close to 6K. The small blind was short stacked and went all-in for 990 and was called before it got to Andy so he was facing the all-in and an additional player. He called. The hand was checked down to the river. The all-in exposed pocket fours; the first caller had AQ or such; Andy turned up 46 in clubs and won the pot with the river hitting the 6. I frankly wouldn’t have made his call. It is also obvious I am not Andy Bloch who thought about what was there and made the call with a prospector’s hand and less than 20% of his stack exposed for the 2:1 odds. Put that hand in an analysis setup, leave that river 6 out of the situation, and it is going to puke out how stupid you are.

I used one of the demos of one of the trackers. I found sites that had version after version of the options setup that generated difference sets of results based on what was changed. I trade stocks and have seen similar setups and tried them. If there is a stock picking program out there that consistently works, I missed it. And I don’t have to look across the table at two down cards when I’m trading stock””not that it is totally lacking a degree of randomness. The idea though is to think for yourself. Over time you will learn your strengths and weakness. If it is a totally different result from some trading program, it may still be better for you. Same goes for poker. If it helps fine; just don’t use it to do your thinking for you.

There is a nice feature in these programs. You can review a session. It may help you pick up the occasional situation you missed. Is that worth the effort? Maybe. You have to decide. At some point in the future I may change my mind but right now it is more than I want to bring to the table. For now I’ll let the table determine my statistics. I’ll call with some speculative hands where it seems appropriate; and I’ll fold some better hands where that is the right course the way I see it for that moment. Both will make and lose money. I want cumulative results and those glare at me every time I click on the cashier.

A truism at poker is: Leave your emotions at the casino entrance. What these programs do for some is provide something they cannot provide from their own psyche. It is an example of another truism: Whatever works. I’ve an ‘even keel’ most of the time so I don’t need that crutch. Another finds it helpful. Like poker there isn’t an exact answer here. You may see some of the points made as positive while another sees them as a negative. You can both be right.

Addendum:

I am writing this on Friday the 13th, the day the President is supposed to sign the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [UIGEA] into law. (Probably be a week before it will appear.) It looks like a done deal.

My quandary is about the first word. Is it unlawful to gamble? No, mostly unlawful for others to transfer fund for your gambling. So, I guess that means the act itself is unlawful. That jibes with what a lot of lawyers are saying.

It is interesting that in the past the key thing about Internet commerce was how the Congress kept pointing with pride at how they were leaving it unregulated and how wonderful that was for the Internet, Congress, Clark Kent and the American Way. New election year; all new ideas. Well, they call them ideas. Their ideas turn into laws””right or wrong and ignoring the past like it never existed.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 27th, 2006 at 7:43 am and is filed under Journal, Poker Thoughts. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.