Pure Genius

We’d all like it. It sometimes even seems it is there. But, even then, we may be simply restating the obvious with our play. You make a good read and it looks like one. Then you blow it and look like Fido’s backside using the same solution process.

In wandering the net I often run through the updated blogs over at Poker Web Blogs. It gives me a chance to see some blogs that I don’t normally have on my list. In doing that the other day, I chanced across a fellow upset because someone accused him of plagiarism. I read the article and it really didn’t smack of that. It wasn’t too original but then being original is a pretty original act in a poker blog.

From there I went out browsing for some NFL draft stuff. One of those sites likes poker too. Found an article by Tony Guerrera who’s a published author and has a track record. Browsing one of his articles, I saw a nice article that one could probably say wasn’t all that original. But, it did bring an interesting view from a bit different angle. Those are valuable bit and pieces.

He breaks it out as Proactive Poker and Reactive Poker. In the thread I’ve been hyping in our forum, I used the line brain and brawn. To a degree, it is another paragraph on the same page. Clearspine made some nice points talking about hand analysis and related it to Harrington hands used in the analyzing. Hand analysis is often barren of the ideas behind them and Harrington does a good job of working through thought process at varied blind levels and opponents.

At the tables and especially in the Chris Bloging here, we can get away from things and see a donkey/fish/idiot/suckout-artiste/whatever. We’ve a dozen ways to describe a particular opponent. Its hard to factor in components of folks game and here we are adding proactive vs reactive to muddy the waters a bit more. But that is the whole point. The waters are always muddy. Info is always incomplete. Any approach from a bit different angle really helps clear rather than confuse.

You can, sometimes, get a peak at your opponents cards when he’s loose in viewing. Doesn’t haven’t to even be intentional on our part. But, we never really get a look into his mind. If we are too simplistic at any part of the game, it is -EV. Rating and analyzing players and play is ephemeral at best. So a bit of a leg up here is a help.

No genius. But, we seldom win on that. We do our homework and rote is still a part of learning. So, plagiarize away, I say, if it can bring a bit different slant or get us questioning some old ideas.

ADDENDUM:

I watched the Heads Up Championship on NBC on Sunday. The rest of the day was more directed toward the NFL. Saw a bit of slow playing. If you are going to do it, you either need a really superior hand or steel cajones. Adding a rock for a brain, my compliment the latter at times.

On most of our tables, slow play kills. Yet, it can kill both ways with proper use. I love it with an aggressive player that I have position on. It may bite me at times but overall it makes a strong statement and get you a player note that will help you in the long run.

The other feature of slow play is that it tends to minimize pot size at least to a degree. It is something I think most of us – myself included – need to think more about. It is never far from a pros thoughts. The online game tends to ignore that and seek confrontation. That really impacts the risk. Risk is unavoidable but is frequently seeking it our best option?

*************

Interesting article in the NYT about smoking bans. I know one of the other bloggers here has strong thoughts on the issue. I am not going to go into the health issues. Instead, think about the two word term – smoking ban. Now… How about poker ban? Society is on a rush to ban. We’re all entitled to a view.

On 60-minutes last evening, Antone Scalia talked about Ginsberg and their relationship. “Even nice people have bad ideas”, he said. As a jurist, he has brought a lot of ire but is able to maintain the respect of those with a different view according to the lady jurist’s response. Ginsberg’s view on an abortion ban brings its proponents to her side. Scalia manages to get both sides PO’d at him. It is hard being that much of a contrarian. But, it is fun and when you see a guy like him do it so well; it calls for admiration to at least some degree. If he hasn’t gotten anything else right, he sure picked the right lady to spend his life with.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Journal, Poker Thoughts. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.