Differences

Math v. Mood is a constant at the tables and in the forums. You will attract trolls strongly supporting either method. When we learn we tend toward supporting the math side. And that is the best place to start. It is a foundation. Buildings and players need that. But, like the foundation for a new house, it is just the starting point.

For poker the foundation always remains a work in process. You can design a solid foundation for a bungalow. That is a static objective. For poker, the build is more like Mrs. Winchester’s Mystery Mansion. We need to always be adding on.

I’ve played SnGs, MTTs, and a mix of ring games. The common belief is that each is autonomous. You can play ring or tournament with one much better or worse. There is a bit of truth there but it is far from definitive. As we build a skill set, part will always translate. The better players pick up on that. Too many of us miss at least part of that. As a result we aren’t as adaptable. Brittleness in poker is fatal.

Early on, I had yes and no answers. I could discuss a hand history or situation in a black and white manner. Today, I have problems even finding the shade of gray. The problem of unintended consequences keep jumping onto the table. Answers seem to always come with a new question.

Another – and popular – difference is ‘luck’ or the lack. We’ve a thread on that in the forum at the moment. Datasets always contain outliers. Living or playing within a standard deviation or two is most of our lot. We all are temporary outliers. We get a rush and then it leaves. Statistics say that should balance and put us back in standard deviation land.

So, am I lucky? “Well, are you, punk?” You’ve got me. Today on PokerStars, I got rolled up aces and had the board pair 7’s. It was against a guy who made a set of queens on 5^th street and made it obvious. He managed to fill the boat too. I/we got aggressive and the pot was much nicer than normal expectations. I was lucky at multiple levels. Yesterday, I played a set of 5’s and rivered the one outer while he filled his boat. That was against a guy who made a set of jacks when I made the 5’s. I was super lucky. Yet, the week hasn’t been at all kind. I watched some horrid outdrawing. My decent hands were leading 6^th street and going down in flames on 7^th. I lost my butt this week. But, how much of that was my fault? Part always is!

An example of what happens of our own making is getting that nice starting hand of AA. Stud makes a great example but it translate to a degree. Playing lower limits is a loose structure. The idea with a strong hand it to bet/raise it. When you do and get multiple callers, you’ve created a pot that prices in all drawing hands – even some really weak one. You have created the structure of your failure. Do I follow the rule to always raise? No, it is table dependent and even that isn’t that clear a choice. Those who don’t recognize that and had the AA will now fill the chat with **** you comments.

I wish I had answers – for myself and you. There are blogs and forums galore that purport to have the answer at least on a temporary basis. But, informed decision making doesn’t exist at the tables. The line between what some might call a donkey move and a great read are murky at best. One day we recognize the appropriate difference and the next we fail using the same scheme that worked then. Yes, that’s poker; but that’s also why we enjoy the challenge it presents.

ADDENDUM:

I like to read Bayne_S’ blog. He details his final hand in a PokerStars Tourney. He a solid (better) player that enjoy playing well above where I play But, I really read him because he’s a nice guy and his blog demonstrates both features The link will bring you to a hand he calls “the sickest” and it does meet one qualification. It includes a losing player’s bad beat story. But, it also fulfills almost every cliché moment in blogdom.

(Must read HH for full flavor – click on his blog above)

This was the final hand with 3 equal payouts of big W$ bucks. There are classic HH debate solutions to the meaning of life with the hand; but it isn’t that sick in a bad beat sense. The table holds 5 players and it is a 4-way all in. The weakest stack gets to watch four people put him in the money in one-fell-swoop. We of course have an AA present in the mix and getting crushed. The constant debate about ever folding AA comes closest to being answered in this situation. He’s possibly/probably in the money without playing the hand.

Bayne_S situation may not be ‘the sickest’ but it is a classic. You have a great read on a guy and a hand like that. You raise to isolate and get callers — not caller but callers. You go from the elated rightness of your move to angst and depression. And that was the right move — angst not the raising. I know enough about Bayne to know he’d have recognized that he was likely one seat away from making the money after the hand. And he’s a player quite capable of laying down QQ with the right opportunity to do so. That wasn’t there though only because of position. He knows all about position and the moment placed him with the worst position at the table and the second best hand.

Sickest would have been the short stacked AK holding A7s. It was sick for the third best preflop hand to win. But sickest would be A7s as it played out. As an alternative, you could mix the community cards in a whole series of changing leads. A lead change on each card dealt would have just as sick.

Would have made great TV though. Vince would have been beside himself saying, ‘wired pair’ — ad infinitum. It could have put him in an endless loop. Sexton, then, could have out-zenned the Buddha discussing the Cadillac of Poker. And Bayne could have stood up and shook the winner’s hand and outclichéd them all muttering, “That’s poker.”

This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm and is filed under Journal.