Poker execution vs. knowledge

[skunkworks]

I was smoking a cig outside and thinking about how retarded (yes, I'm not PC) it was for the Lakers to trade Shaq... and that led me to think about basketball in general and how, if at all, we might compare basketball and poker. One basketball axiom that has always stuck in my mind is that the most important key to winning basketball is execution. When I think of good execution, I'm thinking of crisp, accurate passes at the right time rather than just the idea that a pass here would be correct. I interpret this to mean that the act of correctly implementing an idea is more important than the idea itself.

I got to thinking whether execution plays a role in poker, and if so, how it might affect our hourly rate. Before I get to that, I feel like I should talk about how execution and knowledge are intertwined.

We know that execution is pretty useless without some knowledge of fundamentals -- some sort of base concepts that organize our actions accordingly. A youth league basketball game isn't much more than 10 kids running around chaotically, whereas an NBA game has a much more structure and better execution as well. In the same vein, a play money table with 10 maniacs betting and raising doesn't have much knowledge of fundamentals, but at the highest levels of poker, the level of thinking is deep and our executions/actions (bet, raise, fold) have roots in our knowledge. Therefore, it is important that our actions in poker have a solid basis in theory or knowledge of the game. Simple enough, right?

But what about "good execution" in poker? Is there such a thing? What does this mean beyond "bet, raise, fold?" A few things I came up with are following through with a read, not giving away any tells, not being afraid to make a big raise or laydown, and making the correct read. There may be more than just this -- I don't know -- and my list is certainly up for criticism. Really, I guess the question is, what separates the David Sklanskys (or any other expert poker theorist) from the Ray Zees and the Phil Iveys? I have no doubt that theorists have a thorough knowledge of poker, but what limits their ability to win a WSOP bracelet, or be successful at the 3000-6000 games? (I don't mean to pick on David for not winning a WSOP bracelet /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). I came to the conclusion that what separates them is this somewhat nebulous concept of "execution." But really, how important is execution to our overall game? Our win rate?

And lastly, can anyone come up with a better definition of execution in poker?

[StellarWind]

It's one thing to understand poker and analyze well. It's another to consistently turn out good plays in the typical 3-second timeframe.

Those are the three keys for "execution" in poker:

1. Consistency - playing up to your ability all the time.

2. Good plays - Because it's nice to vary your game, it doesn't matter much if you don't always pick the better of two close alternatives. But it is crucial to avoid also-ran choices.

3. Tempo - You need to make almost all of your plays at the same speed and not slow the game down. If you routinely need to analyze while on-the-clock you are playing the wrong game.

[Blarg]

Here's something I've thought about when analyzing my own poker weaknesses in the past, and it's very much about knowledge versus execution.

This stuff applied to me enormously when I was first learning stud, and I'm hoping it applies less now that I'm learning hold'em, since I have seen where my execution can fall so far short of my knowledge that it sometimes virtually invalidates my knowledge if I'm not very careful and watchful of myself. I think it does, but the jury is definitely still out after 20k hands, though I'm solidly in the black in hold'em so far.

My old problem(and hopefully my new problem a bit less) and I think a big problem for many is playing alertly and not mechanically. Really thinking full-time through every play. It's very easy to be stuffed with knowledge and be a terrible player. The "execution" may seem technically correct, but be completely wrong for the situation at hand.

I remember when I first started playing in casinos, I came in after studying to death the 7-stud section by Chip Reese and 7CSFAP by Ray Zee. I mean insanely -- flash cards, endless re-reading, playing various computer simulations, and more. I supplemented all that by reading Theory of Poker, too.

The result was that I was, especially for a new player, very competent at dealing with odds and as good at playing as any robot. I could destroy many low limit tables, but once people caught on to how I played, they could just work around it. For instance, I could be raised out of pots simply once you knew the "rules" I distilled from Reese and Zee and that I tried to put into practice. The advice I didn't take to heart enough or, as a raw beginner, know how and when to employ well was that on changing up your game and watching others carefully to see how their play changed, or even how standard it was and if it really was much like the type of play that medium- and high-limit players like Reese and Zee and Sklansky discussed. Anyway, some notably inferior players kicked my butt sometimes as a result of my mechanical play, and I had a terrible time adjusting since from what I figured, I was playing according to the advice of the best players in the world.

Just having knowledge is a great start, but it's only a start. It doesn't mean you can read people or the general tone of the table, or really play a "people" game like poker the way it's supposed to be played.

I think a lot of people fall into the habit of being mechanical either because they read a few books or because they are bored or tired and go on auto-pilot. When the latter happens, you may not really notice, say, the way a table changes because a player or two has left or entered the game. Everyone might tighten up or try a lot looser plays to try to take a new sucker's money, but a mere mechanic will play the same way and wind up consistently making plays ill-suited for the changed-up play starting up. You can get beaten by much worse players if you don't know how to change up your play and see when others are doing the same.

In a way, a person who is the type who puts top priority on learning and knowing every rule and strategy down to the last detail could easily mean being someone who is too concentrated on the wrong thing and too rigid to play well. His effort to apply his knowledge and recognize the opportunities to do so may be tremendous, but it's not nearly enough.

Poker requires a great amount of adaptability and on-the-fly thinking, not just the ability to quickly remember and apply rules and make calculations. That actually turns out to be fairly trivial in the long run -- somethng a good player should be able to take for granted, not as his calling card and the best thing he can give his game. The "knowledge" lover can have personality tendencies opposite to the person with a more active mind, who is fluid in the present instead of stuck in the past, yet who may or may not really know what he's doing. The latter may have the better chance of eventually becoming a good poker player, as long as he applies himself to get a little of what the other guy has. His ability to adapt suggests that he inherently has more of what poker needs than the pure thinker or memory machine.

Some very smart people, geniuses even, can barely make it through life because they can't aim the laser beam of their intellect properly, where it matters, making a mess of ordinary life activities even imbeciles can master.

I guess it's safe to say that knowledge needs intelligence and good judgment to result in good application(or execution), and that intelligence and judgment must be actively applied if one expects optimal results. Your knowledge and ability to apply it must be constantly filtered through your intelligence and judgment. You can't slack off just because you have all the necessary attributes sitting together in the one place. Being tired or bored or unattentive can wipe out all your opportunities.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to pick on David for not winning a WSOP bracelet

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't really mean this, do you?
----------------------
1982:

1st David Sklansky Draw High $15,500
1st David Sklansky Mixed Doubles $8,800

1983:

1st David Sklansky Omaha Limit $25,500

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[skunkworks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to pick on David for not winning a WSOP bracelet

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't really mean this, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha I guess I didn't... =) my bad.

[skunkworks]

Thanks for your thoughts, Blarg. I've always known that mechanical play can make you money at low-limits, but higher limits have more thinking opponents and your game (or rather my game) needs to adapt accordingly. I haven't really challenged myself against good players because I'm a low-limit dweller, but I've been starting to think about it more so that I'll be prepared in a tough game. Changing gears, reading opponents, and having overall good judgment should help guide my actions and bridge my poker knowledge with my execution.

What's a good way to work on these things without paying too much "tuition" for the lessons? There has to be something better than sink or swim at the higher limits... maybe playing online at some of the tighter, more aggressive sites? I hear Poker Stars and UB have some tougher games at the lower limits.

[Al Schoonmaker]

The chapter on Tight-aggressive players of POP said that tight-aggressive games should generally be avoided. However, I did add:
"Unless you have strong desires to test yourself against the best or to learn from playing with them, don’t play. If those motives are really important to you, and you are willing to take the unavoidable risks, go for it."
It makes much more sense to test yourself and develop your game at the lower limits.
Barry Tanenbaum and Matt Lessinger have both written articles on this subject. They have deliberately sought tough games to develop their skills. I believe that some of the small stakes games at Poker Stars are quite tough. For example, less than 25% of the players are seeing the flop.
Regards,
Al

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
1st David Sklansky Mixed Doubles $8,800

[/ QUOTE ]
What is Mixed Doubles in poker?

[Blarg]

Addressing some of what Dr. Schoonmaker says, I will say that I like a certain amount of tight aggression on tables. One tight or tight-aggressive player will almost never have much effect on a table, but a couple or a few of them at the loose tables I see most everywhere can make a table less prone to capping preflop and at every other opportunity, less enamored of ruly wild plays, etc., because people start to see themselves getting punished for it by the tougher players.

At that point, your variance goes down to more normal levels for the game at hand and you don't need to worry about having an enormous bankroll to weather the huge storms of a wild, no-fold'em game. I play better when there may be less chance to make a fortune, but less chance to lose one.

Also, you can start saving money by making more lay-downs, and seeing more variation in the play of others that you can try to make sense of. You can start making plays because people start watching their cards and those of others. So things like check raises, bluffs, and just playing your cards in a way other than just showing them down at the river come more into play. This is more the type of table I've found I can refine skills on and use those skills, too.

I actually don't mind tables that are a little too tight, even. My favorite games are just average ones or ones that are a bit too tight, where I can be looser than others and steal more than I should. If you have a good ability to read your table, you can make quite good money knowing which buttons to push to get people folding out of pots and abandoning their money, or, alternatively, thinking you're acting like a dope again so they're sure as heck going to call you and beat you good -- and then they find that this time you really DID have something.

I like poker better and do better at it when it's less a matter of rolling a ten-sided dice to see who wins.

Many people feel differently, but people get their poker experience in very different ways sometimes. Myself, when I first started poker(7-stud live games), I did mediocre at the often absolutely crazy lowest limit games but very quickly did very well at the much slower, $10/20 and $15/30 games where I could really press my advantages.

I think it's very worthwhile to try different types of games, and it's important not to let people tell you that the type of game they like is the one you should either stay at forever no matter how little you like it or how much you lose, or quit poker. Maybe Pokerstars or the supposedly tighter sites and games would be a good thing to try, at least for a while, if you haven't experienced that type of game. With the proviso not only that doing so will expose you to something new you'll have to adjust to, possibly throwing your game off a bit for a while, but also that the players are often said to be better there in general, adding a bit more difficulty again.

But you might find games like that are just what you like. And it certainly can't hurt to broaden your experience.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Some very smart people, geniuses even, can barely make it through life because they can't aim the laser beam of their intellect properly, where it matters, making a mess of ordinary life activities even imbeciles can master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beautifully put.