best possible poker strategy

the arguement is about whether a better strategy will come about or from s&m strategy. will the computer people find a better one. undoubtable some refinements could be in there. everything evolves except tic tac toe. and thats the point. tic tac toe cant go any further.in poker you can have no better strategy than knowing exactly what the opponents have. so to improve your game the best thing is to improve your hand reading skills. all other refinements have smaller incremental value unless you are making major starting mistakes that carry forward with you throughout the hand.

"all other refinements have smaller incremental value unless you are making major starting mistakes that carry forward with you throughout the hand"


Starting hands are the fundamentals. You have to make this decision on every hand, yet I don't think enough has been written about it. S&M has the hand groupings. It says, "In a tough game, it is probably best to discard even the Group 4 hands." But what about Group 3 hands, JTs and QJs are very poor hands UTG in a tough game. S&M does say you should raise AQ, but most people just memorize the groupings and mistakenly play each hand in one group exactly the same way. HPFAP also says you should first assume that the game is typical. I think this is a huge mistake. You could easily be down 10-20BB before you determine that this is a tough table. This is why I keep asking, "How will 10 world class players play against each other?" The smart move would be to assume everyone is a world class player. You would probably just lose the blinds the first round, but you can quickly adjust from there.

before you sit down you get an inclination of what the game is like as you walk up to the table or watch a few hands while waiting for your seat. or have to wait for the blinds to come around. ive never just plopped in a game without ever seeing a dealt hand or knowing something about my opponents.

"Starting hands are the fundamentals. You have to make this decision on every hand, yet I don't think enough has been written about it."


Don't agree plenty written about it in other books, on this forum, Abdul essays, RGP posts, etc.


"S&M has the hand groupings. It says, "In a tough game, it is probably best to discard even the Group 4 hands." But what about Group 3 hands, JTs and QJs are very poor hands UTG in a tough game. S&M does say you should raise AQ, but most people just memorize the groupings and mistakenly play each hand in one group exactly the same way."


The value and role of the groups as a learning device has been discussed thoroughly and completely both here and on RGP. Mason has repeatedly stated on this forum that hands should be played according to their intrinsic value.


" HPFAP also says you should first assume that the game is typical. I think this is a huge mistake. You could easily be down 10-20BB before you determine that this is a tough table. "


I would tend to disagree with you here. It's also costly to assume a bunch of live ones play well.


"This is why I keep asking, "How will 10 world class players play against each other?" The smart move would be to assume everyone is a world class player."


I don't agree the ratio of world class players to the rest is so small that it's easy to see how it could hurt a lot.


"You would probably just lose the blinds the first round, but you can quickly adjust from there."


If it only takes you one orbit to evaluate the table accurately how could you lose 10-20BB?

I think you are absolutely right…


I have trouble reading two types of player’s hands..


The passive lil old biddy type who plays every hand, ALWAYS check-check-check then can show you ANY two cards (7-2 IS my daughter’s birthday, didn’t you know, hon? )ARRRGH!


Then there is the real aggressive player who plays (usually for a raise) almost every hand. When he raises on the turn, is he bluffing? I would like very much like to learn to read THAT person better..


Also, I would like to learn how to to disguise MY hand (trying to upset OTHER people’s ability to read me properly). Is it worth trying to mix it up by playing some inferior starting hands? Maybe choose 3 or 5 cards to run pure bluffs with (game theory)? I guess I want to make other people make mistakes, not me.


I am a real tight player, and I know which dang cards are superior in which postion. But lately my game has been suffering due to the fact that it ain’t no secret what I am holding when I raise preflop…..


I think that we need to maintain focus on what is important.


Ray, you would make a GREAT Corporate facilitator…


I’ve rattled the marbles around too much now, gotta go lay down…

You don't have to read players that are that far out of line to beat them. Playing against people that play too many hands, either very agressively or very passively, is easy. What you should really be afraid of are opponents that vary there play.

I think an improved way to learn and think about poker will view matters of strategy as much less significant that they are currently viewed.


We are taught to think of starting hands as a fundamental, akin to scales on the piano. When actually the prime fundamental of music is rhythm. The notes distract from that essential. At poker, I think there are at least two things more fundamental than anything to do with bets and cards. They are, behavior and consistency.


We win the information war through behavior. And we max out our efforts through consistency. If I had a son and I was teaching him how to win at hold'em, I'd drill him on those two things LONG before he ever posted a blind. In the real world, what happens is players develop bad habits, then they learn about starting hands and such, and think that knowing good strategy will overcome the flaws in behavior and consistenty.


Ironically, learning winning strategy causes some players to lose more. Their expectations increase while their fundamental flaws remain unchanged. This leads to increased frustration, which leads to more inconsistency. And the urge to show how smart they are leads to more lost battles in the information war. A nasty catch 22.


Tommy

So true, Tommy. One of my favorite kind of opponents to have at the table is a young guy who obviously has read a few poker books and looks flabbergasted when somebody shows down a janky starting hand to win the pot. The fact that he finds it so unthinkable and so crazy means he's going to lose. It doesn't mean he's wrong that playing crappy cards is a bad move, but the surprise and shock shows me that he has no idea what he's doing yet.


I start to drool even more when the guy shows his hand to the table in an appeal for sympathy, and often the hand was so totally misplayed it's hard not to laugh out loud and say "What did you expect!?!?!?". Sometimes it's clear the only thing this player knows is that AK is a good starting hand.


Reminds me of myself when I was younger. Believe me, I made the game good back then, and I thought every one else was an idiot. When I see a player like this at the table, I literally start calculating how many of his chips I am likely to get. They make the game that good. The irony is that they technically have more of a clue than the usual loose-aggressive wild player who hasn't read a thing about poker strategy, but they are much easier to beat.


natedogg

One more thing. I believe you meant "tactics" when you said strategy. The things you describe as being important could easily be called a high level strategy. Never showing hands is a playing strategy. Play aggressively with position is a strategy. If someone asked you "what is your strategy at the hold'em table", I imagine you could talk for an hour without ever mentioning a single card rank.


Whereas the specific act of raising UTG with AK is a tactic. Raising from the blinds with a medium pair in a family pot is a tactic.


Most starting hand strategy boils down to situational tactics. Your overall approach to the game is your strategy. So, when you say an improved poker theory will devalue strategy, I believ you meant just the opposit. Devalue tactics, and elevate strategy.


I know you like this kind of word-stuff so I figured you would appreciate my point. /images/smile.gif


natedogg

Proper strategy (or tactics) is essential. Scale practice is essential to making music. A grounding in the basic theory and techniques is an essential of musicianship and of poker. It is, however, not sufficient, in and of itself, to be a musician or a poker player.


Glenn Gould told everyone he never practiced, anyone could play the piano, but not everyone could "feel" the music. He lied. Those who knew him reported that he practiced hours and hours every day, but just denied that he did so to the press.


The notes cannot distract from the prime fundamental of music. They are not, however, in and of themselves, music. They are the building blocks. One cannot make music without them, but one cannot make music with additional elements as well.


So perhaps our disagreement here is semantic. Using your excellent first two paragraphs as a base, I would say:


I think an improved way to learn and think about poker will view matters of strategy as just as significant as they are currently viewed, but as insufficent, in and of themselves, to be a successful player.


We are taught to think of starting hands as a fundamental, akin to scales on the piano. While this is true, there are other aspects of both music and poker that are just as fundamental. In music, for example, rhythm, texture and structure. The notes by themselves are essential, but insufficient to make music. At poker, I think there are at least two things just as fundamental as cards. They are, behavior and consistency.

Nate,


"If someone asked you 'what is your strategy at the hold'em table?,' I imagine you could talk for an hour without ever mentioning a single card rank."


I've got a kooky idea in the works. A whole book on winning at poker that never mentions a card. That's the feature that makes Zen and the Art of Poker my favorite poker book.


"Most starting hand strategy boils down to situational tactics. Your overall approach to the game is your strategy. So, when you say an improved poker theory will devalue strategy, I believe you meant just the opposite. Devalue tactics, and elevate strategy."


You are so right. By common usage, I used "strategy" exactly backwards. The distinction between "strategy" and "tactic" is still fuzzy in my mind. Let's say my strategy is to attack the blinds from the button with any ace, any king, and any two cards above a seven. Then, when the situation comes up, I raise. If I follow you right, the raise itself is a tactic, but really it's just the predetermined manifestation of a strategy, right?


That's probably why I don't use the word "tactic."


"I know you like this kind of word-stuff..."


:-)


Tommy

"One cannot make music without them [notes], ..."


I strongly disagree.


"So perhaps our disagreement here is semantic."


I suppose it is a disagreement on what defines music. If music is defined as including notes, then your claim stands up. But in my view, haphazard notes scattered about without rhythm do not make music, whereas the drum circles in Golden Gate park are most definitely music.


Looking at music as "art" in the sense that art is a mode of expressing feeling, the random notes will give me no buzz, whether I'm playing them or listening to them, but a solid groove, even if pounded out on a steering wheel by a teenager, will.


Tommy

It's nice to have such a resonant drum so conveniently located.

From thread above…


"We win the information war through behavior. And we max out our efforts through consistency. If I had a son and I was teaching him how to win at hold'em, I'd drill him on those two things LONG before he ever posted a blind. In the real world, what happens is players develop bad habits, then they learn about starting hands and such, and think that knowing good strategy will overcome the flaws in behavior and consistenty.

Ironically, learning winning strategy causes some players to lose more. Their expectations increase while their fundamental flaws remain unchanged. This leads to increased frustration, which leads to more inconsistency. And the urge to show how smart they are leads to more lost battles in the information war. A nasty catch 22."


Tommy, what do you csee as the fundamental flaws/ bad habits that are causing players such as myself to lose. What do you mean by consistancy? I do see a lot in myself from the above posts. I know I cop a real attitude when sucked out on. I know it is wrong to feel that way, but I haven’t found a way to just let it go…

maybe it will happen for me as I gain more time at the table.

"Tommy, what do you see as the fundamental flaws/ bad habits that are causing players such as myself to lose."


I don't use the word "behavior" in it's usual moral content, as in, good behavior and bad behavior. What I mean by behavior is everything we do at the table. It includes, say, getting caught bluffing and showing dismay that the opponent looked us up with ace-high. The focus here should be, how did he know I was bluffing? But the common focus is to assume that he made a bad call and think less of him for it, as a player, and more dangerously, as a person.


"What do you mean by consistancy?"


Do we play the same when when we're up three racks as when we're stuck three racks? Do we play just as clear-headed after one round as we do after ten hours? Do we play just as good after five straight losing sessions as we do after five straight winners?


My answers are usually no. But sometimes I do play my best game when severely stuck, and sometimes I play great after many hours, and sometimes I lose five times in a row and follow up with a perfect session. That would all be impossible if I didn't keep consistency as the top priority.


"I know I cop a real attitude when sucked out on."


Bingo. For a player with some experience, I don't think any amount of book-study will overcome what 'copping a real attitude' costs.


"I haven’t found a way to just let it go…"


Think of it like quitting an addiction, one that cannot be done cold-turkey. The first step is to "let it go" just once. If you can take a beat, and just once not care, not care even a little bit, then it's just a matter of figuring out how that mindset was reached, and repeat it again and again as often as possible until ideally it becomes as second nature as mucking 7-2.


"maybe it will happen for me as I gain more time at the table."


True, but it won't happen just by showing up. Remember that practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice does.


Tommy

Hell RAISE IT!


since position is so important is raiseing it on the button ok?....please?

I'm not saying that haphazard notes constitute music. I am saying that one cannot have music without notes. There's a difference. I can throw four bases onto my couch; that does not constitute a baseball game. But one cannot have a baseball game without bases.


My point is that while behavior and consistency might well be just as important as basic strategy or tactics, they are useless without a sound grounding in the basics. There is no art without technique.

Quit talking about me that way!

Dear Player,

If you're so readable, you have to raise a few times UTG with garbage to confuse your opponents. Consider an early loss an investment for future wins.


Sitting Bull