Interview with Jennifer Harman

[Texter]

In part one, Jennifer discusses "Tilt", What it means to be a "Poker Pro", and Her love of Math.

PokerLizard (http://www.PokerLizard.com)

Part 2 should be ready next week.

[Shaman]

It is refreshing to see that there is an entirely different point of view out there. Some revealing quotes from this awesome interview:

"PokerLizard: Well, let's hope. Ok, back to your game. What do you consider the strongest part of your game – reading opponents or calculating the odds?

Jennifer: Definitely reading. I mean the math side is non-existent with me. [laughs] I mean, I know the math, and I know when to raise, when I should call, etc. And cash games are different. If you're a slight favorite, raise. But in a tournament, the chips are much more valuable, you know, to where a call would be more appropriate than a raise.

Sklansky asked me a math question the other day and I got it wrong…according to him. He asked me what I would do with A-10 suited in the small blind. I mean, mathematically you're going to win the hand…well, I don't even remember what he said… [laughs], but mathematically I guess it's correct to raise it there. But as far as I'm concerned, you're out of position, and with a lot of people in, you're making the pot so big they'll be taking cards off, and end up beating you with their mediocre hands. I mean even if you do flop an Ace, someone might have a bigger kicker with an Ace. You do have more outs just because they're suited, but I don't think it's as clear as he thinks it is.

But I don't know the math, I just go by feel, and if the game is playable and I can control the table, then I'll raise. But if I feel like I don't have much control over the table, I'm going to call and see if I can flop something. And that's how I play poker."

"PokerLizard: Do you think those players, Doyle, Daniel, etc., think about math the same way that Sklansky does?

Jennifer: Well it depends. I mean, most pro poker players play by feel. Now, tournaments are different – there may be a way to mathematically figure a system to win in various tournament situations. But cash games I don't think you can just have a system. You have to adjust your play every couple of minutes. It's not about always doing what's mathematically correct…you have to play that person and how he's playing. So I may be a huge dog with a marginal against his stronger hand, but if he's losing, then I'll take advantage of him because I know he's going to fold a lot of hands and he's playing real tight. And that's not a mathematical approach.

I remember talking to this poker player who got mad at me because I went after him when he was losing. He said, “how can you play those hands when I'm raising…” yada, yada, yada…but I know those players are losing, they're not playing their best game, and they're losing their capability to bluff. So I can take full advantage of that and take the pot away from them. That's what I mean by playing the player.

I've read interviews about myself that say I'm a mathematical genius and I start laughing."

[snowlarbear]

i wonder if they're going to ask the pokerlizard obligatory question to her...

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
i wonder if they're going to ask the pokerlizard obligatory question to her...

[/ QUOTE ]

Disappointed by that myself...

[Texter]

I think she was asked in the second part of the interview...but her answer was, "oh brother" followed by a strange clicking noise and then a dial tone.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
the pokerlizard obligatory question to her..

[/ QUOTE ]

which is?

[Hauser_III]

[ QUOTE ]
the pokerlizard obligatory question to her..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



which is?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the Matt Damon character in Rounders, how long does it take you to dump your girlfriend and go for Famke Jensen (or however her name is spelled)?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
(Jennifer Harman, in the interview): It's not about always doing what's mathematically correct…you have to play that person and how he's playing. So I may be a huge dog with a marginal against his stronger hand, but if he's losing, then I'll take advantage of him because I know he's going to fold a lot of hands and he's playing real tight. And that's not a mathematical approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that is a mathematical approach.

[Absolution]

I'd stick with the loyal girlfriend and the law degree. Famke would just crush you with her thighs the first time you got her in bed and then you'd be dead (but you went happy as evidenced by the goofy grin riggered into your face).

[cwsiggy]

Must be nice being able to consult Doyle or Howard when you have a question on a particular play. Not that she needs it....

[Tevyee]

I too wish I could call up Danny or Texas Dolly anytime I was in need of some poker advice. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the pokerlizard obligatory question to her..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



which is?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the Matt Damon character in Rounders, how long does it take you to dump your girlfriend and go for Famke Jensen (or however her name is spelled)?

[/ QUOTE ]

brunette, and its not even close.

[cwsiggy]

The blond is wrapped way too tight for living!!!