On Improving

[Nacarno]

I started playing poker online maybe 2 years ago and got pretty serious about it maybe only a year ago. A good part of what got me thinking seriously about poker was these forums. As you all know, if you look around there's a wealth of information on these boards just waiting to be utilized by those who take the time to seek it out. My game improved leaps and bounds by studying and practicing the advice of the users of 2+2 but then something funny happened. I felt like I hit a wall. I know I was still improving just from experience but there would be times when I felt like I was actively hindering my game by following some of the advice that had previously proved so useful. For example, making a continuation bet with a weak pair on the flop only to get called and then having a blank come on the turn. Conventional wisdom might say to slow down against the opponent since he was representing a stronger hand by calling and I would dutifully do just that even though at times every instinct in my body would scream out that the guy was weak and would fold to another bet. I was still winning, but I felt like I wasn't taking every opportunity I could to improve my ROI and the like. In short I felt like my game had been reduced to a series of robotic actions where there was always a right and wrong move given the pot size and betting progression and instincts be damned!

About the time that I felt that happening I decided to take a break from reading the 2+2 forums as much as I had been. I played fewer games of poker than I had in the past and when I did play I started trying not to focus on the "right" move and the "rules" and more on trying to figure out the other players' motivations and really get inside their heads. Most of the time my play would be indentical to before, but now at times where a call or a fold would be questionable I'd focus on my gut instinct was telling me to do and go with that. What a difference it made. Suddenly poker was fun again. I could see marked improvements in my results (not that they were bad before) and I felt like I was actually playing higher quality poker than my opponents rather than just being more mathematically sound.

So what's the point? This is the tricky part because I know I'll probably be flammed for what I might be implying, but I've decided that I'll OK with that because I've seen the improvements that following my advice has had on my game in the past 6 months. So yeah, the point is that most of the posts I see (I've become a very active reader again) are excellent at helping players find obivous mathematical leaks and errors in their game but maybe not so much in helping to hone instincts that I imagine are necessary to find some of the +EV plays in not-so-obvious places required to beat higher buy-in SNGs. Things like "feel" just can't be presented well in hand histories and so, often, those types of things are discounted by the 2+2 crowd, but I think they're important to those truly striving to improve their game.

I realize that this sort of thinking might be dangerous to those who don't yet have the best fundamentals (and I'll be the first to admit that I'm still learning) but I want to stress that we should probably be trying to impove our feel for the game as well as our math behind it. Often times the two will overlap and it's hard to find that correct balance, but I believe it's important. So in summary, sometimes you need to just go with your gut even if it's in the face of what most 2+2 posters might advocate.

If anyone has had similar experiences or experienced something to the contrary I'd be very interested hearing about it, otherwise, flame away...

[Smackdab]

I don't think you will find many dissenters here.

One must first master and then continue honing the fundamental aspects of poker. Once this is accomplished and takes less effort then move on to another level. Fundamental poker is solid sound ABC poker but to take your game to another level you need to be able to play the opponet himself.

Keep sharpening the fundamentals while developing other aspects to the game. ABC poker is fine for up to $30/3 SNGs but to be succesful at higher levels you need a bit more game.

Are your "better" results based on an equal sample size to your past results?

[RicP]

[ QUOTE ]

I realize that this sort of thinking might be dangerous to those who don't yet have the best fundamentals (and I'll be the first to admit that I'm still learning) but I want to stress that we should probably be trying to impove our feel for the game as well as our math behind it. Often times the two will overlap and it's hard to find that correct balance, but I believe it's important. So in summary, sometimes you need to just go with your gut even if it's in the face of what most 2+2 posters might advocate.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually been thinking a lot about this.

I doubt if many of the "regulars" will argue about developing a "feel" as far as regular play.

The problem becomes developing that feel.

Hands posted that are pretty normal and mundane generate very few responses, and that isn’t surprising.

How many times do you think a $200 player has replied with.

“Yes call here”
“No fold that”
“Fold Preflop”

Then gets bored with the basic fundamental “feel” hands and develops more interest in those hands that have some tricky mathematical properties?

I'm not sure that I'm getting my point accross by my ramblings.

[spentrent]

Hand histories cannot reflect what you call the "feel" of the game. It is simply with experience that you gain your "feel."

People who are nice enough to spend their own time scratching chins and engaging in threads can only work with the information presented, which is usually just a hand history with a mostly meaningless remark like "he was kinda loose pre-flop."

"Real" no-limit poker has nothing to do with the current hand. Every hand adds to an unspoken conversation. A plot emerges when you start to control your opponents based on what you think they think the conversation means.

In a quick SNG like Party Poker's, players have no time to "converse," thus a simple description of the "optimal play" is usually the best advice anyone can give.

I remember reading a post where a high buy-in player said he uses his "reads" for only 5% of his decisions.

[RicP]

Maybe we need to define what “feel” is.

IMO you always assume your opponent is a baseline player for whatever level you are currently playing, and you use your “reads” to adjust your actions depending upon them (the “reads”).

The “feel” I am talking about (and also the OP I believe) is the assumptions of the play of that baseline player in a particular situation. And HH’s will show those.

Perfect Example of the "feel" I'm talking about is this post. Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2012528&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post2013384)

[faquewdikhed]

I do things in sng's that people would SCOFF at on these forums. Sometimes they work, and sometimes, they don't. For each time I do something a little 'unordinary', however, I think I am developing a greater "feel" for the game.

If there was no feel to this game, it would be overrun by bots.

[faquewdikhed]

I think the best example of this 'feel' can be seen in Gigabet's and Irieguys' posts a little while back. This paragraph is SUPERB-

I call this an exercise, but this should be done on every single hand that is played out at any of your tables for the rest of your poker career. This is how you become a real player, then you can ignore the "sng" formula and really start to play. Post flop is where the real game is at, and it is fun to play. Use your bets to pull information from your opponent, and then when you know what he has, trust your judgement 100%. If you think he is on second pair, but will not fold unless you bet your whole stack, then bet your whole stack (unless of course you have a better hand than second pair, which is unlikely since players like us can rarely beat bottom pair), even if it means your tournament is over if you are wrong. Practice trusting yourself, you will be wrong enough in the beginning to doubt yourself, but don't let that stop you.

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I realize that this sort of thinking might be dangerous to those who don't yet have the best fundamentals (and I'll be the first to admit that I'm still learning) but I want to stress that we should probably be trying to impove our feel for the game as well as our math behind it. Often times the two will overlap and it's hard to find that correct balance, but I believe it's important. So in summary, sometimes you need to just go with your gut even if it's in the face of what most 2+2 posters might advocate.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually been thinking a lot about this.

I doubt if many of the "regulars" will argue about developing a "feel" as far as regular play.

The problem becomes developing that feel.

Hands posted that are pretty normal and mundane generate very few responses, and that isn’t surprising.

How many times do you think a $200 player has replied with.

“Yes call here”
“No fold that”
“Fold Preflop”

Then gets bored with the basic fundamental “feel” hands and develops more interest in those hands that have some tricky mathematical properties?

I'm not sure that I'm getting my point accross by my ramblings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but in almost every hand history I've read that's been posted lately, curtains has been replying to. He's a $200 player and we should be lucky that he's actually doing this. There are others too that have been posting.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times do you think a $200 player has replied with.

“Yes call here”
“No fold that”
“Fold Preflop”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but in almost every hand history I've read that's been posted lately, curtains has been replying to. He's a $200 player and we should be lucky that he's actually doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. If you read Curtain's posts, he often says something like "folding is bad, so call or push. I would push." What he is saying (usually) is that folding is wrong regardless of your read or feel. With no read, it's a push. If you have a read or feel, you should use that to decide between calling and pushing.

In other words, use math to eliminate bad options, and use your instincts to decide between 2 close alternatives.

Reads in SnGs are rarely a sure thing. Fundamentals first, reads as a tie-breaker.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many times do you think a $200 player has replied with.

“Yes call here”
“No fold that”
“Fold Preflop”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you, but in almost every hand history I've read that's been posted lately, curtains has been replying to. He's a $200 player and we should be lucky that he's actually doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. If you read Curtain's posts, he often says something like "folding is bad, so call or push. I would push." What he is saying (usually) is that folding is wrong regardless of your read or feel. With no read, it's a push. If you have a read or feel, you should use that to decide between calling and pushing.

In other words, use math to eliminate bad options, and use your instincts to decide between 2 close alternatives.

Reads in SnGs are rarely a sure thing. Fundamentals first, reads as a tie-breaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more thing. A post like "I would push" takes into account the style of the poster.

When deciding between betting and check-raising with a good hand, I would say "I would bet" because I bet the flop a lot with nothing, so my opponents won't put me on a big hand. A more conservative player would be better off check raising.

Both plays are correct against the same opponents, but you would choose the play that best matches your own playing style.

If I say, "pushing is wrong", it's becaue I feel it's wrong regardless of your style or reads.

[Degen]

i agree...i play a pretty straight up game and dominate the 33's and below....but my record plain stinks at the 55's and higher.

can u guys reccomend any reading on this intangible component?


Degen

[codewarrior]

Some good thoughts here, both from the OP and subsequent replies. I hope everyone reads this thread regardless of skill level, even if you know what it says and means.

How many times have you caught yourself acting robotically, or too tight, or too loose, or suddenly think odds don't matter because you can see everyone's soul, or.. etc. etc.

This constant self-reflection is what makes any player in any game improve.

Of course, the Dali Lama told me that on my death bed I will acheive total spiritual consciousness, so I've got that going for me... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[RicP]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know about you, but in almost every hand history I've read that's been posted lately, curtains has been replying to. He's a $200 player and we should be lucky that he's actually doing this. There are others too that have been posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I've found his insights (and others) to be valuable in improving my game.

My point is the discussion of fundamentals don't become hot topics because most players who are fundamentaly solid are too busy cashing.

And I do appreciate those that take the time to post to help us improve.