Why does poker style differ by geographic location?

[mdlm]

Why does poker style differ by geographic location?

That is to say, why is LV poker different from CA poker? Why is Atlantic City poker different from CA poker? Why is PokerStars poker different from Paradise Poker?

At first glance it would seem that poker style should be universal because one poker style should be better than the other styles and the players who are schooled in that style would travel to the other locations and kill the players. For example, if LV style is the best then the LV players would travel to CA and kill the CA players and then CA would convert to LV style.

But this does not seem to be happening. There seem to be long-lived persistent differences in poker style.

One explanation that has been advanced for the difference between CA style and LV style is that CA players have an infinite amount of money to donate at the poker table. I do not like this explanation for two reasons. First, it does not explain why there are other geographic differences (e.g., Atlantic City vs. LV or Paradise vs PokerStars). Second, if this were true then all of the LV players would move to CA and this, obviously, has not happened.

One possibility is that players who are good in their home style cannot adapt to other styles and therefore style groups form that cannot be penetrated by players who are schooled in other styles.

So... what do you think?

[andyfox]

Haven't given it much thought, but if indeed it is true that poker style differs geographically, one reason may be that people adapt to, and perhaps imitate, the style they see. That's how any "style" spreads in general.

[ed_in_socal]

MD,

Read artciles from daniel on cardplayer mag. He is currently on a geographic location style of play on places he's played. and how styles differs.

I think you on the right track. you tend to adapt to the style of play, from where you play at.

I am in L.A. and have about 20+ cardclubs with in a 50 miles. And even in L.A. style of play changes from game to game and cardroom to cardroom, even if it's just slity a little.

Excample: I was Viejas Casino yesterday. the Hi-lo Omaha game is tight their. I played about 8 hours their, easier to beat. Then drove home ( about 150 miles ) and back to HG my local card club. Very loose and agresive game their, played 6 hours and lost every thing i made at Viejas plus some.

My biggest mistake was not making the proper adjustment for the way the game was played in the different casino. I think this is a very important to think about. and look for when you first sit to play at a casino out side your normal cardroom or game.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I'm too tired to offer my thoughts but you might enjoy this link to a RGP post by the infamous "Speed Racer"

http://tinyurl.com/44js

Regards,

Rick

[BruceZ]

I believe differences in the rake have something to do with it. Games in areas that have a time charge or have had one in the past foster a looser style than those that rake each pot.

[Noo Yawk]

There are several factors that I believe affect geographics and style.

1) Vegas has a good base of players that come to the tables on vacation with the specific purpose of being there to do a little gambling. Their knowledge of the game is far less than that of the locals that study the game and play regularly. The limits the tourists play usually depend on their comfort level and disposable income.
2) The california cardrooms, while not new to poker, are relatively new to hold 'em when compared to Vegas. I believe that the newer a cardroom, the looser the games start out. At least thats been my experience. The regulars at these tables didn't have the ability to get their action fix at craps or blackjack on a regular basis, so they came to the poker tables with the plan of getting involved in as many hands as possible. Hold em appears to be the perfect game for that, and I believe that the style just stuck.
3)The players in CA and NY are generally locals with a much wider cultural diversafication than the locals in LV, and that may have something to do with the style of play as well.
4) In the midwest the games are played weak tight, as the seniors that populate the tables are living on a fixed income, and aren't there to gamble. They come to pass the time and make or lose a few bucks. This is somewhat true of the way the day games are played in LV, as opposed to the juicier pm games.

All in all it comes back to the same thing. You need to understand the type of game your in and the players your up against in each hand, then adjust accordingly.

[Vehn]

In the midwest the games are played weak tight, as the seniors that populate the tables are living on a fixed income, and aren't there to gamble. They come to pass the time and make or lose a few bucks. This is somewhat true of the way the day games are played in LV, as opposed to the juicier pm games.

I wouldn't say that, at least for the lower middle limits. There's usually only 2-3 older players who play straight forward/weak and hope they run into someone dumb enough to pay them off. The rest of the games are frequently occupied by the over-aggressive younger types who play decently other than the fact they play twice as many hands as they should. IMO of course.

[Noo Yawk]

In the Twin cities, where you play, I agree with you 100%. Go to North Dakota or Deadwood, and you'll see what I mean.
When I lived in Minny, they had just opened the room a year ago, and the games where pretty loose on the weekends and at night. Where I play (Michigan), the games play similar to Cantebury on the weekends, but during the day, some of the most weak-tight play I've ever seen. Again, my point is that if the local of the cardroom is in an rural area, too far from a large or higher income population base, the games play a little tighter.
By the way, I still think Cantebury is one of the most well run card rooms I've ever played in. They did a great job of promoting poker and introducing as many new players to the game as I've ever seen.

[mike l.]

i can only speak for hold em, but


it's quite clear to me that the LA style of fast, loose, aggressive, and MOST importantly *TRICKY* (meaning primarily the ability to oscillate all around the spectrum of loose/tight--aggressive/passive depending on the situation at any given moment) hold em is the best style to play. it is much higher variance, very difficult to become adept at, and requires the same sort of emotional control and patience (!?) than tighter more passive styles do. however the rewards are so much greater because, if done right, one can torture all their opponents, both weak loose passive calling station tourists and tighter players who are trying to play well by grinding it out primarily through straight forward play.


on my past couple trips to vegas and the bay area i have noticed more and more players trying to utilize this sort of style. it's nothing like the tougher aggressive games in LA, but i believe this is the direction superior play of the game is headed in. also this is not that far from what hpfap prescribes, however it requires an even more nuanced understanding of playing the players, reading hands, using tells, utilizing the FTOP, etc.


again, very high variance makes this minaly the stuff of higher mid limits and up, but i see glimpses of this sort of tough tricky play even at the lower limits, and of course, in some low limit online games.


btw, i realise that i didnt give a reason why it varies geographically. perhaps this LA style developed because there is a huge poker market and a huge population to supply many regulars so it's sink or swim and the evolution process has been hyperactive in LA. also since many of these regulars seem to have almost limitless amounts of cash, the high variance gambool it up style doesnt seem as scary to them. players of more restricted cash worth are surely bound to play tighter for fear of going broke and you tend to find more of that kind of pro or semi-pro in vegas or AC.

[Ed Miller]

I agree with you 100%. I have never played in LA, but I have played in Seattle, online, and in Las Vegas. I feel very comfortable in most games as long as my opponents are predictable. It doesn't matter if they are predictably tight, loose, passive, or aggressive... I will be fine against them. The opponents that have given me fits (and a $700 lesson in the Bellagio 8-16) are the unpredictable ones. They come from nowhere and 3-bet me preflop with 44 when I open-raise in MP with KQo and then push on my overcards postflop until I fold fearing domination. I always seem to have the "better" hand, but they seem to always make me misplay it. I'm not sure they are winners, given how loosely they sometimes play... but they always seem to make the right moves postflop... if I'm bluffing, they raise... if I'm not, they muck. I always seem to pick the wrong times to take a stand against them. Eventually I'll figure these guys out.. and maybe even pick something up from their style... but for now I think I just need to avoid them. I usually get this, "I can beat this guy" thing in my head... and then I usually leave lighter in the wallet.

[D.J.]

Well call me a hypocrit if you will, but I too agree w/ mike l. in that LA style is best. I moved from vegas a little while ago and hated LA poker b/c it was so loose/wild/crazy, but the more I play, these people have a definite method to their madness and there are many excellent players in LA, and I quickly learned that playing good cards and playing tight is not what wins the money. I have made a rapid progression to my poker game thanks a lot to mike l. and my results have been incredible. I say thanks to mike l. even though I have never met the guy, but just by reading his posts a while back I was able to see how to make this loose/aggressive style work for me. Now, I find the vegas style games much easier to beat and am able to adjust to a wider variety of games/players. If I had to become a poker pro, I would no doubt play in LA b/c you can't beat the action w/ a stick, and in my opinion I think it would be much easier to make a decent living here than in other places like vegas where more grinding goes on. As for why styles differ from place to place, I think it's simply the general financial position of the players that determines it the higher the bankrolls, the looser the games and vice versa, but that's just my opinion.

-D.J.

[Hotchile]

I think a lot has to do with the "higher profile" players in a particular city/location. Where I live, one of the most successful, high profile players plays a solid, tight trapping style of game. That style has filtered down through a number of players as the way to win. However, 180 miles south, the highest profile player is ultra-aggressive which is the style that that city has adapted.

Now, where I live, we have a player who is extremely successful online in higher limit games. He plays almost like a maniac. His style of play appears to be catching on all over town.

IMO, you don't have to look much farther than the role models of a particular place to determine the style you are mostly likely to be playing against.

Larry

[AmericanAirlines]

Hmm... this observation is why I often thin stud would be the better game to earn a living in, and why I can't fathom how holdem ever got so popular.

With community card games, 'less you have the nuts, you can't rule out that they don't.

With stud... all the extra board cards... and private boards... you can sometimes rule out that they don't have you beat and can't have you beat... without having a "the nuts" so to speak (not really a stud concept). Just my opinion.

I suppose HE really became popular for pros and pro-wannabes because 2+2 books have said that the HE pro will suffer less fluctuations and win more consistently if you are an HE expert. No graduated rake... etc. etc.

Anyway, back to HE. Since poker is a game of adaptation... and 2+2 authors say that in so many words, in places... seems to me that you have to take statements in thier books like "if an Ace flops and you get any significant action, you should fold" as a correct observation for the games they based in on, when the books were written. I'd swear the early pages of all the FAP books state the specific mid limit games they apply to.

Anyway, evolution among the player base is inevitable, so adjustment is an always on going thing.

So it would seem the holy grail is... as 2+2 authors have pointed... hand reading. I'd add... plus knowing what the correct objective is if you *could* see (or properly deduced) the opponent(s) hands... added to tactic adjustments to obtain the correct objective.

A mouthful to be sure. But then I'm still trying to come to grips with an appropriate "stategy goal" to guide me in trying to select the correct tactic at any given time.

Once I have the high level strategy statement(s), then tactics should flow from there as solutions to specific cases.

From there I'd hope to be able to boil it down to generalities that work (in order to reduce mental overhead to a minimum... so that the maximum number of winning hours can be participated in).

Little different in basic premise from any conflict planning. You know, the old 5 level thing:

1. Study the problem
2. Plan an attack
3. Train to execute the plan
4. Execute the plan
5. Have a backup plan / tactics

Poker is definitely a good model of "conflict over resources" type confrontations. In essence... the same general thing as trading driven economics.

Sincerely,
AA

[tewall]

Two questions.

1. How does PokerStars poker style differ from Paradise?
2. I had the impression that LA games tend to have lots of raising and lots of people seeing the flop. Is that incorrect?

[Phat Mack]

I like your theory, and have noticed the same thing. A certain style of play starts to win and get emulated by other players. What I find fascinating is that it doesn't take a very long record to attract disciples: if some terrible player streaks for a month or two, that's enough to promote copy-cat play. I even see it at the micro level. A maniac will pull down a couple of monster pots with, say, T5o, and for the next few weeks or months I'll see tons of T5's being shown down.

[Gabe]

We are loose, lousy players with no idea how to play. Got it?!

[Gabe]

In Los Angeles, the bad players have a lot of experience. In Las Vegas, the regular players seem to be following a formula. (It is the formula for beating tourists.) In Arizona, poker is relatively new, and most players do not know what they are doing.

An odd thing about Mirage lower limits the 6/12 game is played with $5 and $1 chips. I don't think they get it.

At least in the middle limits in Los Angeles, it is rare to hear a discussion of how a hand was played. In Vegas, people talk about hands at the table. They also talk about who the good players are. Of course in Los Angeles, few of us speak the same language.

In Los Angeles, they berate the dealers. In Las Vegas, they berate the tourists.

In Los Angeles middle limits, there are a lot fewer passive mistakes compared to Las Vegas.

[Bubmack]

IMO, Style is not a product of the winning player. The winning player will play an optimal strategy against the syle of the table. If you are at a table full of weak tights, agressive gets the coin. A table full of maniacs, tight, trapping should win. Therefore, I would have to believe that the style of a certain geography is always morphing to the climate of the fish.

[AceHigh]

"can't fathom how holdem ever got so popular."

Speed, hold 'em is popular because it is so much faster. I think there are other reasons, like you don't have to remember other players cards and more big pots because you have 2 more people at the table. But speed is number 1.

[cpk]

If you remove the aggression, this is the predominant style in Seattle. The reason for the reduced aggression is the lack of money--many players have gone broke because of the bad economy.

Even bad players who are fast, loose, and tricky can cause real problems for those who grind it out. I don't agree you have to adopt the same style--most players who play 'fancy' can be defeated by 'straightforward' play if you are (a) deep enough in the bankroll, and (b) absolutely fearless in the face of a lot of action. But I do agree that this style is the most difficult to play correctly against, even if the people who play this way suck. If they still manage to play correctly, they are probably impossible to beat.

I think it's best to be merely slightly tricky. You can take advantage of people's memory quirks to make them think you play more tricky than you do--psychologists call these quirks 'heuristics.' Also, I think it's best to play 'just slightly tighter and slower' than 'fast and loose.' But also to know when you have the best of it and to get the money in when you do.