A post I've wanted to write for a long time (LONG)

[Josh W]

As the title suggests...

In fact, I actually wrote it out a few days ago when the forum was more screwed up than it is now and new posts got deleted after written. So, I lost it. But, here goes again.

Poker changes. I haven't been playing that long....about 4.5 years. That's a lot longer than a lot of people here. I certainly won't say I'm better, but I will say I've seen changes that newer players haven't seen. And a lot of people don't adapt to changing conditions. Don't be those people.

In the last few months, there have been more and more posts about how the games are getting tougher. And I'll be the first to admit that a lot of 100-200 games and higher are only BARELY beatable by me, if even that much (that alone will signify that lots here are lots better than me).

However, people are bemoaning the 30s and 50s on party. They aren't anywhere near unbeatable. Not all, but a lot of people here are:

1.) Not gathering info throughout a hand. They see VPIP/PFR numbers, and know preflop how they will play the entire hand way too often.

2.) Way too egomaniacal. Look, I was there (search for "GummyWorm" posts). I still have an ego problem (and for as bad as it is, it used to be a lot worse...if you can believe that!). I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book. I've learned exclusively from my own pondering and this forum. Use this forum to learn. Quit saying things are 'obvious' when they are close. Yes, I'm largely referring to my recent "unusual AK hand". Anybody who chooses to do any math will see that by folding that river, they are losing pennies at most. And yet, TONS of people claimed it was an easy call, or a horrible fold, or a disasterous fold. None of those are right. It was close.

And again, those who said it was an easy call thought so because of one players stats, and refused to acquire information throughout the hand.

3.) People here don't think they can beat tight games. It's been said for years that preflop decisions are nearly worthless relative to postflop play. And yet, everybody focuses on preflop stats. ooooh, everybody at this table is 16/8, I can't win, I'll leave.

Please. Give me that game. If they can play well post flop, yeah, it's a tough game. But if those are their stats, they probably haven't played much shorthanded. This means that they are quite possibly poor from their blinds. Rip them apart. If you steal the blinds an extra time every five rounds, that's an extra 1.5BB / 100 hands.

1.5BB/100 hands if you can find one (extra) opportunity every FIVE ROUNDS.

A ton of people here would love to have that as their winrate. Here's a suggestion. Find a tight game with one or two players who don't play well postflop (even if they are tight preflop). Rob them. Get rich.

But please stop saying tight games are tough. Tight games can be the most profitable type.

All three of these things fall under the category of THINKING. THINK about your opponents hands, not just stats. THINK about how you can make money besides opponents bad preflop limps. THINK about how you can improve your game instead of thinking you already know everything.

This should make sense. And it should also hit close to home.

Josh

[mscags]

[ QUOTE ]
The selected post/topic has been added to your list. You will see this entry in 'My Home' until you remove it if you added it as a Favorite. You also will get any replies to your Favorite topics emailed to you if you have this option enabled in your profile. Reminders will not be emailed to you and will go away once you make a reply to the post. In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.




[/ QUOTE ]

[___1___]

JoshW,

Very refreshing post...Thanks.

___1___

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been playing that long....about 4.5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. That's like older than the Spice Girls. [ QUOTE ]
THINK about your opponents hands, not just stats. THINK about how you can make money besides opponents bad preflop limps. THINK about how you can improve your game instead of thinking you already know everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying I should think about stuff? Cuz that's like my worst part.

[psyduck]

Great post /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Paluka]

I don't think there is a good player on this forum who thinks tight games are impossible to beat.

[climber]

I tend to agree. I have pretty standard table selection procedure and review what tables I am sitting at very frequently, often leaving the tighter table.

The kind of annoying thing is that the tables I am doing well on/have doubled up on often dont have the best stats so I keep uncheckign my "auot-post blinds" box only to realize I'd be crazy to leave that table.

The problem I see is that SSH taught a bunch of us how to play AF=3 postflop and thats what we know how to do so we just find the loose games and keep betting and raising.

[Josh W]

It depends on your definition of good, of course.

There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

Josh

[phish]

Well said. Especially your comments about pre-flop vs post-flop. Way too much focus is given here to pre-flop play and stats. How someone plays post-flop is SO much more important. A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Especially your comments about pre-flop vs post-flop. Way too much focus is given here to pre-flop play and stats. How someone plays post-flop is SO much more important. A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Just ask Derb (though I'd say 30 VPIP, not 35....but the point is the same).

[sweetjazz]

I'm a mid-limit player and certainly the 10/20 and 15/30 are far from impossible to beat handily. But I played several hours of a no fold 'em live 3/6 game. I counted about 10 times when I made a bad or highly questionable decision (over 8 hours of play). This is about 1 every 25 hands (and I could be making more errors that I don't yet notice). On the one hand, it is good that I can now recognize my poor decisions when analyzing the hand immediately after the fact -- that experience is something I didn't have when I was first beating these games. There's probably something analagous that goes on at every limit -- when we first play, even if we succeed, we can't really spot where our leaks are. It's only after a long amount of play in a game can we start to reliably spot leaks (and hopefully not make them).

But on the other hand, it was disturbing to make so many mistakes. Almost all of my mistakes were pretty small EV wise and ranged from loose calls to failing to bluff at one pot where I might have been able to take it down due to unique circumstances to not value betting/raising in a few situations. If I make this many mistakes in a game that is easier than the 0.5/1 game on Party, how many errors am I making a 15/30 game?

I remember a few weeks ago having one of my best sessions ever. I felt like I had a great read of everyone at the table and was picking up on the style of every new player at the table quickly. I felt like I was consistently making good decisions. I only made one boneheaded play the entire session, calling down a turn raise with TT against a player who was too passive to check-raise the turn with a hand I could have beaten. It helped that I was runnning good most of the session, and in fact that probably significantly reduced the number of tough decisions I faced.

However, this was a rare experience. So often, I play decent but end up getting sloppy and make plays against my better judgment, or I fail to work on maintaining active reads of the other players at the table, or I overcompensate when running bad to avoid being run over.

Despite being a winning player so far, I would say that I am not much better than a half-decent player. I can crush loose small stakes games and I can beat the lower mid-limit games so far despite needing work in my game. But a lot of that is my opponents at these limits are more lazy and more sloppy than I am, not that I am particularly good. I believe that I am capable of being a much better player, but it will take a lot more work to reach that goal. Hopefully I will learn to THINK better and also develop the discipline to work on consistently applying all that I know and all my observational powers throughout every session I play. Instead of looking at how much I am winning against my bad opponents, when I am honest with myself, I realize that despite this appearance of success, I am leaving a significant amount of theoeretical EV on the table. I am not that good, but I can aspire to study more and work harder to become that good.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
A tough expert 35 vpip will crush a nitty 17 vpip anyday, even in a 10 handed game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

I've recently explored some near-derb stats at full games with tight players, and I've seen excellent results. Kts utg, no problem, raaaaaaaisse.

Someone tries to isolate my kjo? caaaaap.

It really mind-[censored] the tags.

[tongni]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who chooses to do any math will see that by folding that river, they are losing pennies at most. And yet, TONS of people claimed it was an easy call, or a horrible fold, or a disasterous fold. None of those are right. It was close.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a really bad fold. Don't fool yourself.

[Klepton]

your third point is good, but that doesn't mean i'm gonna be looking for tight games.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[cpk]

Tight games are beatable, but it takes more balls, and I've found that even though I am beating the game, I am not having a lot of fun. I play recreationally, so that's important to me.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[CardSharpCook]

Would this strategy increase variance? That's the primary reason I get up from tight tables - It seems like we are just waiting to see who gets the cards today. I prefer being at tables where I can point and say, "that's a mistake! That's a mistake! There's another one!" I don't know, I've stumbled on this neat parlor trick where I can make a bunch of money playing a stupid game 5 hours a day. My understanding of this game isn't big enough to know how to squeeze blood from a stone. I mean, I understand the TAG rules and know how to use that against a fellow TAG, but I don't conjure hands out of thin air. I don't 3bet T9s, and I hardly ever chk/rz a turn completely naked. I think I'm happy where I am.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm happy where I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it would be silly for you to change.

I think part of the reason I wrote this is because...I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up. As I said in my preface, the games always change. What works so well today won't in 18 months.

ABC poker wins a lot of money right now. It wins less than it did 6 months ago. Will it still win in 18 months? I certainly can't say. But I don't like the trend.

For now, though, if you are happy...Congrats. I mean that in the sincerest of ways.

Josh

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, given that tight doesn't mean tough was your thesis...

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't foresee the games always being this good. I mean, the games are tightening up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, given that tight doesn't mean tough was your thesis...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my response was too brief, hoping the reader would connect the dots. Yes, it led to ambiguity.

1.) A lot of people think tight games are bad. Hence, I wrote what I did.

2.) The person whom I was responding to (and others) said that they don't wanna seek out tight games. They wanna be able to play ABC and win lots of money.

3.) That's fine.

4.) The games may not always be this 'good'. That is, in their view, loose. To them (to some non-universal extent), good = loose.

5.) The games may tighten up. ABC poker may not win as much because of this. I think games will still be good (maybe not quite as good, but still very beatable, whereas many here think tight games are unbeatable).

I hope this clears it up for you. However, I don't think it will. It seems as though you have some sort of vendetta or agenda. If that's the case, you should just come out in the open with it. You've made a five responses in this thread, and contributed nothing. Why is this?

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had any sort of clue what you are trying to get at here, I'd respond more constructively. As it is, I'm just forced to ask...what's your agenda here? You aren't trying to learn anything. You aren't trying to teach anything. You aren't trying to strike up constructive conversation. You aren't discussing strategy. I think you may have stumbled into the wrong forum.

Josh

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of people who beat 15-30 and maybe 30-60 and think tight games are unbeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl. This way you'll be able to name some of them, and they'll be able to defend their strange view. I'm, I'm assuming you're not just reading minds (again) here...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start with Gentleman Gerry. He said he's beating the 15, but the 50 is horrible. This means his earn (in BB/100h) is less than 30% in the 50-100 than in the 15-30. That's one name without looking up any old threads.

I've never read minds. I have read hands, tho!

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and close the gap between this and your assertion. Why bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had any sort of clue what you are trying to get at here, I'd respond more constructively. As it is, I'm just forced to ask...what's your agenda here? You aren't trying to learn anything. You aren't trying to teach anything. You aren't trying to strike up constructive conversation. You aren't discussing strategy. I think you may have stumbled into the wrong forum.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My agenda? Gentleman Gerry never said he didn't like the games because they were tight. He said they were often horrible.

I was originally trying to make the point that you made a claim you couldn't defend, and you did it with the gee whiz sense of discover of someone your age.

You've since put on a clown show.

My agenda.

To chuckle.

[shemp]

Yes. It's personal. There's something about you I don't like. Or maybe we've played together and you've outplayed me. Or maybe not even that, but I just think your a cocky kid. AND IT PISSES ME OFF! YEAH THAT"S IT. I"M PISSED OFF!!!! MYAGEENDAR IS TO TAKE YOU DOWN MORHTERHFUSDLAFJER. It's not simply that I thought you said something silly and called you on it. Nope.

[Josh W]

To say that the 50-100 games have been horrible recently has been to say that you (or whomever) can't beat good games. THAT was the point of my post. There are tons of crushable games out there that people are avoiding for whatever reason. The biggest reason is because of tightness. You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible. I made an deduced assumption that may or may not be correct.

[ QUOTE ]

My agenda.

To chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are looking for OOT.

Josh

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I guess an admission of error, even if only a part of it, is laudable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post there too?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though. I really am curious....

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't conjure hands out of thin air. I don't 3bet T9s, and I hardly ever chk/rz a turn completely naked.

[/ QUOTE ]

im pretty sure that doing these particular moves is not how you beat "tight" games.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I shouldn't have guessed why Gerry thought the games were horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. I guess an admission of error, even if only a part of it, is laudable.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are looking for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post there too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

If not, I don't think I'll continue to participate in your attempted thread hijack. It's nothing personal. In fact, I'm surprised this is coming from you. It's just that the boards have enough clutter with stuff like what you are writing. I don't want to catch myself doing that, too.

Josh

[Dantes]

You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

[lil feller]

Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize that most of the people who play 30/60+ 3+ table right? They have no idea how their opponents play outside of whatever they have set up for their HUD. But you're supposed to just magically OUTPLAY everyone post flop? Ohhhhh kay. Good thing this wasn't an egomaniacal post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three tabling allows for tons of opposition observation.

This isn't egomaniacal at all. I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Josh

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anything, ya know, benefitial to add?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've amended some of your spew in light of my comments, was this not progress, of a sort?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

Three points.

1.) If this came off brash (or, rather...SINCE this came of brash)...my sincerest apologies.

2.) This post isn't directed at people who can beat the tar out of tight games. I **know** that those people exist, and I'm glad they do, because they can hopefully contribute to the discussion (should they choose).

3.) I have seen no threads like this is the last 6 to 12 months. I'm sorry if it's often discussed. Can you please point me to threads regarding these topics...I'm not so egotistical to think that my game can't improve, and if there are threads out there that will help me, I'd love to peruse them

Thanks, and again, sorry for the tone.

Josh

[LarsVegas]

Josh to be honest, if all you can come up with is a winning $15/30 player finding a few $50/100 games tough, you don't really have much of a point or an argument here. Maybe he doesn't consider himself to perfect postflop player either yet.

I don't know why you are using this as an argument to back up your claim that a lot of winning $15/30 and $30/60 players focus only on finding games with loose play preflop. You yourself are saying you would have trouble beating $100/200, can't a $15/30 winner find a few $50/100 games horrible?

And also, preflop looseness is not the be all or end all of limit Holdem, but it sure is ONE very nice factor to a game, if it's there. There are certainly others too, but PARTICULARLY I think as you escalate up the limits, preflop looseness is one way to beat very experienced and aggressive players slightly over time.

I think Paluka have touched onto this earlier, saying he is equal at best postflop to most of his high-limit opposition, but he gains his edge preflop. You will also see Stoxtrader entering full games at almost the highest online limits, playing against some of the world best online $500/1000 players, but possibly having an edge even over them as they have a hard time adjusting, or being bothered adjusting, to proper tight play once the game gets more than 3 or 4 handed.

lars

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've made a lot of money at poker, and I've NEVER read a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

So uh, whats up with that?

Why not just buy a book and read it? You *might* just learn a thing of two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though. I really am curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I wasn't 100% truthful.

After playing for about 2 years, I hit a downswing. People suggested that I read HPFAP. I borrowed a copy of it from Sooga, and started to read it. I read the first 15ish pages, then glanced at a couple other chapters and found it very very obvious. I really don't enjoy sitting down and reading books, so I don't think it's +Life EV for me to read it.

Other books on limit holdem haven't been quoted as often or preached to me as much, so I figure nobody has reinvented the wheel as far as limit holdem books go, yet. IF I hear of a book that far surpasses HPFAP, I'll likely read it.

I've suggested to TONS of friends who want to learn poker to read books first. I wish somebody would have told me that before I lost thousands climbing the learning curve.

If I were to more seriously pursue NL or stud or omaha, I would certainly try to find a book to read first, to accelerate the learning process.

Hope this makes sense.

Josh

[stoxtrader]

tight games may or may not be good on an absolute basis, two important factors there is your skill, and the post-flop skill of your opponents.

on a RELATIVE basis, tight games blow.

[SA125]

I think Josh's input into the analysis and play of a given hand are up there with the best around. He stopped posting for a while, came back in, got more than a few requests to post more, and has been.

His AKo hand was good discussion about the merits of a call on the river and a good thread. Regardless of the outcome. Although I do think it really blows not saying what UTG had and doesn't make everything results oriented by knowing what they were. Still a good posted hand.

Maybe this post wasn't the best, but it was well intended. Give the guy a mulligan.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Poker changes."

But the songs remain the same.

A moment might come for you Josh, when you have nothing to prove to yourself or others, when you will just sit there and play. In that instant you will know the greatness of poker, and it will be blissful, unfulfilling, and secret.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are underestimating here the amount of work needed to go from being a good ABC player who beats 38/14 players to being a good player who has an edge over (or is breakeven against) a tight but tricky 17/10 player. Obviously, we would expect that two 17/10 players who faced off would not have much of a difference in preflop skill. (There could be a small difference in which particular hands they are playing, but it's probably insignificant, as learning the proper hands to play preflop is relatively straightforward.) However, proper postflop play against such opponents is quite intricate -- it involves a willingness to make counterintuitive plays (without the recklessness of trying to make such plays when it is inappropriate to do so), a detailed observation of an opponent's tendencies (which requires forming tentative opinions based on rather skimpy data at first and an ability to modify those opinions based on weighing new data appropriately), and some understanding of game theoretic concepts to avoid giving away too much information to your opponent and to maximally exploit any weaknesses that you find.

Are most of the people who play winning ABC poker at higher limits capable of developing these skills? Of course they are, as there is a plethora of resources available to someone who is willing to study and learn. It is not easy and for the average person, I suspect it takes a lot of reading and several tens (or hundreds) of thousands of hands played and analyzed before they come close to mastering the subtle nuances of the game. (I am in the middle of this process and still have a lot to learn despite my already significant investment in studying these concepts.) Many posters here (CardSharpCook, for one) have indicated that they are not interested in making that investment because they are happy beating looser games.

If I understood Josh's point correctly, it was that the presence of these ABC tight players makes the tight games still beatable (with a lot of work). Moreover, the long term trend is for games to get tighter (as loose players bust and the decline in the poker boom lessens the number of replacement suckers), so that future winnings will depend more and more heavily on being able to exploit postflop mistakes made by tight players.

And while this is nothing new, it is something that bears repeating. Theoretically, the games should converge to ones where nobody can beat the rake. Obviously, that won't happen because variance will keep some losing players in the game for long periods of time (and also knock out some winning players) and because there will always be an influx of bad players into the game. Unfortunately, that influx is likely decreasing as we speak and will continue to do so; moreover, a consequence of the poker boom is the rise of many more skilled players, meaning that each new fish that enters a game has a shorter expected life in the game before busting. Blah blah blah, fish is a relative term in terms of what game you are in, it's not inconceivable that an ABC tight player could be a fish (= slight loser or marginal winner) at one of the higher limit games at some point. (Some, I think, have even claimed it to be so now.)

So yes this is all old stuff, but it's a reminder to look at the game of poker itself in perspective. It's easy to get caught up in the day-to-day play of hands that one becomes oblivious to whether the games are changing and how to properly adjust their strategy. Even though you don't always see them posting here, I suspect that some small winners have turned into losers or marginal players by simply failing to adapt to the gradual slight toughening (tightening?) of their game, to the point where variance was capable of taking away their entire bankroll.

[limon]

you're losing money. not necessarily because you'll learn any new plays but because you'll have a better idea of what your opponents are doing/thinking. i've been a winning player since my 1st .10 ante 7-stud game in high school. i havent learned anything from a book in a decade but i still read them to see what my opponents are up to. read harrington on holdem then go play in a no limit tournament every other player is doing EXACTLY what he says to do in the book...it's comical. i used to say i would never play on line poker because it was an assualt to my senses and that was, and still is, true...but, i was losing out on alot of info in my cash games due to the fact that all of the new players were playing in a style that was shaped by the on-line game so i had to go on and learn, not about poker, but about my opponents.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't enjoy sitting down and reading books, so I don't think it's +Life EV for me to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of the topic, I think anyone that doesn't read books is making a -Life EV move. And it's not even close.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh,

While I, and i'm sure others, appreciated what you took the time to write, you aren't exploring new territory here. In fact, the only reason you're getting such a volume of responses is the brash and condescending manner in which you presented it. No offense intended.

I enjoy reading your posts, especially the ones I disagree with, as you at least take the time to include a "why" with your "what".

Ultimately, however, your post boils down to two often tred topics.

#1. Success in poker comes not from our own skill, but from the difference in skill between us and our opponents. Granted there are different kinds of skills, and different skills serve different purposes on every betting street. To assume, however, that beating a bunch of "17/10 nits" is easy, is foolish. If these players have the discipline to play that solid, against standard oppositon, it won't take them to long to asses your style of play, and adapt accordingly. Nobody with the discipline to play winning 17/10 poker lacks the intution required to make such adjustments. Doing so, however, requires attention to every detail of the opponentes game. Why bother? They can just as easily ignore you, or go to a game with 6 other 38/14 monkeys and play 600 hands an hour with out thinking. Don't assume just because these people choose not to try outwit that they are incapable of doing so. To make that assumption would be a huge mistake.

#2. Success in poker is realized by recognizing that difference in skill, and exploiting it. Tommy wrote a wonderful post on "making a difference" that explained this, albeit using a vagueness that only Tommy has mastered. I suggest you search it.

I look forward to another one of your poker epiphanys, hopefully the next one will be slightly better received, and much more original.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the assumption that someone who has the discipline to play 17/10 also has the ability to adapt to changing game conditions is too strong. It takes a minute to learn 17/10 preflop play, but it takes years to learn correct postflop play. I've seen plenty of preflop "TAGs" whose WtSD is way too high because they refuse to lay down their preflop "powerhouse" hands.

As for the post itself, I enjoyed it. Is it something revolutionary? No. I already knew most of the points made in the post. What is it good for then? For the best players on this forum, maybe they have absolutely nothing to gain from it. But this forum also has regulars who are intermediate players (like myself) and small stakes lurkers. The rest of us do have something to gain from it. Sometimes, we need a post like this to sort of slap us over the head and remind us that ABC-play can be limiting. It's a lot like that post J_V made. Even though he got criticism from the better players on this forum, I (and I'm sure others as well) gained from it. And I appreciate it when people do make posts that remind us that we should be learning to get better at poker, not to hone our ABC skills.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker changes."

But the songs remain the same.

A moment might come for you Josh, when you have nothing to prove to yourself or others, when you will just sit there and play. In that instant you will know the greatness of poker, and it will be blissful, unfulfilling, and secret.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy rocks.
/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[J.A.Sucker]

Hi Josh,

You know how I feel about all of these things, and I don't want to write too much about it, but I will make a few points about the most important things that you discuss.

1. Poker changes. Games always get smaller and tougher with time, because the live ones go broke and only the stronger players are left. The rake continues to go up proportionally to the stakes because of increased operating expenses and greed, hurting you further as a winning player. Inflation kills you too.

2. High limit games are supposed to be tough. That's just the way it works. You're playing for a lot of money, and losers can't afford to lose for very long. Even a very rich man can't afford to be a loser at 100-200 for very long. Let's take a guy who's a small loser and plays 3 nights a week. He loses 1K a night (which is typical for most losers) - remember that the time & tips for this game is about 30 bucks an hour since he probably tips a bit more than he should, or 150 bucks a night. Now he only has to lose 850 a night to get to 1K. Easy to do. In a year, he loses 150K, post-tax dollars. Not many people can afford to lose 250K of earned dollars before things happen. Our fish begins to sell his investments and his wife finds out. No more college fund for little Timmy - whatever. It's a LOT of money. Most people don't realize how much money is at stake in a game of this size. Even 40-80 is more than the vast majority of losers can afford.

3. Ego kills. That's what makes poker so great, but also so dangerous. Lots of players think they're the best, but only a few are. Playing bigger and bigger is usually a recipe for disaster, for lots of reasons.

4. Winning at the highest levels isn't about playing poker by rote. Big cards get the money in good games, but in tough games, you have to be creative and play lots of poker, because nobody makes big mistakes preflop. Hand reading is so important, and it becomes much tougher as you play bigger. Your opponents know this too, and play really tricky. Pretty soon your judgement gets completly messed up and you don't know where you are. As snakehead says, the games are a total "mind f*ck." He's right.

5. The bots will kill online poker. Maybe they are already. Think about it: a lot of players are playing pokertracker poker - VPIP stats, etc. They are winning lots of money this way. I've been told that some players are "killing the games for more than I ever could" by taking statistical measures at various points in the hand (turn raises for example) to make the right decision more often. With huge databases being available, how is this type of play better done by a computer? That's why bots could do this, especially against weaker players. Good players may be immune for longer, since they make plays based on lots of factors, including their particular opponent at that particular time, so they don't have a static strategy. However, given time and enough information, the bots will beat or break even against those players too, I'm sure. Breaking even breaks you because of the rake.

The bottom line is that one should make hay while the sun shines, and the weather is definately good this winter. If you can't do this, the above will kill any hope anyone has of being a long-time poker pro. I guess I did end up writing too much, but whatever.

[ggbman]

I have a VERY hard time believing that multi-billion dollar companies will not invest how ever much it takes in bot detection software to ensure the integrity of the games on their sight when you think about the alternative.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker changes."

But the songs remain the same.

A moment might come for you Josh, when you have nothing to prove to yourself or others, when you will just sit there and play. In that instant you will know the greatness of poker, and it will be blissful, unfulfilling, and secret.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, Tommy, (and I'm guessing based on the existance of your post, that you don't), that I feel I have nothing to prove. The easiest way to see this is by looking at my frequent, annoying, refusal to post results in hands.

However...this forum is degrading. There is a lot less strategy being discussed. There is very little discussion of postflop hand reading. There is A LOT of "...and it's not close" in dang near every thread.

In short, there is a massive trend here to stop thinking and to stop learning, and to start bragging endlessly. There is more and more discussion of winrates, beatability of games, etc, and less discussion on improving as poker players.

I am not trying to annihilate the non-strategy discussion. Rather, I'm trying to introduce some strategy discussion because I need some.

If I can succeed in promoting discussion (and hopefully removing "and it's not close" because every decision is at least somewhat close), I'll feel that I have a greater chance to improve as a player.

It's not about me PROVING anything. It's about me IMPROVING something....my game.

Josh

[ QUOTE ]
I have a VERY hard time believing that multi-billion dollar companies will not invest how ever much it takes in bot detection software to ensure the integrity of the games on their sight when you think about the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]
there is a bot already out which take ptdata into account. you fool the pokersites by playing through another computer which is clean. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Turning Stone Pro]

Why even respond to his nonsense. From what have heard of you and your game, you are a solid player and genuine nice fellow.

I am going to suggest to our mutual friend that we start a seperate forum or chat room for 20-25 solid winning players, who want to discuss serious strategy and get to another level of poker ability without having to post on this once-excellent forum and be bombarded with retarded comments and spam-like bulls**t.

Perhaps we could have a small membership fee or dues and put this towards an in-house tourney to send a "representative" to big tourneys, etc. Just thinking out loud, I guess . . .

TSP

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Why even respond to his nonsense. From what have heard of you and your game, you are a solid player and genuine nice fellow.

I am going to suggest to our mutual friend that we start a seperate forum or chat room for 20-25 solid winning players, who want to discuss serious strategy and get to another level of poker ability without having to post on this once-excellent forum and be bombarded with retarded comments and spam-like bulls**t.

Perhaps we could have a small membership fee or dues and put this towards an in-house tourney to send a "representative" to big tourneys, etc. Just thinking out loud, I guess . . .

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words TSP.

Hmmm, I have lots more to say, but not sure how to best proceed. Hope this doesn't come out too wrong.

As I'm sure you know, your reputation on here is less than glowing. No problem. I also have it on high authority that anybody who knows you from 2+2 doesn't know YOU, as you are a damn fine person.

Your dislike for Tommy's posts, though, is somewhat narrowminded. Tommy and I are friends, and over breakfast once at Bay 101, it dawned on me that I'm more like him in a poker sense than any of the hundreds of players I know. As much as this will sound like a contradiction, I play like a cross between Tommy and DERB.

Tommy is a spectacular fella, and his mental approach to the game is far and away the best I've ever seen. What people (and, I think, You) need to realize is that his posts are meant for one of two things:

1.) Pure entertainment. Take it for what it's worth, and don't read too much into it.

2.) Mental and emotional game approach. These are incredibly valuable, and I think too often (based on responses), people don't see the value in them.

His reply to me was largely #2, with a little #1 sprinkled in. And, quite frankly, it was deserving of a response.

Tommy told me once that he only (for the most part) replies to people he knows in person, so he knows where they are coming from, and he has an idea of how to post in such a way that the intended audience can get the most benefit from it.

Now, you surely aren't this audience, and I'm not about to say that you should change to become his audience. What works for you is working well. If it ain't broke...

However, I think your constant bemoaning "oh no, another Tommy post" is getting tired. If you don't like it, don't respond. If you aren't:

1) entertained

2) appreciative of his mental and emotional outlook on the game

then so be it. This isn't a universal forum where everybody is going to enjoy everybody else's posts. For example, I rarely (if ever) will respond to a post where the OP uses a hand history converter. Another example is people threatening to boycott my posts because I don't include results.

That's fine.

Even though this forum is degrading quickly, it is also growing. There is a lot of diversity here. There are different types of posters looking for and providing different value. Appreciate that, and appreciate that even though you may not like somebody's style and/or substance, others do. Let them enjoy it without seeing your graffiti on the walls.

Whew.

Enough of that. Glad I got that off my chest. Tommy, sorry for speaking for you, and I sincerely apologize if I misrepresented anything.

As for your forum idea...I'd be all for it, but would not participate in creating it (from a software point of view). I would contribute, if invited of course.

When you next come out to Cali, let me know. I owe the drunkard a beer, and will grab one for you, too.

Josh

[mike l.]

"In short, there is a massive trend here to stop thinking and to stop learning, and to start bragging endlessly."

about how good it feels to get to the point where you have nothing to prove for instance lol

yeah tommy stunk it up on this one,, condescending.

good posts by yuo though josh. nice thread.

[samdash]

Which Friends character would you say you're most similar to? Perhaps a combination of Chandler and Joey would best describe you.

[Turning Stone Pro]

[ QUOTE ]
What people (and, I think, You) need to realize is that his posts are meant for one of two things:

1.) Pure entertainment. Take it for what it's worth, and don't read too much into it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Josh:

Hard to believe that more folks haven't figured out that the aforementioned is the only reason for my responses to Tommy. I've never met him, and never played against him. I wouldn't know him if I bumped into him on the street.

For me, 2+2 is a way for me to unwind while taking a break from work, and I could care less about my reputation on here. It's reached a point though where I think I have offended more folks than I have entertained. For this reason, I have stopped posting.


I would enjoy a seperate forum made up entirely of serious players, and will look into doing this.

Until then, take care and perhaps we'll meet out in Vegas next WSOP time,

TSP

All of this, and your recent postings, just sound like someone who is running very well and suddenly thinks he's god's gift to poker. You're not interested in giving advice, or improving people's games. You're interested in disguising your bragging about how awesome you think you are. Whatever.

[J.A.Sucker]

These things are all false. Well, I don't really know how well Josh is running or not, but I just want to let you know that your impressions of him are 100% inaccurate. What I can tell you is that Josh knows the full range of pleasures and pains that poker can offer, as much as most anyone who posts here. I can also assure you that Josh is "good peoples."

[rigoletto]

Nice post. I think it is thought provoking and needed. I'm sorry it's turning into a personality contest. Good luck!

[Josh W]

Thanks Sucka...

Gerry has become a borderline troll, stirring up angst in every thread he participates in. He's on ignore now for me, until I hear from others that he's become a worthwhile contributor. I don't even know what he wrote here, but given your first sentence, I can guess.

More importantly...where's the trip report?

Those scallops were unreal.

Josh

[dachord]

A quote from Turning Stone Pro:
[ QUOTE ]
I would enjoy a seperate forum made up entirely of serious players, and will look into doing this.


[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see a forum like this. I would be one of the two plus twoers that would have nothing to contribute (to this type of forum) but would love to be able to read credible, thought provoking posts without having to search through all of the asnine posts by the trolls and people that are just looking to increase their post counts. I hope that you (or somebody) can make this happen.

[J.A.Sucker]

Report is up. NV&G.

[Victor]

haha. i remember reading gummyworm posts from like 4 years ago that were like 1000 word bad beat treatises.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
haha. i remember reading gummyworm posts from like 4 years ago that were like 1000 word bad beat treatises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I could be wrong, and I'm certainly not gonna look them up, but I think they were more "wo is me, I'm running so bad" treatises, not actual bad beats.

I was writing those in an effort to get better. I certainly didn't pick the most effective way, but they did help me get to be a better player.

But, man. Things got ugly a while later. I was running bad again, as Josh W. I asked for advice, and Clarkmeister pulled a couple of those up. I got so beligerently mad at him for rehashing those. I thought he was trying to embarass me, but in reality he was helping.

Live and learn.

Josh

[Victor]

yea,

i wasnt trying to trash talk you. i was tryin to show you werent some new hotshot kid but had been behind the woodshed a few times. now that i realize gerry is a total troll i wish i hadnt responded.

anyway, i always enjoyed reading those and they were especially good for me as i was new to poker and saw how hard poker was even for someone who seemed waaaaaay better than me. they were entertaining too as i was trapped in some worthless job at the time and the forum had less traffic.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
I've suggested to TONS of friends who want to learn poker to read books first. I wish somebody would have told me that before I lost thousands climbing the learning curve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Lawrence