what is it about people that want poker by numbers

i just read some topics and responses in here...i dont usually read the 'book' section, but i was bored. what ive seen kinda amuses me a little...

holdem is not a poker by numbers game. there is no absolute way of playing it. too many outside factors make just about every hand different in a way. be it the players, position, betting etc.


i see players wanting concrete information but failing to grasp the idea of inspired thought process. if a column, book or article gives ya a different, fresh view on a certain idea, its worth it. if it makes ya stop and think, 'hmmm, maybe...' its worth the price. those little maybes can add up to alot. it keeps your mind thinking innovatively on your own game. if the concept is crap, youll recognize it. if its something ya forgot about, or didnt understand earlier in your career, that accounts for quite a bit. in my experience ive gone back and reread parts to find the light bulb going on in the noggin.


but some players want to be spoon fed. "well, in this situation you HAVE to do such and such!!!" its not that cut and dried.


i learned alot from S&M, feeney, and others, but the learning doesnt end there. to really grasp the ideas, ya have to play at least live. only then will ya see how the concepts really take shape and form.

it seems some people cannot fathom ever raising with a crap hand preflop. how about a stone bluff? its never mentioned really in any book, and the reasons for it arent necessarily for immediate monetary gain. i see it on posts where a guy calls with a weak hand, but plays the flop well. then the player wonders, gee he's gotta be a terrible player. never realizing ya gotta adjust for him when hes in a hand. the game doesnt end before or on the flop.

the books are a great start, but there's more to it than just the pages and whats written.


if ya want play by numbers, the Blackjack line starts to the left. starting with braun and ending with wong. its definitive every hand. and comes with the safety net of basic strategy if ya lose count.


anyways...just a little rant of ideas i needed to get out of my system.


btw....blackjack is damn hard work also...


thanks for your time...


b

"i learned alot from S&M, feeney, and others, but the learning doesnt end there. to really grasp the ideas, ya have to play at least live. only then will ya see how the concepts really take shape and form."


You have this right. We've written many times that there is no substitute for experience. Thanks for a good post.

>holdem is not a poker by numbers game. there is no absolute way of >playing it. too many outside factors make just about every hand different >in a way. be it the players, position, betting etc.


Well, I agree it's not much of a numbers game.


But it is a situation game.


If you know:


1. What the situation is.


2. What to do in the situation you're in.


There's no reason, or need, to grasp any concepts or to know any reasons.


Reasons might make good players feel better about their play, or reasons might help good players remember what to do more easily, but reasons have nothing to do with making the right play.

Reasons have everything to do with making the correct decision in any activity. If you play without understanding the reasons behind what you do, you will be able to beat bad players probably. Good players who play with you will beat you easily. As Mason pointed out in an essay, tilt is more prevalent in those who don't understand the game as well as they think they do. I think understanding big concepts is important for this.


You are right, it is possible to play poker or do other things in life without a good understanding of what you are doing. I see it all the time. But you won't be good at whatever activity it is. You will be mediocre. If that's good enough for you...

Could you produce an example of a Holdem hand where

someone, with perfect understanding of the all the theoretical reasons, would take an action that differs from what a mediocre player would do.


Remember, the mediocre ( or worse ) player knows only two things:


1. What the present situation is.


and


2. What to do in this situation.

the idea behind understanding reasons is that once you have everything understood at a deeper basic level, adjusting to situations and adapting to circumstances flows much more easily, especially when you can see the entire picture instead of memorizing a bunch of maxims for basic play. and sometimes the 'right' move won't always be the right move. anybody who thinks that you can be an excellent poker player without imagination and inspiration is full of crap.

Since I'm less experienced than a lot of people here, I might have an answer to this question.


Poker is hard. While you and Mason are obviously right, that no set of by-the-book instructions can teach you really how to play, I think that maybe strong players, in the experience, forget how hard it is simply to get oriented when everybody you ask answers every question you have with "it depends."


Some sort of structure is practically a neccesity in order to simply get your brain around the game, to understand it to the point where you can start making observations and applying them in an intelligent way. This is not a defense of "rote" play, but rather, for a lot of people before you learn to improvise you have to learn the melody.

i agree ya gotta start somewhere. if ya start without a foundation, ya wont know where to go.

1st things id learn(ed) are


1 starting hands

2 fit or fold the flop


thats the basics....bare bones.


i know i left out turn and river


if yer at the river as a beginner you should have either a busted draw, or a decent hand.


build from here...


worry about your hand first.. your not gonna outplay a guy when ya cant play your own hand.


read posts on here helps the thinking process. it sure helped me become a more dangerous player. put yourself in the hand from beginning to end. then see why other players would play it differently. theyll usually explain the reasons why they played it a certain way.


poker is hard...no doubt...but as ya get better, youll see just how much the 'depends' line really does....depend.


hope this helps alittle....


b

You have to know the mold before you can break it. You aren't going to know the mold well enough to break it unless you understand the reasons why. All you will know is "this situation isn't one I've read about or learned what to do in," and without understanding the reasons behind these strategic concepts, you won't know how to adjust. Yes, you can still be successful if you don't know the reasons, you just won't be AS successful. And I also might add that for me at least, it is a lot more fun to know why I am doing something than just having someone tell me what to do.

The problem with not understanding the reasons behind the strategies comes up clearly in situations such as preflop play. Most books warn you not to play AJ offsuit under the gun. They are implicitly assuming a "typical" game, one in which it is moderate as far as aggressiveness/passivity goes, and not at either extreme. So once you have drilled this into your brain "don't play AJ offsuit under the gun!" you go to your local cardroom and promptly sit down with 8 of the most passive players in the city (this does happen). No one ever raises preflop, they all just limp. If you get AJ offsuit in this situation and say, "Ha! I remember, fold it, cause I'm under the gun!" you will be making a mistake. This hand is worth playing up front in this type of ultra loose passive game. The opposite could be said. If you have learned from the books to always play KQ suited from early position, and then sit down with a very loose aggressive player to your left that loves to 3 bet, you probably shouldn't play it. These are just 2 simple examples of where the bets won or saved can turn a losing session into a winning one. Adjustments are much more difficult to make when you have learned by rote and gone no farther. You cannot "think outside the box" when you don't even know the reasons why the boxes are there.


Tim

you flop top pair, decent kicker no draw. 4 players in...


guy on yer immediate right or +1 opens....


mediocre player....calls


advanced... raise to try and cut the field maximizing chances of winning and making it expensive to draw


ive seen this mistake cost people pots so many times its ridiculous. and yet it seems like a basic, automatic play.


there ya go...


b

>you flop top pair, decent kicker no draw. 4 players in...

>guy on yer immediate right or +1 opens....

>mediocre player....calls


I agree with your analysis of what to do.


But the mediocre player, not knowing your reasons,

or any other reasons,

simply recognizes the situation

and knows to Raise.


After all, you just told him and has a good

memory and believes you.

i disagree, in many situations , with a large field behind you this is a clear fold.

why would ya fold? your raising to make the draws pay. your hand is playable. i do agree that it is a raise fold situation. i didnt say there was any preflop raise or not. this is a raise to limit the field and charge the max on draws.


another thing, if yer not playin yer hand on this type of flop, maybe ya shouldnt have called preflop anyway. this is a playable flop. to get a flop like this, and fold, i believe yer giving up too much.


see my post under small stakes "its after midnight, you can bet yer hand now" itll show ya why its a bad move not to raise.


b

I think it basically depends on what you consider a decent kicker.


You are right though, if I flopped top pair with a hand I thought was good enough to limp in with, I would raise here(or sometimes wait until the turn), with the possible exception of Axs with a pair of aces, and a tight player betting, and several players left behind me.


I was thinking more of something like flopping top pair of Jacks with a 6 kicker after getting a free play in the big blind. When the small blind bets out, there arent really any draws on the board, and there are several players yet to act, this is a situation i consider a fold.

Well, sure. But at the same time, if a beginner asks, "CanI play AJo under the gun?" a better answer (for the beginner) than "it depends" is:


"Generally, no, because you're afraid of raises behind you which will drive out all the weaker hands than yours (but none of the stronger ones) and if everyone stays in could end up playing an unsuited two-gapper against a large field, which means that flopping top pair with a good kicker or even two pair might not be enough."


A good teacher will always push his student to know the "whys" behind the "whats"--my point is that sometimes more experienced players forget about the "whats" when talking to newbies, which can be downright confusing.

J6...yer 6 is a terrible kicker. because if anyone else has a J usually they have at least a 9 with it. though id still raise to limit the field. its still playable. teh raise may give ya a free draw to the river from the sb too.


a decent kicker is like QJ and a J hits. Q isnt great, but its decent. lots limp with AJ or KJ...

JT..the T would be marginal...not really bad, but still not great by any means...


b

Ronaldo,

I agree completely with what your saying. I don't think we disagree at all, it is probably just a question of semantics. I would certainly never advocate telling someone "it depends", and then just walking off and leaving them there, you have to say, "it depends, because..." and explain why, like you just did in the AJ offsuit example. I was just referring to people who go to the other extreme and say "never play AJ offsuit in early position," and never point out the exceptions. I think to go to either extreme is wrong and not at all helpful. I do concede that maybe the beginner should just memorize this first, as long as they are aware that there are exceptions that they are just not going to go into now.


Tim

Bernie,


Now just tell players to ever play 2 5 suited. Great job breaking down the process.


You write some very good posts.


Best Wishes


MK

i will be posting this to the beginners forum for i see it may have some value there based on the responses here. thanks all for the responses...


and for the additional ideas...


b