Festus22
10-08-2003, 02:47 PM
By my best estimate, I’ve now played around 100K holdem hands. Here are a few thoughts and observations about the game:
It can be quite boring. Even playing 60 hands/hr online, playing 25% of the hands means only 15 minutes/hr actually involved in a hand. Given you’re likely not to see a showdown on the majority, it’s more like 10 minutes/hr. Yes I know I should be studying my opponents while not involved in a hand but quite honestly, I can’t do it for that long. When playing one table, I usually read or surf between hands. I’ve taken to playing 2 tables at once to stay more involved and enjoy that much more. Again, I know you lose the ability to closely observe your opponents but the online game is such a revolving door anyway, I can’t see I’m losing that much and in the micro-game, players are pretty predictable. And I do have notes on the “regulars”. But 2 tables is the max for me. Any more and it’s too tough to watch the action, especially if it’s that rare moment when you’re in a hand on all of them. Bless davidross for being able to play 4 – I have no clue how that’s done effectively. I guess you B&M folks have the added aspect of interaction with your opponents and watching a lot more behavior but I have to imagine that since you see so fewer hands, it’s got to get boring sometimes as well.
I think what’s also adding to my sense of boredom is that I’ve only ever played 10 handed ring games for micro limits online. $1/2 and on down and only about 1000 hands or so at $1/2. That’s it. Period. Technically I guess that’s not true since I once accidentally joined a $15/30 game and wondered why the chip colors were suddenly different. The timing was perfect in that before I realized what I’d done, I had posted. 8 hours worth of micro earnings lost in a few seconds! Never once played PL, NL, live or a tournament. Would it be worth while to explore some of these other variations? If so, which ones?
And only being dealt 2 cards. 169 total possible hands. You make a choice of 3 decisions - bet, call or raise - 4 times, once PF, flop, turn and river (not counting reraises and checks of course). That’s all there is to it. And of the 169 hands, you could probably can 125 of them outright. So now you’re left with 44 hands max and a total of 12 playing choices. It’s truly amazing what you do with that can make you awful or fantastic. Wouldn’t it be cool if you’re dealt 3 hole cards and the board play went 2-1-1? Now there are 2197 possible pocket hands. What to do if the flop comes Ah – Js. Does someone have a pocket heart 3 flush. Or A-J-J? Straight draw? Maybe even pocket trips? Just imagine what you’d have to consider. HEPFAP would be a series.
But with all the above being said, this game has some kind of strange draw to it. Is it the seemingly simplistic first impression replaced by an awareness that there’s SO much more involved? Is it the ability to enjoy an activity and make money at it in the process? I can’t imagine I’d play this game if I didn’t enjoy it at some level. As a related thought, at one point, I was a very good pool player bordering on turning pro. I competed in a few national events and managed to even get into the cash. But one day I was practicing and it hit me like a train that I wasn’t enjoying it anymore so why the hell was I doing it? And on that day, I quit the game forever. What a weird feeling that was. My cue is still in it’s case, untouched since that day. I hope the same thing doesn’t happen with poker (and I doubt it will since I’m a very part-timer). But I can relate to those who try to make a go of it. You just have to be doing it for the right reasons – life’s too short otherwise.
Getting back to holdem, since there are a finite number of situations that can arise, it’s pretty remarkable that a forum such as this can thrive. I can’t imagine there are too many situations out there that haven’t been covered already. And the concept of “correct” I find most interesting. Is it the play that mathematically over the long run will yield the most EV? Table texture, player types, tells, etc. would have no impact. That can’t be right since the game would just boil down to a set of algorithms. So is it situational with probability underpinnings? Or is it what the majority of good players would have done faced with the same set of circumstances? Wouldn’t that be the essence of “correct” since making the best situational decisions are what makes a player good in the first place? The other day I had Q-Q in the BB. The table seemed to have an irrational fear toward PF raisers – some would fold to a raise even after they had limped and gave little action post flop. There were 6 limpers to me and I checked. I sure there would be a howl of criticism by not raising here. Isn’t raising the best EV play over the long run? Of course it is but I was playing the situation – doing what I thought was correct at that moment in time. Alas the flop comes Q-7-2, 3 suits. I check, there’s a bet and 4 call. I just call. WHAT! Are you crazy? Giving everyone a cheap look at the turn! Perhaps. Turn is [Q-7-2]-2, 2 flush. I check, same person bets, all 4 call and I raise. All called. River was a 10, no 3 flush. I bet and got 3 callers. I’m good. I won a 20 BB pot. Would I have won a greater amount by raising PF? I don’t think so. Was my play here “correct”? Probably not in the context of how this hand should be played over the long run. But this wasn’t the long run, this was one time and I almost never play this hand this way. I think I won the most I could have in those circumstances. So again, was I “correct”?
It’s also interesting how “good” is defined in the poker context. I guess I’m “good” in the sense that I started playing with $100 and now have $1400 in my bankroll. Or maybe I’m just not as bad as those I play against – that’s probably more accurate. So someone could be considered a good $20/40 player if he can consistently beat the competition at that level but might be considered a bad $60/120 player if he cannot beat the players who play there. Can that be right? The differentiation between good and bad in poker seems to be more difficult than that to quantify. I guess put another way, one way to look at it is how good = how much money a player can make. So if this player can make $100K playing $20/40, he must be a good (very!). But now he plays $250/500 and cannot beat the competition at that level. Is he then considered “bad”? I don’t know. How is a good poker player defined?
And lastly I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank everyone who provides for and participates in this forum. Dynasty, majorkong, Homer, (sorry – holm is kind of lame IMO), Kurn, Ulysses et al – how you guys read through probably every post and provide insight/advice is quite a feat. There’s quite a few out there who keep knowledge to themselves. It’s way cool that you guys continue to contribute so much here. It’s also pretty cool there’s this unwritten rule about being civil to each other and anyone going over the line is usually corrected. Go to most other chats/forums and it’s a one-ups-manship contest of degrading verbal flotsam. It’s kind of like a team atmosphere here with coaches, all star players, journeymen and rookies all sharing this common interest. I think it would be fascinating to discover who everyone really is, what they do, look like, age, etc. I’d bet I’m so off base with my mental image of some of you it’s laughable. And I’d venture a guess and say most wouldn’t have me pegged accurately either. Someday perhaps, we can plan some kind of event that brings us together (I’m an east coaster).
My musings meter has peaked. Until the next 100K…TC!
It can be quite boring. Even playing 60 hands/hr online, playing 25% of the hands means only 15 minutes/hr actually involved in a hand. Given you’re likely not to see a showdown on the majority, it’s more like 10 minutes/hr. Yes I know I should be studying my opponents while not involved in a hand but quite honestly, I can’t do it for that long. When playing one table, I usually read or surf between hands. I’ve taken to playing 2 tables at once to stay more involved and enjoy that much more. Again, I know you lose the ability to closely observe your opponents but the online game is such a revolving door anyway, I can’t see I’m losing that much and in the micro-game, players are pretty predictable. And I do have notes on the “regulars”. But 2 tables is the max for me. Any more and it’s too tough to watch the action, especially if it’s that rare moment when you’re in a hand on all of them. Bless davidross for being able to play 4 – I have no clue how that’s done effectively. I guess you B&M folks have the added aspect of interaction with your opponents and watching a lot more behavior but I have to imagine that since you see so fewer hands, it’s got to get boring sometimes as well.
I think what’s also adding to my sense of boredom is that I’ve only ever played 10 handed ring games for micro limits online. $1/2 and on down and only about 1000 hands or so at $1/2. That’s it. Period. Technically I guess that’s not true since I once accidentally joined a $15/30 game and wondered why the chip colors were suddenly different. The timing was perfect in that before I realized what I’d done, I had posted. 8 hours worth of micro earnings lost in a few seconds! Never once played PL, NL, live or a tournament. Would it be worth while to explore some of these other variations? If so, which ones?
And only being dealt 2 cards. 169 total possible hands. You make a choice of 3 decisions - bet, call or raise - 4 times, once PF, flop, turn and river (not counting reraises and checks of course). That’s all there is to it. And of the 169 hands, you could probably can 125 of them outright. So now you’re left with 44 hands max and a total of 12 playing choices. It’s truly amazing what you do with that can make you awful or fantastic. Wouldn’t it be cool if you’re dealt 3 hole cards and the board play went 2-1-1? Now there are 2197 possible pocket hands. What to do if the flop comes Ah – Js. Does someone have a pocket heart 3 flush. Or A-J-J? Straight draw? Maybe even pocket trips? Just imagine what you’d have to consider. HEPFAP would be a series.
But with all the above being said, this game has some kind of strange draw to it. Is it the seemingly simplistic first impression replaced by an awareness that there’s SO much more involved? Is it the ability to enjoy an activity and make money at it in the process? I can’t imagine I’d play this game if I didn’t enjoy it at some level. As a related thought, at one point, I was a very good pool player bordering on turning pro. I competed in a few national events and managed to even get into the cash. But one day I was practicing and it hit me like a train that I wasn’t enjoying it anymore so why the hell was I doing it? And on that day, I quit the game forever. What a weird feeling that was. My cue is still in it’s case, untouched since that day. I hope the same thing doesn’t happen with poker (and I doubt it will since I’m a very part-timer). But I can relate to those who try to make a go of it. You just have to be doing it for the right reasons – life’s too short otherwise.
Getting back to holdem, since there are a finite number of situations that can arise, it’s pretty remarkable that a forum such as this can thrive. I can’t imagine there are too many situations out there that haven’t been covered already. And the concept of “correct” I find most interesting. Is it the play that mathematically over the long run will yield the most EV? Table texture, player types, tells, etc. would have no impact. That can’t be right since the game would just boil down to a set of algorithms. So is it situational with probability underpinnings? Or is it what the majority of good players would have done faced with the same set of circumstances? Wouldn’t that be the essence of “correct” since making the best situational decisions are what makes a player good in the first place? The other day I had Q-Q in the BB. The table seemed to have an irrational fear toward PF raisers – some would fold to a raise even after they had limped and gave little action post flop. There were 6 limpers to me and I checked. I sure there would be a howl of criticism by not raising here. Isn’t raising the best EV play over the long run? Of course it is but I was playing the situation – doing what I thought was correct at that moment in time. Alas the flop comes Q-7-2, 3 suits. I check, there’s a bet and 4 call. I just call. WHAT! Are you crazy? Giving everyone a cheap look at the turn! Perhaps. Turn is [Q-7-2]-2, 2 flush. I check, same person bets, all 4 call and I raise. All called. River was a 10, no 3 flush. I bet and got 3 callers. I’m good. I won a 20 BB pot. Would I have won a greater amount by raising PF? I don’t think so. Was my play here “correct”? Probably not in the context of how this hand should be played over the long run. But this wasn’t the long run, this was one time and I almost never play this hand this way. I think I won the most I could have in those circumstances. So again, was I “correct”?
It’s also interesting how “good” is defined in the poker context. I guess I’m “good” in the sense that I started playing with $100 and now have $1400 in my bankroll. Or maybe I’m just not as bad as those I play against – that’s probably more accurate. So someone could be considered a good $20/40 player if he can consistently beat the competition at that level but might be considered a bad $60/120 player if he cannot beat the players who play there. Can that be right? The differentiation between good and bad in poker seems to be more difficult than that to quantify. I guess put another way, one way to look at it is how good = how much money a player can make. So if this player can make $100K playing $20/40, he must be a good (very!). But now he plays $250/500 and cannot beat the competition at that level. Is he then considered “bad”? I don’t know. How is a good poker player defined?
And lastly I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank everyone who provides for and participates in this forum. Dynasty, majorkong, Homer, (sorry – holm is kind of lame IMO), Kurn, Ulysses et al – how you guys read through probably every post and provide insight/advice is quite a feat. There’s quite a few out there who keep knowledge to themselves. It’s way cool that you guys continue to contribute so much here. It’s also pretty cool there’s this unwritten rule about being civil to each other and anyone going over the line is usually corrected. Go to most other chats/forums and it’s a one-ups-manship contest of degrading verbal flotsam. It’s kind of like a team atmosphere here with coaches, all star players, journeymen and rookies all sharing this common interest. I think it would be fascinating to discover who everyone really is, what they do, look like, age, etc. I’d bet I’m so off base with my mental image of some of you it’s laughable. And I’d venture a guess and say most wouldn’t have me pegged accurately either. Someday perhaps, we can plan some kind of event that brings us together (I’m an east coaster).
My musings meter has peaked. Until the next 100K…TC!