Question for Dr. Al

[rkiray]

Of course all other opinions are welcome.

How can you explain the huge interest in the SS guys vs. the Zoo tourney tonight and the regular 2+2 Tuesday night game at Party? I'm playing in the tourney but I've never played in the Tuesday game (I don't have an account on Party). I reread the section on playing against TAP and in TAG of your book last night to prepare for the tourney. By all accounts the Tuesday evening games are extremely tight and aggressive ( but they are only .5/1 games), so I expect tonight's tourney to be the same.

The good thing about the tourney is that no one can really be hurt since it's only a 20 + 2. Still it would seem that in rational person would avoid these games like the plague. But with the limited downside, I think it should be fun and educational. Still I think you should consider adding a new reason to play in these type of games to your book. Status, peer pressure, social interaction, etc.

[Bob T.]

Another reason to play in those games, is that they could prepare you for tougher higher limit games, at a huge discount in cost of learning.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Since the questions are directed to me, I feel obliged to try to answer. However, I must admit that I know absolutely nothing about: "SS guys vs. the Zoo tourney tonight and the regular 2+2 Tuesday night game at Party." I don't even know who the SS guys are, or what a Zoo tourney is.
However, I'll take a shot at answering.
I must agree with Bob T that one reason for playing in tight-aggressive games for trivial stakes is to learn how to handle such games for a low tuition. Barry Tanenbaum and Matt Lessinger have both written about this subject, and I mentioned it in the chapter on Tight-aggressive opponents. The page numbers here may be slightly off since I am cutting and pasting from my electronic copy.

About page 266 in a section titled: "Should you play with them?" I wrote that you should play if:

1. You want to test or challenge yourself . You can do it for the sheer fun of it, to see how well you do against the toughest style. If the money is not important to you, and you love challenges, do it.
You might also be thinking of moving up, say, from $10-$20 to $20-$40 or higher. In general, games get tougher as you move up: The players are more skilled, tighter, and more aggressive. The higher you go, the fewer people stay for the flop or fourth street, the fewer hands go to the showdown, and the more raises occur on every street.
Playing with a TAP or two at your current level is a fairly inexpensive way to learn whether you are ready to move up. If you can't win with the advantage of having several weaker players in the game, stay where you are.
2. You want to learn from them. It costs money to learn any game, and you may have paid high fees for tennis or golf lessons. Poker players rarely hire coaches, but we pay for our lessons. If you want to improve, you pay "tuition" to the tougher players.

Watch them closely. When do they bet, call, raise, or fold? Where do they sit? How do they talk? What do they do when they are out of the pot? Ask questions: Why did you raise? What hand did you expect from Charlie? What did you think of Sheryl's play a few hands ago? Don't interrogate or cross-examine them, and ask mostly about other people's play. You can learn a lot by talking to them, both at the table and while you are waiting to play. Some TAPs will rebuff your attempts to pick their brains, but some of them will give you useful insights. Lots of people enjoy the guru role... Learn by playing with a winner, but keep your tuition down by staying out of his pots.
End of excerpt.
I must add that the tuition in the game you mention is so low that it makes sense to pay it. I had not even considered playing in LOWER stakes than you usually play.
A few pages later in the discussion of tight-aggressive games I wrote. "The first question is, of course, should you play at all? The answer is almost always: No! In fact, if the game is at all short- handed, the answer is almost certainly: No!
There are lots of reasons not to play, and hardly any reasons for playing. You are probably going to lose, and you may lose much more than you can afford. If you win, you won't win much. The game can be so stressful and demanding that you can't relax. If you do not play your very best, you have no chance at all, and, even then, you may easily lose. So, why bother?
There were three reasons for playing against an individual TAP, but the one about the other players' weakness does not apply. Unless you have strong desires to test yourself against the best or to learn from playing with them, don't play. If those motives are really important to you, and you are willing to take the unavoidable risks, go for it."
As you can see, all I have really done is add some details to Bob T's position. Thanks Bob.
Regards,
Al

[Cyndie]

There is a tremendous amount of macho induced "turf warfare" that goes on in the zoo tourneys...some is good natured kidding, and some is not.

Much is made of bragging rights, even though not much can be determined from one tournament, but the bounties and the consequences are substantial in ego gratification if not in a complete evaluation of skill and ability.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't even know who the SS guys are, or what a Zoo tourney is.

Short answer: 2 groups of regular 2+2 posters

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Logically, that makes sense. I have a different problem with them. I've played in every KotZ and both True events, but have yet to play at the 2+2 table on Party. It's the proliferation of these events that's making me re-assess how many of them I join.

The simple reason is I have a finite number of hours in the week to devote to poker. Education is good, and the challenge of playing against a group of opponents drawn from the upper percentiles of players should bolster my game.

However, too high a persentage of my time being spent doing this is counter-productive. I'd rather spend most of my time playing against opponents who've never read a poker book (or only read Hellmuth's). It's like the old adage that says it does you no good to be the 5th best player in the world if the 4 people who are better are always at your table.

I'm getting close to deciding to play KotZ every month, but avoid all the other 2+2 games.

[rkiray]

Thank you for your reply, I also should thank you for introducing me to people at the Wednesday Poker Discusssion group a few weeks ago. I was visiting from out of town and had only been there for a minute or so when you came up and introduced yourself and then introduced to many other people there. This was very helpful since I'm somewhat shy around strangers, but open up quickly once a conversation is started.

SS are people who post on the Small Stakes forum (we kicked the Zoo butt last night, although I didn't do all that well).

The Zoo are people who post on Internet forum.

I realize that the parts of your book that discuss education are applicable to this game, but I thought there were more rational reasons for this special case (and no book can address all special cases). Since the losses are low, I think this is more about bragging rights and seeing how people you have been communicating with really play. So it's more about social interaction/bragging right/status etc. Just a small idea.

[Mike]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If I ever manage to be home on a tuesday night when the game is going, I would probably play in it. However, I would expect that even at internet rake scedules, it would be unlikely that anyone could even beat the rake in such a game.

The reasons I would play in it are comradery and experience playing in tough games. Of course I'd quit if I lost more than about $30 in the game....

al

[mosch]

I'm not Al, but I can tell you why I like to play in these events, despite the fact that I'm a huge dog...

These games help me find my weak spots.

I've never looked at my 2+2 game play the next day and not found a glaring and obvious defect in my play that didn't seem so obvious against lesser opponents, or in the card room, where I can't search for mistakes the next day.

[Miah]

The main reason I play is because it's a lot of fun!

[mosch]

Yah, but they're fun because they're a challenge. If they played the same as every other game, I wouldn't bother.