The De-evolution of poker players.

I've noticed this before, but I'm not sure if it's just me so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.


In almost any endeavor most people rise to a certain level of competence; from there, should they choose to quit striving to improve, they usually stagnate. But in poker they don't stagnate; rather, they begin to get worse.


I can't account for this, since it only seems to happen at the green baize. But it appears to happen quite often. I've played against any number of decent players in my time, and I'd say that, on average, over 80% of them end up watching their play deteriorate at time wears on.

They either become too passive, or begin playing too many hands, or become full-on maniacs. Or, in some subtler cases, their game almost imperceptively slips.


Has anyone else picked up on this? It's a strange beast, poker. What other game to people get worse at the longer they play?

Heh, quit talking about me! I resemble that remark. I can relate it to fishing. A new technique really knocked them dead last week, so it should work good again this week. Of course when it quits working I keep trying because it worked before. Then there is that nice hole across the creek. If I just get out on this mossy rock one half inch farther, I can get my fly there. Splash!


It may just be human nature. I also work in an industry where it could be real easy to be hurt badly or worse. There is a direct correlation between time on the job and casualness with the job. After about seven years the level of knowledge peaks and the level of risk taking increases.

Good observations, Mike. I see this phenomenon in the workplace all the time -- to the point where I don't think, for certain jobs, anyone should be in the same position for more than three years. When I read GD's post, the first comparison I made was to driving a vehicle; learning curve -> skill -> bad habits -> complacency ->telephone pole. My game feels like that sometimes. Luckily, there's always another hand, another table, another chance to get it right -- it's a big component of poker's appeal.

I would say most,if not all,professional sportsmen.

I have not observed that poker players get worse as they gain experience. What I have observed is that poker players find a certain level of play at which they are the most successful and that is the level they choose to play at year after year. A prime example of this is Cissy Bottoms. Cissy has been known as what one of the best middle limit holdem players in Las Vegas for many years. Cissy seems to limit her play to $15-$30 and $20-$40 and she avoids $30-$60 or higher. I believe this is due to the fact that she has developed a certain playing style which is tailor-made for beating $15-$30 and $20-$40 games. But to beat $30-$60 would require a dramatic change in playing style which she does not wish to make. Changing styles involves taking people out of their comfort zone which, as people get older, they are reluctant to make. So they spend thier remaining years doing the same things over and over again which work at a certain level but fail at a higher level. This also occurs at lower levels. There are some very good players who choose to play $4-$8 all their life and avoid playing anything higher. Again, they have a peculiar playing style that works well at a certain level so that is the level they play at.


Finally, some players attempt to play at a higher level but run bad over an extended period of time. They decide that the game really isn't fun anymore so they give up poker altogether and do something else. Of course, this assumes there is something else they can do. For those who have no alternatives to poker, then they simply slide down to a lower level. I have seen numerous examples of this in my two years of playing here in Las Vegas.

"But to beat $30-$60 would require a dramatic change in playing style which she does not wish to make. "


What is this dramatic change?


I haven't seen Sissy lately in the 20-40 Mirage game. Has she been playing 15-30 or is she back on the east coast?

GD,


Good post as usual


One problem is that once you get very good at poker, getting even better is a lot or work. In other words, it isn’t hard to become a moderate winner at middle limits (let’s say $20 per hour at 20/40) if you have talent, study, and read the better books. But improving to about $30 per hour takes twice as much work as getting to $20 per hour and so on. Poker players tend to be lazy.


Controlling ego is a problem. Once players do well for a few years they think they know it all and stop working on their game. That’s why I believe posting on the 2+2 forum is so important. Flaws in your thinking are exposed and it keeps you humble.


Another is the fact that many players start off lucky for the first few years of their careers and believe their results are totally due to skill. Eventually their luck runs out and their win rate declines. Instead of working on their game they play more hours and get sloppy.


Your point about playing too many hands is a good one. There comes a point where you get bored and think you can outplay everyone with marginal hands. Eventually reality strikes.


Regards,


Rick

Jim,


I agree that Cissy is a terrific middle limit player. I bet she is aware of the "Peter Principle" and is humble enough to stay at the right level for her. In addition, she probably notes how few players stay in the money year in and year out in limits much above 20/40 and prefers to avoid the risk. At red chip she also has much better game selection and probably doesn't have to wait as long to get into a game or stay longer than she wants when the game fires up. Another good game can always be found the next day. So in a way it may be a life-style choice too.


Regards,


Rick


PS You have shown incredible class in your posts concerning your book. We salute you. I just wish I could borrow back the copy I gave as a gift.

The last year that I spent a lot of time playing in Vegas was 1999. During that time, Cissy played 30-60 every day. I don't know what happened to change that, but most likely, she didn't beat the game. Her husband, who I think probably wins as much as she does, has never played over 20-40 to my knowledge (I know his first name, do you?).


The only dramatic change I can think of is that you have to play a lot better to beat the 30 than to beat the 15. In the 30, you will play fewer multi-way hands, and have fewer opportunities to draw to speculative hands. You will also have to deal with players making moves and good plays against you that are more rare in the 15. The 15 is a more straight-forward game.


I got the idea from your post that you think a player who beats the 15 could beat the 30 by altering their style. I'm not sure what this means, but if that player could beat the 30, they would. It is worth a lot more money to them.


As for your statement, There are some very good players who choose to play $4-$8, thanks for the comic relief. I'll let others elaborate.

One thing that occurs to me is that when you first saw this player, they were winning, and you assumed it was due to their good play. Later, you observed them losing, and you assumed that their play had deteriorated. While you could be right, it is more likely that they didn't play that good when you first noticed them, and since you are better now, you see the flaws in their game.

I believe that poker players, like athletes, must continue to work on their game just to stay even. Once the stop making the extra effort, their game will slowly deteriorate.

"The only dramatic change I can think of is that you have to play a lot better to beat the 30 than to beat the 15. In the 30, you will play fewer multi-way hands, and have fewer opportunities to draw to speculative hands. You will also have to deal with players making moves and good plays against you that are more rare in the 15. The 15 is a more straight-forward game."


Bingo

It is inevitable for all poker players and athletes to hit a plateu in the speed and extent at which they can continue to improve their skill levels. But this is isn't nescessarily bad as Aikido master George Leonard explains in the link below.

Oops. I don't think my link directed you to the specific page. Just follow the link again, point click on "media forum", then point click on "interviews", then point click on where it says "The Path of Mastery".

Brett-


Good point. However, I'm thinking of a number of players I know whose games have noticably slipped. For example, limping with 95s UTG when they used to play real tight up front, checking pocket A's in a heads up pot against a fish when the third flush card hits.. that kind of thing.


The only thing I can ascribe this to is the cumulative effect of bad beats. I call it the 'marble effect'. Each bad beat adds another marble to the jar, then another, then another, until finally the jar gets so full that it tips over and breaks; at which point the player just quits giving a goddamn. Each individual marble meant very little, but as a sum they were enough to break the hero's resolve.

There are some players who refuse to bet the river unless they have an absolute monster primarily because of the "jarring" bad beat effect that you speak of. The board will be J8583 in that order and the guy with AJ checks on the river because many moons ago, somebody slowplayed trips on the turn and sometime before that, a guy spiked a full house with the last card and checkraised him.


On your main point, I agree with your observations. It really comes down to boredom and putting too much stock on your postflop play. To play good poker in ring games generally means playing a boring style. You have to be very selective with your hands. As you get better, you can play a *few* more hands but most people ignore the word "few". They start playing (incrementally) more and more marginal hands because they figure they can outplay their opposition until it finally comes down to playing 96s UTG.


I know this because I've been there and done that but luckily, I could see what was happening and corrected myself after about a month of playing "exciting" poker.

Another reason why some good players will have less favourable results as time goes on is that almost all of us become more readable as time goes on. So, this hypothetical good player's oponents will begin to adjust accordingly. The good player then has to adjust to their adjustments to stay ahead or perhaps even keep up. Some good players don't make adequate or any counter-adjustments.

good point

Ive heard her discuss this recently and she said she just didn't like the game(30-60 that is). That you could get stuck $2,000 in the blink of an eye. Where the 15-30 was much more relaxing. I guess this fits the comfort zone theory.

...maybe I shouldn't say great or QuadNines/Mark Glover might become upset. It is an interesting post making a couple of minor points I agree with /images/biggrin.gif

Brett,


You seem to be hitting on all cylnders lately with your great posts here and funny posts on RGP. Maybe I'll buy you a drink after all /images/smile.gif


Regards,


Rick

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.I believe players do get worse, especially at low stakes.It's not only how good you are technically, it's your demeanor at the table. I've seen so called "good players" chase away the givers, just by being nasty. So how do they make their money?

Changing styles involves taking people out of their comfort zone which, as people get older, they are reluctant to make. So they spend thier remaining years doing the same things over and over again which work at a certain level but fail at a higher level.


I would think that even if someone wants to play in the same game for many years, they will have to change their style since the game itself does not stay the same. Just as the plays that work at $15-30 might not work at $30-60, the plays that are great at $15-30 today might not be so good in the same game ten years from now. If someone stays in the same game but refuses to change with it, I have to suspect that as GD says, they will get worse.

Cissy has been playing $15-$30 at the Bellagio and will probably keep doing so when the World Series begins.


I believe to beat a $30-$60 game for a significant amount of money you need to be winning a lot of pots over the course of a year without having to make the best hand. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of this but I think you need to 3-bet more especially on the flop, semi-bluff on the turn, check-raise more, and you need to read players and situations better. The things that are needed to capture a significant hourly earn in a $30-$60 at the Bellagio involve taking a lot more risks and playing in a lot more marginal situations which means your fluctuations will increase. Many players simply cannot deal with this and so they avoid the game.

Bobby, what happens is that the players in the $15-$30 game who perform better than someone like Cissy Bottoms will end up playing $30-$60 or higher where they can make even more money. The reason a person can do well in the same game year after year is because of the constant influx of new players in the public cardroom arena and the fact that someone like Cissy learns to read many of the regulars quite well.

It is an interesting post making a couple of minor points I agree with.


The correct wording would have been: "It is an interesting post making a couple of minor points with which I agree."

i'd venture to guess that perhaps she will occasionally take a stab at a particularly juicy 30-60 game if all other considerations are in order (i.e. bankroll, time available to play, seats available, perhaps a particularly rough 15-30 crowd, etc.)? anybody agree? disagree?


great thread, BTW

'That’s why I believe posting on the 2+2 forum is so important. Flaws in your thinking are exposed and it keeps you humble.'


exactamundo!!


i have gotten better from posting on here. not just reading, but posting. i haven't posted a hand in a while, because ive been out of action for a while. but i do know that i have played better because i choose to participate here. i choose to work on my game for several reasons:


1. to make more money doing something that i really enjoy.

2. to justify to myself and some of the naysayers that i AM a winning player, and that im not wasting time and $$ playing poker.

3. i want to be able to post comments and opinions with a degree of thought, knowledge, and experience behind them. i couldn't do that if i sucked and didn't work on my game. i have deliberately made tough moves that i knew were right because i knew that i'd have to post a hand, or at least comment on a similar one and i couldn't live with myself if i didn't practice what i preach. so if i want to participate here, i better know my stuff, and i better make the right moves when it is my turn to make them.


i can't say im the player to fear in my cardroom, and im not gonna be writing any books anytime soon, but i intend to get better, and im glad there is a forum for me to do that.

this thread is great and can be related directly to teaching a new player how to play and then seeing how much better than are on some levels than those players who fall victim to what ever poker virus hits them. you know the ones passivity, manic play, fancy play syndrome, etc, etc. new players don't know that they have a bottom end gut shot with a back door flush draw. they see the garbage that is in their hand and throw it away. the point i am trying to make is that there is so much poker knowledge out there but so few people who know how to apply it that it seems to do is make the semi-educated and semi-experienced poker player the biggest fish of all. even worse (much worse) than when they very first started by just playing big pairs and AK.

i think either way is fine. actually, your way seems a bit stilted, at least to an american.


brad

Yes, I believe she will. When the WSOP begins, she may well start playing $30-$60 if the game looks good.

Had a math professor last year who offered a point for every type found in the textbook. I found a few actual mistakes but threw in some other grammatical things to see if I could get a little extra for them. On of them was a sentence ending with a preposition. When he returned the paper he explained that there really isn't anything wrong with it, especially if relocating words in the sentence to put the preposition in its proper place makes the sentence sound awkward.

Somehow, this man was actually a "grammar buff," and on top of that he is also a freaking genius, so I'll take his word for it.


2ndGoat

I'm suprised you think that someone who is successful at 20-40 would need to make 'DRAMATIC' changes to their game to be successful at 30-60. This topic is very interesting to me because I'm about ready to give 30-60 a serious try. I have a lot of experience playing at 20-40 and very little at 30-60 or higher. I was thinking that 30-60 would be a bit tougher than 20-40, but I didn't think it would be a dramatic change.


Everytime I've moved up in limits it has taken me a few months to get comfortable. But, at each limit there has always been plenty of bad players, and of course the good players have gotten better. I was assuming the 30-60 Bellagio games would still have plenty of juicy tourists to prey upon. The main difference would be learning how to deal with the slightly better pros.


I think you identify several key money making situations in the previous post, but you have to be reasonably capable at all of these to be a long-term successful 20-40 player. I was thinking I'd just need to polish up on some of the finer points of my game rather than revamp the whole thing to be successful at 30-60.

I would add one other thing. Open-limping from early position is usually wrong in most $30-$60 games. The reason is because at the $30-$60 level and higher, players in late position love to isolate a limper. They know you don't have much otherwise you would have raised. They know if you have a pair you do not rate to flop a set and most flops will contain overcards to your pocket pair making it hard for you to continue after the flop. They know that if you have two unmatched cards, then you are about a 2-to-1 dog to catch a flop you like which means that they can frequently bet you out of the hand. They can do this almost without regard to their own holding.


At the higher limits, players stop looking at their cards and start looking at each other.

Nothing wrong with them. Almost never has been. Dozens of usage texts would agree. Here's a Google-found excerpt from a usage authority:

--------------------------

American Heritage® Book of English Usage.

A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.


1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case


§ 50. prepositions

preposition ending a sentence. It was John Dryden, the 17th-century poet and dramatist, who first promulgated the doctrine that a preposition may not be used at the end a sentence. Grammarians in the 18th century refined the doctrine, and the rule has since become one of the most venerated maxims of schoolroom grammar. But sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of most of the great writers since the Renaissance. In fact, English syntax not only allows but sometimes even requires final placement of the preposition, as in We have much to be thankful for or That depends on what you believe in. Efforts to rewrite such sentences to place the preposition elsewhere can have comical results, as Winston Churchill demonstrated when he objected to the doctrine by saying “This is the sort of English up with which I cannot put.” 1

Even sticklers for the traditional rule can have no grounds for criticizing sentences such as I don’t know where she will end up or It’s the most curious book I’ve ever run across; in these examples, up and across are adverbs, not prepositions. You can be sure of this because it is impossible to transform these examples into sentences with prepositional phrases. It is simply not grammatical English to say I don’t know up where she will end and It’s the most curious book across which I have ever run.

"At the higher limits, players stop looking at their cards and start looking at each other."


I have only played one session of 30-60 ever but that one session was enough to make me realize that what you say is bang on. The 30-60 boys are playing your cards when they bet and raise. They are much more aware of what you have and what you cannot possibly have, what they themselves are representing and what you think they have.


The one session I played had a fairly tough crowd and I thoroughly enjoyed the session as it seemed to me that I was actually "playing poker" as opposed to playing "showdown".


Barry T. told me that he never plays more than 6 hours in a session. Little wonder. That's 6 hours of constantly being alert and exercising your brain.


At the higher limits, I have to think that 6 hours is about the longest that any serious professional should play in a given session. At the 15-30 and 20-40 levels, I can usually play about 8 and sometimes 10 or so before my game begins to suffer.

im glad somebody said something about that dumb old rule. i was too lazy.

Even for the world's best players, the dollar win per hour is not necessarily a monotonically increasing function of limit.


Cissy grinds at one limit, cha, and Jim Brier is a loose maniac. Like a comet, Cissy periodically returns for stints at $40-$80 and higher.