Why winning players really win.
 

I recently had a thought, and though I'm quite sure I am not the first person to have made this hypothesis, I was wondering what the poker community at large had to say about this. Here it is- Winning players at the micro-medium limits (say 30/60 in most areas- I've played as high as 20/40) win primarily by being oppurtunistic. I believe this to be true because In a relatively short period of time I believe any player willing to learn how to play correctly can become a winner in today's poker environment. And that the real reason winners win is because they are really the only ones who care about winning. Most poker players play for fun, or to gamble, and know that with the proper effort they could greatly increase their EV (even if they don't yet know what EV is), but they choose not to because that is simply not why they play poker. I can think of specific examples of individuals I know who even know how to play properly but prefer the action over the potential profit. Winning players are the players who prefer the profit over the action, and are simply there to take advantage of those who don't care about their money or don't possess the knowledge to hold on to it at the table. Basically, I contend that talent and skill is not what really makes a low-mid stakes winner, but rather the ability to seize an oppurtunity. I feel this way primarily because I have had success in the games I have played to this point in my poker career, and I really don't feel like I am anything special with respect to my poker talent. I am simply a guy who took the time and had the patience to take advantage of oppurtunities and profit from them. Agreements and disagreements welcomed.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I agree. I do fairly well at the lower limits and I only consider myself an okay player (I think I am fairly studious, but very inexperienced). One of the main reasons I win is that the opposition is just plain terrible. I really think the key to winning at the low levels is to play hands that you expect to be drawing hands only in late position so that you can play for free cards and such, and value bet the heck out of the calling stations with your good hands. They will call with hands you beat frequently. I once bet a set of deuces into a 4 flush board (misclick), got called and overcalled and won the hand. How in the world could that happen against reasonable opponents? Thank god for the low limits.

Most of the time when I find myself running bad it is just because I am making too many cute bluffs when scare cards hit. Almost no player at the lower limits lays down a pair EVER, and will frequently show down Ace-big unimproved.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Well, as for me ... I am afraid of no player. Absolutely, NO ONE. Not a single player intimidates me. It's just that my current game is quite pathetic in the nth degree ... <g>

Why? Because this is only my second month ... and I am *tired* of donating anything more than my pathetic play allows. I am still studying (thank you PokerStars staff), and invest a minimum of 60 hours weekly to my study of this fascinating, mind game. Sure, I play the play money games and sometimes win. But, currently, I am behind by some several hundred dollars in real money to those who know I am a rookie ...

I'm getting much better ... I am now able to keep my emotions in check whenever I suffer a bad beat or I hit an ace-high straight. I no longer shout at my monitor, hit my desk with my fist, or stamp my feet in frustration.

The better poker players win because they can spot a rookie, like me, a mile away ... either that ... or they originally heard my shouting all the way from my humble abode in the Green Mountains of Vermont. <g>

Craftyandsly (Name's_Tom)

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

you argue that anyone can win at poker because all it takes dedication and an interest to win. well, it could be argued that some people do not have the capacity to dedicate themselves to the game and therefore it is naturally impossible for them to become winning players because they do not have the psychological makeup for it. another arguement against your statement is that not everyone has the natural intellect needed in order to excel at this game. show me a mentally handicapped player who plays poker for a living and i'll show you hell freezing over. i don't mean to insult anyone out there who is mentally handicapped or knows someone with this disability, but it's simply the matter of fact. people in the lower ranges of intelligence simply will not excel past a person with higher intelligence. yes, its very likely that a mentally handicapped person dedicated to the game will outclass a novice, but there are too many people with high intellects dedicated to the game for a mentally handicapped person to excel to their level within a lifetimes worth of discipline.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Yeah, I suppose you have a point. And, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I suppose maybe I've taken for granted the fact that I've always been above average in terms of math and problem solving skills, so maybe my finding poker easy is a by-product of the fact that I am fortunate enough to innately possess a number of key traits for poker success.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

All of my life, i've been math-phobic. More than that, even, I've been anti-math. This website, and the 2+2 books have actually _taught_ me not to be afraid of it. Counting outs alone has made me more confident.

My expertise has always been literature, which takes a different kind of intelligence in my opinion. It's through my diligent reading of the subject that has helped my game.

But it seems a bit ego-centric to just assume that because you're a good, (or even just barely above average) poker player, that this could only happen because you are smarter than the "average" people around you. Most likely, this is untrue, it's just that you have a "specific" knowledge in poker.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

i've always been rather anti-math myself. i never enjoyed it until i applied it to poker. i often joke that i barely know my multiplication tables..... but everything is relative. i did pass calculus and statisitics in college, which probably puts me in the top 20% compared to the general populus. the problem is i compare myself to math professor friends that went to MIT, not joe schmo.

it is much more difficult than you think to be a winning poker player. you are right that many people could play better if they wanted, but simply choose not to apply themselves. i've made posts about a friend who simply likes to gamble. the results are not all that important for him. he just enjoys the thrill of gambling, win or lose. there are also many people that couldn't win regardless of the effort they put in. the people that you play with that are so terrible.... alot of them are trying their best to win. the point is that you aren't an average player playing against really bad players, they are the average player and you are much better.

i'd like to see a poll done here on education and IQ. most of the people here have both.... lots of the losers have neither. i'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to that, but i believe it would be a safe generalization. poker requires the application of many types of intelligence.... logical-math, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal.... most people will just fall too far short in at least one of those areas to really excel. i don't find that to be ego-centric at all.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I was talking to a guy named Steve "Country" Rielly who finished 8th at the 2002 WSOP ME the other night.

He said that while he was working as an electrician he was playing poker on the side and wanted to get really good at it, so every day on his lunch break he would read a poker book, then go home and open a 6 pack and read some more.

He just wanted to be good so bad that he was willing to spend all his free time studying, playing, or thinking about the game.

He also said something that blew my mind, in that when he bought super system, he sat down and read the entire thing all the way through without stopping!

Anyways, I guess it shows how far determination will take you in the poker world.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Why do people play blackjack and craps? I know I play these games sometimes because they are fun. Along those line, I seriously think that a lot of the population thinks poker is about catching cards and getting lucky (which it pretty much is in the short-run)... They can play poker and get lucky just like they can at Blackjack or Craps...

I remember back when I played 3-6 live and everyone played everything in hopes of flopping a pair and then if they did, they would hang in there 'drawing to 2-pair.' They never thought about if this bet was 'a profitable bet' or not.

But I am struck by something Chris Ferguson said during the 2003 WSOP... He was talking about his mathematical background and he is clearly gifted intellectually... but he commented that he was amazed at how well so many people can play without really understanding the mathematical fundamentals and intricacies of the game... For some, they learn how to play correctly without knowing why or how they are doing it...

You go to a cardroom and these aren't your A students from high school. Most can't explain what they are doing and they lose... but some can't explain what they are doing and they are winning players... it is pretty fascinating.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

i play in a couple of low stakes home games with friends here in Austin. the game is always NLHE. the majority of these guys lose nearly everytime we play. they are average salary type guys. smart but not really go-getters. heck, one is even unemployed and loses probably $40/week. they never bothered to read even one poker book. i've even offered to lend mine. not once has any of them taken me up on it. I offered a book to one friend, who is recently super hooked to NLHE (enough to go buy a table), after he strongly expressed to me in private how badly he wanted to be good. his response to my offer: "i dont want to get better by reading about it. i want to get good by playing." I honestly didnt know how to respond.

OTOH, i play with other friends when i go to houston. they are the same age and socio-demographics. only, these guys are lawyers, bankers, stockmarket types, etc. as far as i can tell, they have all read many (if not all) the books and spent mucho time thinking and talking about the game. they are all, way better than my Austin friends.

Coincidence?

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

What do you mean by a winning player? Are you asking about somebody who can beat their friends in small buy-in home games and can beat the low limit games online or about somebody who can make a nice living playing cards? I suspect you can accomplish the former with decent math skills and little else.

Am I mistaken?

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

he said 30/60. i assume that's limit. i agree you dont need much of a brain to beat that game. what are they looking for? like 1BB/decade? oh, i forgot about rakeback.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I once bet a set of deuces into a 4 flush board (misclick), got called and overcalled and won the hand. How in the world could that happen against reasonable opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody else "misclicked" too? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I think using the word 'opportunistic' is highbrow :-)), predatory and vampiristic are words I would have chosen. I agree with the rest of your thoughts, great post!

Craftyandsly said it pretty well, players like that and the gamboolers are the bread and butter of players who want to win.

In any game that is face to face, not online, if I had to choose between a player with high IQ and one with good people skills, I would pick people skills every time. The math part of the game as has been mentioned can be memorized, once you learn it that is all there is.

High IQ's are generally specialized, speaking from personal experience. Look at the physics or math professor who can not relate to 'normal' people. Or the pocket protector crowd, who would rather be alone with their pc, than go to a social function.

One of the science channels did a show on a British Savant and his American counterpart the Rainman a few weeks ago. Absolutely astonishing what they can do, one repeated pi to 22.5k places and the show alluded to him beating 8 deck bj in Vegas in one test. They shoed him splitting 7's against a Ten and making three 21's on his three splits! On the down side these folks can not determine whether or not I may fold on the river. It is all relative, I think but my money goes with the people orientated player.

My biggest wins come from correctly picking the right victims for whatever ploy I pull out of my tool box. My biggest long term profits come from understanding that betting with little or nothing against these players knowing they will fold at the river is far more important than the proper odds for a flush draw or making my boat from two unmatched cards in my hand. If I had to wait for cards I could not make much of a profit.

When I play I do not put as much thought into what my hand will be at the river as I do about what I can get the opposition to do by the river if I play my hand.

Truthfully when I notice I am spending more time thinking about the probability of my cards making the winning hand than I do considering if I can manipulate the round, I know I am in a bad game. Once again, good post!

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

by effort alone nearly anyone can get very far in nearly any field. poker is no exception.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

this is a poor arguement. you argue that people skills are more important than mathematical skills when it comes to poker, and your evidence is by displaying an extreme example of a mathematical genius who cannot respond to people very well. what about the extreme example of his counterpart, the person who can get along with everyone but cant understand a damn thing?

personally, i have poor people skills. im not very good with socializing, yet i have a high iq.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
by effort alone nearly anyone can get very far in nearly any field. poker is no exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEAR! HEAR!

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Okay, how about this? I have taught eight year olds all they needed to know to play Holdem well and I did it without math.

They did not know any math beyond simple addition and subtraction, but they knew outs and whether any betting action was good or not and why. Really we can't argue that math is really needed in poker, it's not, just some rote memorization is all that is needed today.

Before internet and books, you either figured it out yourself or you payed bundles in table education to get to the same point. All that is needed today to play solid poker can be found easily and learned rather quickly without doing any math. You do not need to be a mechanic to make a sound car purchase or an electronics whiz to buy an ipod, just as you no longer need any real math skills to play poker well.

On the other hand a person with good people skills, say a good salesman is a much better people person and can better make decisions about the game and their hand than many folks with a science degree of some type can. Someone like a cold calling salesman who makes his or her living from the telephone or door to door, or a good car salesman, or the Avon lady, the list goes on. They all have good people skills or they find new work.

I feel these people are in a better position to play the people when the cards are not there than someone who has high math skills and low people skills. The person with high math skills is at a disadvantage when the cards do not come because they aren't able to make the best choices of when to attack with a weak hand as they are prone to look at their situation from more of a numbers side and not the player side.

I play with some very good players who have to really think about every action of every hand while many posters here multitable and still get bored. Neither of these players has any real advantage on what is important - which is how they play the game.

I too have a high IQ, In the '80's I tested and I could have joined Mensa if I had wanted to, knowing I could was enough for me. Yet, I do not think a high IQ is of any importance to play good poker in general. I am not overly fond of math, I am very good at managing people and other endeavors that few here would care about. I do not find I use any math to play poker, but I think my people skills are invaluable for how I choose to play and how I manipulate people and situations while at the table.

Going back to yourself, as you are successfully playing and winning, may I suggest your people skills are actually better than you have determined them to be?

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Winning players win by being better poker players than their opponents (not necessarily the best at the table, but better than enough of them to show a profit). They can be better by having studied more (or at all in some cases). They can be better by pure native talent. They can be better by mathematically understanding the game. They can be better by having a "feel" or intuition for the game.

The great thing about poker is that there are multiple ways to be a winning poker player. There are high level pros who arguably would make the "mathematically wrong" decision if David Sklansky went around with his little poker quizzes. (Not to say that the non-math players are actually right, just that you don't have to be perfect on the math to be a good player.)

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Add to that that many of the top tournament pros today will tell you that 'feel' plays more of a factor than math, and you have your argument.

I believe you have to know the basic odds on the draws, and your pre-flop holdings. However, once you've determined whether it's mathematically correct to chase, then the reading comes in. And I could write down those odds for someone on a cheat sheet - but would that make them successful? At low-limit cash games, maybe. In tournaments? No way. I think that instincts and reading players make up the bulk of a top-notch player's arsenal, and they can only be strengthened with lots and lots of table time.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I think alot people are just to darn lazy to bother to read a book. Iv spoken to many players online and suggested a book when they complain about getting hammerd once again but 90% of them are simply not interested they just cant be botherd to read a book and would rather just continue to play poorly and whine about it.

Iv had responces like BOOKS! LOL books are crap there is no winning system. Anybody whos reads the same book knows how to be you, Blah blah blah, Your plays like an ed miller novel... Blah, blah balh...

You know trying to mock me

"who needs a Poker book id rather learn to play for real"

Some of the crap iv herd is unreal, at the end of the day your better off just leaving them too it..

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

This is why you are losing. You are becoming a calling station, or a maniac, because you "don't fear anyone." If people are betting, they are representing a good hand. Put the ego away.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I think this topic was pretty well covered in Rounders (WRITTEN BY THE GUYS THAT RIGHT THE HIT SHOW: TILT! ON ESPN!)

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

I guarantee if you had John Juanda, Phil Ivey, or Howard Lederer staring you down while you are thinking about calling off your stack holding top pair, you'd be intimidated.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think alot people are just to darn lazy to bother to read a book. Iv spoken to many players online and suggested a book when they complain about getting hammerd once again but 90% of them are simply not interested they just cant be botherd to read a book and would rather just continue to play poorly and whine about it.

Iv had responces like BOOKS! LOL books are crap there is no winning system.

Some of the crap iv herd is unreal, at the end of the day your better off just leaving them too it..

[/ QUOTE ]

I play live on Saturdays at our brand new cardroom...every time I play I'm just the guy who hangs out for a few hours playing cards. I don't act like the shark and am pretty quiet around people I hardly know. Before dealing in, I'll ask questions of those around me about their lives, trying to make friends and gain information before we start.

Gentleman (gambler cool guy) last Saturday called my pre-flop raise cold (I was first to act with TT). Dealer said, "You're in?"

He said, "Of course, I don't care what he has, it's the right play." Three players called, SB folded, BB called the raise.

Flop came JJ3. Checked to me, I bet, he raised, everyone called. The turn came a 7. SB bet, BB bet, I folded (because the other player's raise didn't sit well - something was up) - the other players went to showdown with his hand and he turned over J3o.

"See...that hand? It was the right thing to do...the books are wrong."

He won later with 74o. (7 on the flop, 7 on the river.) He was up for the session I played with him and began a speech how those books that teach people to play poker are written by players too broke to play.

If the WSOP has an Omaha event, he said he'll be there. Have fun!

PB

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[Crafty] Well, as for me ... I am afraid of no player. Absolutely, NO ONE. Not a single player intimidates me. It's just that my current game is quite pathetic in the nth degree ... <g> [/Quote]

[Spekkio]This is why you are losing. You are becoming a calling station, or a maniac, because you "don't fear anyone." If people are betting, they are representing a good hand. Put the ego away."

I thank you for this advice. Didn't realize my mistake(s).

Craftyandsy

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[el_grande]I guarantee if you had John Juanda, Phil Ivey, or Howard Lederer staring you down while you are thinking about calling off your stack holding top pair, you'd be intimidated."

Well, another individual and you have opened my eyes and provided me with some very sage advice. I thank both of you for forcing me to realize that I need to check my ego at the door. I am open to more suggestions ...

Craftyandsly

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to more suggestions ...

Craftyandsly

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need a better audience.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[jtr]I think you need a better audience."

Are you saying that the opinions, I have received here, are not worth that much, or are you really saying something else? please advise ...

Craftyand sly

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

You're being crafty and sly again, aren't you?

OK, I'll stop all attempts at cleverness and just be straight with you. I made the "better audience" comment as I think it's slightly weird that several posters took you to task for your "I fear no-one" line when in fact that looked to me like a jokey part of an overall very humble post about how you've still got a lot of work to do on your game. I thought you were saying "I fear nobody because I am so much a beginner at poker that it really doesn't matter how skilled or unskilled my opponents are, they will probably take my money anyway."

Given my interpretation of your original post, it just seemed that your audience (i.e., readers of this forum) were missing the point in chastising you for supposed arrogance when you were already pretty much the humblest guy in town.

Explained?

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[jtr]"Given my interpretation of your original post, it just seemed that your audience (i.e., readers of this forum) were missing the point in chastising you for supposed arrogance when you were already pretty much the humblest guy in town. Explained?"

You needn't have had to explain the obvious, to me, JTR. My proposal for you to continue your line of reasoning was for the immediate benefit of the other members who read and regularly post, here. As a rookie, I have absolutely no idea who to fear, and thus, I fear no one.

Incidentally, I just returned from Las Vegas and played a little (3 hours) limit hold'em at the Mirage. As a rookie, I lost $168 playing waaaaay too many hands. Yes, I did win several good pots, and I *was* on a winning streak (winning 3 of the last 4 hands) when my wife came up to me and said she was bored.

As a possible, future professional in the area of hold'em, is it still wise to leave the table when the wife insists she is leaving? <g>

Just curious ...

Craftyandsly (Name's_Tom)

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You needn't have had to explain the obvious, to me, JTR. My proposal for you to continue your line of reasoning was for the immediate benefit of the other members who read and regularly post, here. As a rookie, I have absolutely no idea who to fear, and thus, I fear no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure that "who to fear" is the question. i'm not sure that you need to fear anyone. i don't get this conversation at all. and by the way, i've never seen howard lederer or phil ivey stare anyone down.

what you don't know how to do if you're a newbie is learn to understand situations.

for instance, let's say you're a new hold 'em player, sitting to Ivey's right. Ivey, UTG, raises 3xBB . you look down and see KJ and min raise. you just goofed. but not b/c you didn't fear him. you goofed b/c you're inviting a pro into a pot with you after he raised from utg, representing strength. you didn't understand the situation.

back to the original argument: winning players win b/c they try hard, sure. they also win b/c either they 1)study hard or 2) play 40 hours a week for the last 10 years or 3)are geniuses. or, of course, some combination of the three.

trying hard by itself isn't going to get you anywhere. sorry. i tried really hard to get into the NBA. unfortunately i'm 5'11" with two wrecked knees and no talent. kinda sucks.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You needn't have had to explain the obvious, to me, JTR.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, glad that's all sorted out then.


[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, I just returned from Las Vegas and played a little (3 hours) limit hold'em at the Mirage. As a rookie, I lost $168 playing waaaaay too many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you enjoyed your trip. What were you playing, 4/8? $168 is not a great deal of money in that game; it's a shame you couldn't have stayed longer. It's a great sign that you are aware of having played too many hands.


[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did win several good pots, and I *was* on a winning streak (winning 3 of the last 4 hands)...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I may be about to get into trouble for stating the obvious again, but I hope you don't take the idea of "winning streaks" too seriously.


[ QUOTE ]
... when my wife came up to me and said she was bored.

As a possible, future professional in the area of hold'em, is it still wise to leave the table when the wife insists she is leaving? <g>

[/ QUOTE ]

I think metagame considerations dictate leaving the table at that point. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Cheers,
--JTR.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Continuing on that line of thought, is it a mere coincidence that a large # of world class players are college educated ie. Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, Moneymaker, Brunson, Ferguson (his dad was a math professor), and many more?

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

JTR, I was playing the $3-$6 table, and I found that I was trying much too hard to pick up tells (just read Caro's book) instead of watching my loose play. I really have to work on that aspect of my game. <g> However, being from Vermont, there aren't any casinos within a reasonable driving distance. That's why I practice my play, on-line.

I don't know ... for the first hour I held my own playing a very conservative style. However, I lost a great deal of chips from several, bad beats (I held a full house and was beaten by four of a kind ... on the river -- I held a flush on the flop, only to be beaten by a full house three other times -- and, last but not least, I held a str8 on the flop ... no, on the turn, only to lose on the river with a flush draw).

I *DID* receive a compliment from the guy, named John, to my right. He told me that he knew I was new at the game, but that he was impressed that I did not exhibit any outward emotions whenever I suffered a bad beat.

Frankly, that comment scared me. If figured that if I was that easy to figure out, I needed to immediately change my playing style. Thus, for the remainder of my time I played loose-aggressive. Changing my betting style, playing the worst cards on a couple of showdowns, and then changing back to a more conservative style.

I learned that *whenever* the guy to my immediate right raises my initial raise, I need to fold my hand. PERIOD. But, I cannot tell you how many times I still paid the six dollars to see the four of a kind, the full-boats, the flush draws .... and I paid them each and every time because I really thought he had to be bluffing. Sheesh. I have a lot to learn ... <g>

Stupid mistakes (like the above example) made me lose the $168 over that three hour period. Reflecting back on the hands, afterwards, I really don't know *why* I just *had* to see the four of a kind hand ... whatever ... at all? A whim, maybe? Frankly, I think that if I had just folded my hand and *not* shown my full house, then the other playe(s) would probably have shown the four of a kind, the flushes, the full boats, etc ... anyway.

That was just a dumb, rookie mistake on my part. But, I learned my lesson.

Additionally, I tried a couple of bluffs on the $3-$6 table, and I quickly learned that one can just forget about bluffing when the stakes are so low. On that table, many people (oftentimes) continue their play ... right down to the river. So, I changed my playing style to meet that odd occurence.

Additionally, once I also figured out that I was giving my opposition WAAAAY too much credit for THEIR own level of play (I had mistakenly thought I was playing against professionals), my luck began to turn around. Almost immediately, my play significantly improved. But, I was down several hundred at that point, and battled back to a loss of only $168 (final result for the three hour session).

I had gained a wealth of experience playing live ... much more so than playing on-line.

Thanks for your assistance, JTR. I really appreciate your candor.

Craftyandsly (Name's_Tom)

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[jojobinks]:"what you don't know how to do if you're a newbie is learn to understand situations."

Well, for starters, let me tell you a little about myself. My name is Tom, and I am from Vermont. I was a master chess player, during my youth, and I attained that position after years of personal study (while other students were partying). My last, successful tournament was the Burlington Open, which I won back in 1985. Over the last several months, I have picked up the occasional, chess game on-line (my record is over 300 wins and less than 5 losses and only three draws). Not bad for someone who hasn't been playing competitively for 20 years). I also taught myself to play bridge, pinochle, and whatever other mind games which provides me with the deepest of challenges.

Aggressive? You bet. I lettered in two sports, played college hockey, held down three jobs to help my Mother pay the monthly bills, and attained a 3.61 GPA. Even through college. I own a very successful, multi-million dollar business employing some 43 people throughout New England and New York. And I just returned from Las Vegas because I wish to expand my business to the West Coast.

I am in my late forties, and I have been married to my college sweetheart for the last 28 years. Together, we have been blessed with four children (tragically, our third child died during delivery), two stray dogs, and two stray cats. <g>

I was introduced to Hold'em Poker by someone who professed to be a successful, professional poker player. He was introduced to me when he applied through a job interview. <g> He took me down to some casino (in Connecticut) and told me not to open with anything other than pocket 8s. Since I only lost $75 (after playing all night), he told me I should read up on the game and to come back next week. I bought two books written by David Sklansky, and I studied them, hard .. and studied them again ... and again ... and again. However, I didn't play poker for more than two years, until I found the on-line venue through PokerStars.net.

I went back to that casino (about a month ago) to guage my study efforts, and I found that I could easily hold my own. While I was up in chips for most of the time, I decided to then test my physical and mental endurance. I played poker, straight, for 2 1/2 days without any sleep or food. I drank only a bottle of water, each hour. The result? I lost only $400 playing the $2-$4 table. Not bad when one considers that I lost all my money during the last two hours of my play time. I was up ... the rest of the time. But, I my earnings were stagnant after the 2nd day.

Using the best advice from the books written by Sklansky, I won a couple of satellite tourneys (for play money), and came in 26th out of more than 4,000 entrants on a Saturday morning tourney, recently.

For example, today, I won one another tourney, came in second (two other times), and amassed another 212,000 chips with which to play. But, I gotta tell you, I really am a mere rookie itching to learn more and more about this fascinating game.

I recently found (on-line) the Omaha game, entered a small tourney, and got my clock cleaned. That just made me wish to study that game even more. I went to a book store, bought a book and studied very hard. I just *had* to know what I did wrong ... some day I will be good at Omaha, too. That game is fascinating, as well.

In the last 2-3 months, at the suggestion of the PokerStars staff (excellent, btw), I have read another dozen books on Hold'em, and find that I have little patience for a fixed, Hold'em game. It is the No-Limit game with which I excel (if you call using play money ... uhm ... excelling) <g>

Anyway, my thirst for knowledge is unending, and it is to *that* desire with which I post, here. I am not being crafty or sly. I just thought that the name would be a good moniker people might remember, some day, when my poker winnings are more consistent as a measure of success.

[jojobinks]:"for instance, let's say you're a new hold 'em player, sitting to Ivey's right. Ivey, UTG, raises 3xBB . you look down and see KJ and min raise. you just goofed. but not b/c you didn't fear him. you goofed b/c you're inviting a pro into a pot with you after he raised from utg, representing strength. you didn't understand the situation."

Well, you did not propose the proper situation, Jojo. If I was to Ivey's immediate right, and he is UTG, I would have to be the BIG BLIND, correct? What about all the other players who either bet or folded after Ivey's 3xBB raise? According to all the books, I have read, the K and J is not a good enough hand with which to play in the BIG BLIND *if* the guy UTG raises three times the Big Blind.

Additionally, if IVEY has a Group 1 or 2 hand, then it is *IVEY* which is making the mistake (according to Dan Harrington's theory) by not raising at leat 4-5 times the BB when holding a Group 1 or 2 hand UTG. But, that's a topic for another thread. <g>

Frankly, depending on the style I was playing, at the time, I would have probably folded. BUT NOT BECAUSE HE WAS MR. IVEY ...! See?

As for me, I salivate at the thought of playing heads up against any poker professional. Any and all of them, someday. If that is abnormal, rookie behavior, then so be it. I am who I am ...

[jojo]:"back to the original argument: winning players win b/c they try hard, sure. they also win b/c either they 1)study hard or 2) play 40 hours a week for the last 10 years or 3)are geniuses. or, of course, some combination of the three."

I agree with all three of your, above, definitionas of a good, professional poker player. But, I am just as gifted with my own abilities. It's just that I am presently a rookie with a dream ... and am investing every waking hour, that I can, in my continual efforts to study whatever poker topic is available to improve my level of play. Since I am currently living in Vermont, my only poker practice is with PokerStars .. on-line.

Sorry. But that is the best I can do with what is available to me.

[Jojo]:"trying hard by itself isn't going to get you anywhere. sorry. i tried really hard to get into the NBA. unfortunately i'm 5'11" with two wrecked knees and no talent. kinda sucks."

Well, I am in my late forties with a bum left knee from playing hockey, capped teeth (again, from playing hockey), graying hair, and a burning desire with and unending thirst for continued knowledge.

I'll get there .... someday.

Count on it.

Name's_Tom - Barre, Vermont - Craftyandsly

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

mathematical foundation + discipline + experience = winner

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Continuing on that line of thought, is it a mere coincidence that a large # of world class players are college educated ie. Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, Moneymaker, Brunson, Ferguson (his dad was a math professor), and many more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cloutier was an uneducated miner before becoming one of the all-time greats. I think there's probably a correlation between education and poker success only because generally smarter people are more likely to succeed in both... but there's an army of uneducated chinese and vietnamese players who are among the finest (and most profitable) in the game.

There might be a causal effect, in that if you are college-educated you are more likely to have excess leisure time and spending money, which gets one into the games in the first place.

Re: Why winning players really win.
 

Maybe he's the greatest advertiser ever?

[ QUOTE ]
I play live on Saturdays at our brand new cardroom...every time I play I'm just the guy who hangs out for a few hours playing cards. I don't act like the shark and am pretty quiet around people I hardly know. Before dealing in, I'll ask questions of those around me about their lives, trying to make friends and gain information before we start.

Gentleman (gambler cool guy) last Saturday called my pre-flop raise cold (I was first to act with TT). Dealer said, "You're in?"

He said, "Of course, I don't care what he has, it's the right play." Three players called, SB folded, BB called the raise.

Flop came JJ3. Checked to me, I bet, he raised, everyone called. The turn came a 7. SB bet, BB bet, I folded (because the other player's raise didn't sit well - something was up) - the other players went to showdown with his hand and he turned over J3o.

"See...that hand? It was the right thing to do...the books are wrong."

He won later with 74o. (7 on the flop, 7 on the river.) He was up for the session I played with him and began a speech how those books that teach people to play poker are written by players too broke to play.

If the WSOP has an Omaha event, he said he'll be there. Have fun!
PB

[/ QUOTE ]