The tyranny of the majority (long)

[AtticusFinch]

<soapbox>
Recently, as I've been working through my move up to the $109s, I've been thinking a lot about the kinds of adjustments I need to make to be successful at higher levels, and I must confess that I'm a bit concerned about certain patterns I'm seeing in our discussions.

First, though, let me be clear. I can say without hesitation that I owe all the success I've had thus far to this site, and am proud to be part of this community.

What troubles me is some people's tendency to treat certain plays as Holy Gospel, without an eye to the larger context.

Let me give you an example. Lately I've been kicking around the idea of working on a structured approach to analyzing table image and if/how it should come into play in pushing decisions. To this end, I posted a thread wherein I asked if I should make a pretty standard push after having taken three very bad beats in a row. (I had jt and about 8 bb, if memory serves). Normally this is an easy push, but here my opponents might well read me as being on tilt and loosen up their calling range.

The result of my post was that two people flamed me for posting a "bad beat" thread (obviously they missed the point completely), one claimed that I was obviously on tilt and couldn't handle bad beats, and those who seemed to get what I was asking posted one-sentence answers. So much for the lively debate I was hoping for.

I'm always irritated by flames (whether directed at me or not), but that's not the real point, here. I'll go out on a limb and say that this board is probably *the* cutting edge of SNG tactics, but that doesn't mean we all don't have more to learn.

With pushing decisions in particular, we usually just look at the numbers. Position, blinds, stacks, etc. Every now and then a read is tossed in as well. Rarely does anyone ask or consider if the player has pushed the last 10 hands in a row, yet no one will deny that this must have an effect on calling ranges, which can in turn affect the EV of the play.

I think there are two sources for this issue, and both are actually pretty well justified in discounting fuzzier considerations like image.

1) Lower-limit players

When playing at lower limits, you're probably right just to stick with the formula. No one is paying attention to how you play, anyway. Don't cast pearls before swine.

2) Multi-tablers

When 8-tabling, you usually don't have time to make a deep analysis of your table image, or of your opponents' playing patterns.


No, I'm not advocating splitting up the board. Still, if we're all to grow, I think we need to expand our thinking, and not let our strategy get so entrenched that we stop ourselves from refining it. Be more open to new ideas, even (especially?) from newbies, and even if they seem "stupid" at first blush. Instead of flaming the new player, try to draw them into a discussion about why their play is not the best (Scuba Chuck, for example, has made several admirable efforts to this end -- as have others.) At worst, you'll help a new player. At best, you'll solidify your own understanding, or possibly even learn a new angle for thinking about an issue that helps expand your arsenal. Flaming accomplishes nothing.

I'd like to see more threads like Gigabet's hand history, where we can talk about the non-"standard" plays that the truly great players frequently make, and the thinking behind them.

But you shouldn't have to be Gigabet to draw people into discussions about these ideas. I'd like to think even a donk like me could get one going.

Some ideas I'd like to see discussed more (incomplete and in no particular order):

- Risk v/ reward for deceptive plays like giving free cards with less than a monster

- The merits of playing (somewhat) more aggressively early

- Risk v. reward for resteals

- How to improve your ability to read your opponents

- anything else that goes beyond just your hand, the blinds, and the stacks (but by all means lets keep the technical discussions going, too)
</soapbox>

Thanks again to all those 2+2ers who have taught me so much so quickly.