A Very Good Exercise

[W. Deranged]

Hi folks,

So my pokertracker if messed up and so I couldn't get real-time stats for what promised to be a wild 5/10 6-tabling session tonight. Figuring there was no way I could play reasonable poker readless on 6 tables at once, I figured I needed to cut down tables. So I decided I'd play two tables of 10/20 and really focus on the action.

I was amazed at how different it felt. I was watching betting patterns more closely, I was looking more carefully at results, I was noticing things like small stack size, early position posters, etc. I was forcing myself to think in terms of "what does this guy play this way" instead of "how often does he do this" and so on. I was making careful points every time I saw a turn bluff raise and so on. I managed to get good notes on almost every player at the table, and soon settled into a rhythm where I felt comfortable playing. Getting reads on new players became easy. I found I could get a handle on a new table in 10-15 minutes.

Now much of my experience is live so this sort of thing is natural to me in live games, but it's interesting to me how different it was online.

Anyway, here's what I recommend y'all who multitable do:

Play a session without Gametime or Pokerace or whatever. Play no more than 2 tables, and focus on making careful but efficient notes on your opponents. Try to get a read on everyone. Be able to explain how they play. Do this for a couple hours or so.

For interest, see how your instinctual/contextual reads compare to what pokertracker tells you about your opponents. Try to estimate some numbers on some interesting/representative players. Test yourself.

I think this will be very useful for those of you who aren't comfortable making numberless online reads. I personally plan to start doing this somewhat regularly as a kind of "training."

Post your results here.

[Evan]

Lots of people have reccomended this in the past and I never understood the point. Why take away stats if you have them? If you aren't paying attention to stuff when stats are up then I think that's a seperate problem all together and i don't really see how this will change that. Is it supposed to show you that paying attention is important? I thought everyone knew that.

Now if you want to talk about playing fewer tables once in a while, I think that's a valid idea because it gives you more time to think about things. I just don't see what advantages come of depriving yourself of stats.

[toss]

One day we may not have the luxury of stats. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[TimsterToo]

I might feel silly saying this in a year or two but I really don't see how the sites are going to force us not having stats.

Worse case scenario you'll have another computer reading the info from a shared folder and projecting the stats on another screen. Or even reading it straight from the screen with a camera. I can even see some sort of technology where you put a screen in front of your screen and the stats are projected on that allowing you to still see the tables. (you now have frontwindows in the upper end Mercedes on which obstacles which are beyond your current eyesight are highlighted)

I know it sounds a bit far fetched but the point I'm trying to get across is that the only thing a site could do stop us from getting the info is force us to install camera's in our houses and monitor us while we're playing. (or have a representative set next to us [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

I do think that a lot of newbies, well actually a lot of internetplayers in general, are playing too many tables thus making it harder for them to ever move up.

I can fully understand that if this is your income and you're content with what you're making this is the way to go. But if you have a love for the game why grind instead of trying to become as good as possible? I've been through my spell of 4 tabling grinding away bonuses and although it did miracles for my bankroll it started to turn out to be an automatic thing I did while watching movies etc.

I'm now back to playing a single table. Concentrate 100% on the action, even if I'm not in the hand. Checking the HH to see the mucked cards of there was a showdown and trying to really make good decisions every time. I also try to not play, or quit, when I'm tired but I'm having a problem there. Playing poker is my hobby and I'm simply tired a lot from my business etc so that would cut down my play time so much that I'm at peace with giving away some of my edge.

Apart from that I replay sessions in PT and am always reading a pokerbook. TOP is permanently in the toilet, and another one follows me around the house. (I own too many pokerbooks at the moment [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

I realise that this is not a positive thing for the speed of growth of my bankroll but I do think it will greatly enhance my learning curve of the game itself.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm now back to playing a single table....I realise that this is not a positive thing for the speed of growth of my bankroll but I do think it will greatly enhance my learning curve of the game itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be surprised how much more quickly you are able to move up in limits once you have the bankroll for it. You're less likely to "take a shot" at the next limit and have to move back down, because you'll come in with a higher edge to begin with because of your one-tabling observations.

One-tabling cuts into your short-term bankroll growth, and it can cut into your long-term growth if you're ready for the next limit but are taking your time building up the bankroll for it.

I am also a recreational player, having moved up from initially playing 0.5/1. I have just started playing the 15/30 games and so far play either one or two tables at a time. (I'll usually play two tables if there are two really good buddies that I can be seated with, or if I am playing full ring games after I get a good read on my first table.) It's too early to say definitively based on results that I am a winner at the game, but I feel confident that I am beating the game and it really doesn't feel much more difficult than 10/20. I am less likely to play suboptimally when running bad because I trust my reads more. I see places to squeeze out value bets or to make a play that depends on certain specific game conditions being present in order to be optimal. Thus, while my hourly rate is presumably lower than if I were playing more tables, but I am still doing just fine and more importantly I am hopefully honing my skills so that I will in due time be able to transition to 20/40. And most importantly I (like you) really enjoy playing poker like this.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people have reccomended this in the past and I never understood the point. Why take away stats if you have them? If you aren't paying attention to stuff when stats are up then I think that's a seperate problem all together and i don't really see how this will change that. Is it supposed to show you that paying attention is important? I thought everyone knew that.

Now if you want to talk about playing fewer tables once in a while, I think that's a valid idea because it gives you more time to think about things. I just don't see what advantages come of depriving yourself of stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is just that I tend to use the stats as a crutch and hence miss out on a lot of very valuable information. It's a training exercise, not a "maximize value" exercise. The idea is by forcing myself to not have stats now, I train myself to be more observant at the table, meaning my reads with stats included will be even sharper.

It's like when they put eye-patches on the eyes of young kids. By compromising vision in the short-run, you greatly increase acuity in the long-run.

Obviously there are many for whom this wouldn't be useful, because they're already good at this, but this seems to me a very rational way to deal with what I imagine is a pretty common problem.

[sweetjazz]

That's cool. The next stage, it seems to me, is to force yourself to make the same observations with stats present (playing one table). Look for ways in which you can integrate stats into your observational reads, and in particular whether it increases the speed at which you develop reads and/or gives you more reliable reads.

I think Evan's point is that you eventually need to reach a point where you are consciously doing the right thing without the aid of tricks or devices to "make you do it." I don't think that means your exercise can't be valuable, just that there is a follow-up exercise to it.

[ZootMurph]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people have reccomended this in the past and I never understood the point. Why take away stats if you have them? If you aren't paying attention to stuff when stats are up then I think that's a seperate problem all together and i don't really see how this will change that. Is it supposed to show you that paying attention is important? I thought everyone knew that.

Now if you want to talk about playing fewer tables once in a while, I think that's a valid idea because it gives you more time to think about things. I just don't see what advantages come of depriving yourself of stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is just that I tend to use the stats as a crutch and hence miss out on a lot of very valuable information. It's a training exercise, not a "maximize value" exercise. The idea is by forcing myself to not have stats now, I train myself to be more observant at the table, meaning my reads with stats included will be even sharper.

It's like when they put eye-patches on the eyes of young kids. By compromising vision in the short-run, you greatly increase acuity in the long-run.

Obviously there are many for whom this wouldn't be useful, because they're already good at this, but this seems to me a very rational way to deal with what I imagine is a pretty common problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with W Deranged here. I know when I was having a bad run, I started playing only 1 table to refocus myself. When I started doing that, I found some things which aren't reflected in the numbers. For example, there was one guy I played a lot of hands with. His PFR was 3%. You'd think that his raises were only AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK and AQ. But, he NEVER raised preflop with AA or KK, which I saw him show down 3 times. Maybe this is just because of sample size, but this is a pretty telling read. Another example is a LAG I was playing with that I'd played a LOT of hands with previously. His stats are 47%-31% and his showdown number was 53%. However, on this day, he seemed to be folding an awful lot on the flop. Probably having a bad day and compounding it with weak postflop play thinking he is beat all the time. It was useful information that the numbers alone couldn't give me.

So, anyway, I agree that the stats should only be part of your read, not the whole thing.

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]

It's like when they put eye-patches on the eyes of young kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something about this sentence is still cracking me up.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like when they put eye-patches on the eyes of young kids.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I play without stats I can be a pirate? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]