learning from results

[Guruman]

disclaimer: I'm just trying to shake things up here really. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

It's preached like he bible around here that results-oriented thinking will terminally stunt our growth as poker players.

Witness this post from tiltaholic in a recent thread: [ QUOTE ]

[results oriented play] is a bad thing for learning how to play better poker.
in fact, it might be the worst thing.
learning to not be results-oriented is probably the hardest thing to do in poker.

the reason is because many times one can play perfectly in a hand and lose. often times, the correct course of action in a hand is to call a bet or call a raise when we know we are going to lose 90% of the time. poker is hard, in part, because it is so hard for people to dissociate "correct play" from "plays where we ended up losing a particular hand".

the flip side of this can also work to our advantage. people who play incorrectly can win, sometimes a lot of money, and they'll continue to play 'their-way' -- thereby making the games profitable.

looking at a hand from the point of view of "what could i have done to win this particular hand" is an incorrect thought process oftentimes and should be avoided. in this case, the correct course of action was to bet the turn (as you know), but not because it would have helped you win the hand (as you know).

[/ QUOTE ]

...and everyone that attempts to gain any knowledge from looking at what an opponent shows down is promptly ridiculed and referred to the literature where Ed Miller gives us his excellent tennis example.

I would just like to point out the one very imporatant part of your poker game comes entirely from looking at what your opponents show down: reads.

Its a common mistake (and one that I struggle with constantly) to assign a range of hands to your opponenet based on how you would play it. Don't do it!

Make note of the times your opponent <font color="red">shows down</font> a hand where he checked through a pair last to act.

Pay attention when the villain <font color="red">shows down</font> a set of sixes that he open capped preflop with.

Be aware of the times that guys will raise the river and <font color="red">show down</font> top pair on a drawy board.

Using results to try and save bets against improbable ranges is bad. Not making note of every card you see is worse.

flame on! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out the one very imporatant part of your poker game comes entirely from looking at what your opponents show down: reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is false. You can learn a lot about what a player's tendencies are based on what he *DOESN'T* show down as well. It is usually correct to infer that players folding on the turn are peeling the flop with weak/bad draws. It's also usually correct to infer that a player who doesn't raise often preflop and doesn't get past the flop very often is weak-tight.

The basic notion of trying to gain as much information from the little information you receive from villains is correct. Just expand your thoughts a little wider.

[Guruman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out the one very imporatant part of your poker game comes entirely from looking at what your opponents show down: reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is false. You can learn a lot about what a player's tendencies are based on what he *DOESN'T* show down as well. It is usually correct to infer that players folding on the turn are peeling the flop with weak/bad draws. It's also usually correct to infer that a player who doesn't raise often preflop and doesn't get past the flop very often is weak-tight.

The basic notion of trying to gain as much information from the little information you receive from villains is correct. Just expand your thoughts a little wider.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, looks like I agree with you there. Reads don't come entirely from showndown cards. They're just that much more relevant when you're suspicions are confirmed.

I am quite results oriented but I would like to call it adaptation. You just cant play like some suggest on these boards quite often. Some games play so much different that you just have to change and work out a strategy on your own. Even if its just based on how you did and observed during a small sample size. For example value betting is preached on these boards like the holy grail yet often in the games I play its much better to induce a bluff and check call or check raise the river depending on what you hold.