General Philosophy

[Frank Zappy]

I have only a few posts here because in my first pass through I was severely flamed for "Spewing Chips"

My overall philosophy is that poker is a game of people, information and cards and in that exact order. I will often call, or even raise, when I know I have the worst of it in order to gain information about the people at the table.

If I have reasonable winning chances, I will almost always call down a new player to the river just to insure that I get a peek at his outlook and strategy (many on the board call this “Spewing chips”). The few bets I might lose are an investment in how my “enemies” operate and they pay for themselves many times over because I now have a very good feel for the player on the next hand.

When a stronger hand doesn’t play back at me, I will note that even though he won a hand, it may be possible to push him off a hand later on a “scary” board. In fact there are so many people like this I just have a shorthand notation for it now, he's a "Boardaphobic".

Winning only one hand in this manner, one that I “shouldn’t”, more than pays for the investments I made in information gathering.

[jaxUp]

Interesting philosophy, and I understand what you mean about wanting to gather information about your opponents. I would probably even agree with you if you were in a game constantly playing with the same people (say a weekly home game, or a regular casino game etc). However you are ultimately incorrect in this satement:

[ QUOTE ]
Winning only one hand in this manner, one that I “shouldn’t”, more than pays for the investments I made in information gathering.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. The high turnover in online games means that you don't play against the same players for very long. Hence the chance that you get the opportunity to "push an opponent off a hand" is diminished, and the value of the information that you gain by calling down is minimized.

You are playing micro limits, so let me tell you what "Information" tou will need to be successful:

Your opponents suck.

That is pretty much all you need to know. At this level, there are so many showdowns, that you should never be calling somebody down (or raising, etc) just for information. You will see their cards at the muck when they get called down by the other 37 loose players at the table. Even at 5/10, I still never get to SD strictly for information.

I your outlook on poker, but I think it is better suited to the "good old days" and probably not for hold-em in particular. I think you should try opening yourself up to a more mathematical approach to poker. It will be really hard for you, because you seem like the type who wouldn't worry too much about odds and think poker books are for losers (except for probably Caro and a few others), but I think you will experience greater success with this approach.

[Frank Zappy]

In the interest of space I didn't write out that I only do this when it’s HU or maybe only 2 other people; it should have been painfully obvious, no?

I pay close attention to hands when I'm not in them as well. The same fish do cycle in and out of the game so that in a few months I have reliable notes on several hundred recurring opponents.

I own and have dog-eared and generally abused by constant rereading all of the Sklansky books and Ed Miller's book.

I absolutely love and admire poker books and believe that playing poker without reading Sklansky is like studying physics without reading Einstein or Newton.

State of the art in poker is what it is BECAUSE Sklansky, Brunson, etc. have written their books.

You are correct to say that poker is a game of people, information, and cards. But I think such a viewpoint is an oversimplification. "Cards" in this case should mean: the situations created by the cards in your hand plus the cards on the board, and the resulting mathematical probabilites. The people aspect could probably be combined with information to read: "your opponents betting patterns plus their general playing tendencies."

The reason it was probably stated that you are spewing chips is that most of the players in this forum try to play a fairly rigid, tight game. Such a game, which is largely a matter of patience, is probably the only strategy that will prevail in the long term at low-limit hold 'em. The nature of limit is such that, generally speaking, the mathematical aspects of the game are most important. You are spewing chips in that you are often, in essence, just paying to see your opponents' cards (even though you will have some winning chances). This information does clearly have some value, largely in the manner you note: that it can let you take down a later pot from someone whose tendencies you know on a scary board. I might suggest that there is a cheaper way to get this information: by watching your opponents when you are not in a hand. What kinds of hands will they raise with preflop? How many flops do they see? What hands have they shown down? Do they have an noteable mannerisms when they have a big hand? It is much better to pay attention throughout the game and get information for free than to have to pay for it. Doing so will allow you to steal pots in the manner you described, but will also keep you from spewing chips (which will certainly help improve your overall winnings).

Hope this helps.

[Frank Zappy]

This has certainly been interesting and education and my way of playing is likely costing me some fair portion of a bet every 100 hands.

I’m going to make an effort to tighten up for the next few thousand hands and I’ll report back.

Thanks for the really excellent advise and insight!

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
My overall philosophy is that poker is a game of people, information and cards and in that exact order. I will often call, or even raise, when I know I have the worst of it in order to gain information about the people at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This information can usually be gained cheaply i.e. watching and observing how they play in hands you're not involved in. I'm also guessing in the micro-limits the incremental information you pay for is not worth the price i.e. you could've surmised it already with confidence and without putting chips in the middle.

[ QUOTE ]
If I have reasonable winning chances, I will almost always call down a new player to the river just to insure that I get a peek at his outlook and strategy (many on the board call this “Spewing chips”).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a reasonable chance of winning on the river, calling down no matter the player is a must.

[ QUOTE ]
The few bets I might lose are an investment in how my “enemies” operate and they pay for themselves many times over because I now have a very good feel for the player on the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

One hand isn't generally enough to truly get a feel of your opponent. Likewise it will take you many more hands to get back your investment. To truly take advantage of the information you've gained, you need marginal situations to take advantage of which doesn't come along super often.

Interesting post frank...I recognize you from Pokerstars. I went to my notes on you...odd...I have you down as "plays way too many hands, raises inappropriately, chases too often, bluff bets with marginal hands"...pretty interesting I'd say. According to my stats (only 374 hands on you) you're a marginal loser. Might want to rethink that business of calling down "just to see". It's costing you according to my numbers

[jaxUp]

Your notes mean more than that winrate ever will over such a small hand sample. Still, the notes are very telling.

[Frank Zappy]

Just under 20K hands and I'm 2.1BB/100.

You take very good notes!

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Just under 20K hands and I'm 2.1BB/100.


[/ QUOTE ]

Over 20k hands, your WR doesn't mean much. Also, you seem to have some skill and could probably manage better than this if you quit calling down/raising for information.