Why winning players really win.

[craftyandsly]

[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)

[jojobinks]

[ 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.

[jtr]

[ 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.

[johnc]

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?

[craftyandsly]

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)

[craftyandsly]

[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

[jwg152]

mathematical foundation + discipline + experience = winner

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ 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.

[JohnnyHumongous]

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 ]