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.

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]

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.

[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.

I like your attitude alot and with your focus on the game you can do really really well in poker since you will always gain information and learn how other people play hands and maybe catch up on a thing or two by seeing how good players play their hands. I pretty much like that you take this into account even on the micro limits since I pretty much do the same but... I usually never bet with the worst of it to get information because at these limits, you will get called by a better hand since people don't think in an advanced way.

If you play at a casino with lets say, 100 regulars each day for a year, your tactic/methods would be gold but online and at micro limits, the amount of players is just huge and it's not very likely you end up with 3 "old" players at the same table if you play at Party unless you have a very strict scheme you follow when choosing tables.

Btw, your "methods" could be really great for NL tournaments in the middle/end game. You should try a few out.

[Aaron W.]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody here hides the fact that we're a "tough love" community of poker players. You get used to it after a while because you learn that nobody is insulting your person (at least, nobody should be), but insulting your play, which is an object completely disjoint from you.

[ 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 ]

Yes and no. It's first a game about people, but these people are playing a card game. In NL, there is a lot more emphasis on information than on the cards, but in limit this is not necessarily the case. The problem is that you have only a finite edge and a finite number of ways to win money. It doesn't matter how skilled you are at reading people and using the information gained, if you play too many hands, you're going to lose. And if you play the wrong hands, you're still going to lose. And if you play the right hands and go to far with them, you're going to lose. Beating the game of hold'em is not as easy as most people would have you believe.

Knowing how to play the cards is more than enough of an edge to beat up on these microlimit games. The use of information then augments your winrate. A basic ABC player can make something like 2.5 BB/100. An more advanced ABC player can probably make more like 3 BB/100. A player who pays attention to the table and knows how to use that information can make 3.5 BB/100 and more. But the bulk of the profit comes from playing the hands that you are dealt properly.

[ 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”). 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where everything begins. How do you know you have "reasonable" winning chances? What are the means by which you determine this bit of information? If you're up against a new player, then you don't have information about him. That leaves you with *YOUR CARDS* as the only means by which you can measure the strength of your hand. So even in this situation, your cards come first.

If you ask any of the players around here, I'm a very strong proponent of reads. And I agree with the notion that you should sometimes look up a player. However, it is very often expensive to look up a player (especially if you're calling on multiple streets) and the cost of gaining that information is very often more than what you can win back (especially in a full ring game, where you don't have as many encounters with any specific villain compared to shorthanded play).

It is a far better skill to learn to watch players when you're not in a hand and to learn to infer styles from those hands. It doesn't cost you any money and you get roughly the same information (once you learn how to glean it from the action without always needing to see a showdown).

[Frank Zappy]

Thanks for the kind words. I do play tournaments and though I'm on a dry spell lately I have a winning record at the Sit&Goes and finished third in a 500+ player PS Limit tourney.