Old Aaron W. Post- Very good

[TheKentock]

Looking back on my old posts and favorite threads, I stumbled upon this thread from Aaron W. that is fantastic.

It makes me really want to play poker in the way he describes. Although I almost certainly play more hands than Aaron per session simply due to multi-tabling, I tend to think that I learn 1/10th of what he does during any one session. I think this type of analysis and read-based desicion making are a goal to which we can all aspire.

[jt1]

Call me a cock, but I don't have the patience to read the whole thread. if you're good enough to beat a higher limit game and you have the br then go for it. learn while earning money...it may take me 99x as long to learn something as him, but if I'm earning more during that time then I'm good. of course, he'll advance to the high high games then a guy like me, but he still can only go as far as his br...earn & learn is my moto

[Aaron W.]

Wow. I wasn't expecting to see my name in the subject line and I wasn't expecting to see that post resurrected.

jt is right, to some extent. You earn more money multi-tabling than single-tabling (assuming you can play well enough to win multi-tabling).

[ QUOTE ]
it may take me 99x as long to learn something as him, but if I'm earning more during that time then I'm good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being "good" in this sense is purely subjective and is based upon your goals for playing poker. If you are trying to earn a supplimentary income playing poker, then the standard of making more money is appropriate to your situation.

My situation is that I play the game purely for fun. Playing for fun does not mean that I choose to play poorly, but it means that the money I win is essentially irrelevant to me. It's more fun for me to single-table for an hour and to really focus on the game (to play both the cards and the players, and to learn about the subtleties of the game) than it is for me to auto-pilot for an hour, to make a more money, and to feel like I missed out on so much useful information because my attention was spread out between 4 tables.

So learning at 1/99th of my normal speed is not "good", even if I make more money.

[imitation]

I disagree you don't learn anything by still playing 1/2 5max after 4 years having only played 25000 hands. You learn by playing in more difficult games against better players. Do you think if michael jordan practiced only ever practice one shot and only ever played against high school teams he would have reached his full potential.

Playing hands means experiencing new situations, as long as you have enough focus to think about these new situations as you play 4+ tables then you continue to learn. Also "player reads, table textures, etc" are a little trivial at these levels, finally most good multitablers have the skills to notice these nuances anyway.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree you don't learn anything by still playing 1/2 5max after 4 years having only played 25000 hands. You learn by playing in more difficult games against better players. Do you think if michael jordan practiced only ever practice one shot and only ever played against high school teams he would have reached his full potential.

Playing hands means experiencing new situations, as long as you have enough focus to think about these new situations as you play 4+ tables then you continue to learn. Also "player reads, table textures, etc" are a little trivial at these levels, finally most good multitablers have the skills to notice these nuances anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's best put this way:

In a span of 100 hands, how many mistakes do you think you make ('mistake' means making *ANY* decision which is not optimal EV)?

How many of these mistakes do you notice?

How many of these mistakes have something to teach you?

How many of these mistakes do you actually learn something from?

The answer to the 4th question is hopefully close to the answer to the first. If it isn't, then the level you're at has plenty to teach you.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
In a span of 100 hands, how many mistakes do you think you make ('mistake' means making *ANY* decision which is not optimal EV)?

[/ QUOTE ]

50

[ QUOTE ]
How many of these mistakes do you notice?

[/ QUOTE ]

5

[ QUOTE ]
How many of these mistakes have something to teach you?

[/ QUOTE ]

50

[ QUOTE ]
How many of these mistakes do you actually learn something from?

[/ QUOTE ]

1



I have a lot to learn.

[k_squared]

I agree it is an interesting post, but I find the example a little pedantic, and irrelevant to most play. It is not hard to figure out when someone is a habitual bluffer, and it is not hard to adjust to playing them... On the other hand it is much more difficult to adjust to a player capable of bluffing, but who is not a habitual bluffer... but if you base your read of the player on a set of 50 hands it can often be hard to tell the difference between an agressive player getting a feel for the table, and a maniac bluffer. Getting 'reads' on people is simply not as easy as observing a few hands and drawing a singular conclusion. People adjust as the table changes, so our reads cannot be static. Playing one table allows you to focus on making decisions and not making mistakes, but does not maximize your ability to do so in the long run. Maximizing your ability to play poker well would amount to playing the most hands possible to which you can pay full attention.

How many decision REAL decisions do you make per hundred hands? If you play 20-30% of your hands then it seems to me you could easily pay attention to practically EVERY hand you play even if you two table, or possibly three table. Now at some point obviously you lose the ability to do the kind of indepth analysis of your opponents that is being advocated, but it is certainly not simply from moving to two tables.

I also believe that part of the online game that is different is that on big sites you rarely sit with the same players for thousands of hands, and so the conclusions you are drawing are from a substantially smaller data set, and so significantly more prone to errors.

Just some additional thoughts...

-K_squared

[TheKentock]

[ QUOTE ]

How many decision REAL decisions do you make per hundred hands? If you play 20-30% of your hands then it seems to me you could easily pay attention to practically EVERY hand you play even if you two table, or possibly three table. Now at some point obviously you lose the ability to do the kind of indepth analysis of your opponents that is being advocated, but it is certainly not simply from moving to two tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very difficult to pick up reads on opponents when you only observe hands that you are involved in (The 20-30% to which you refer). You can pick up reads on opponents much faster by observing all the action at the table, even when you are not involved. Clearly this is easier at live B&M games, since you are stuck at the table, but it can definitely be done online, with a little discipline.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is an interesting post, but I find the example a little pedantic, and irrelevant to most play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I picked this particular player because the progression of hands which led to the read were close to successive and fairly striaghtforward.

The reason I wrote it all out was to show *HOW* the read progresses from a suspicion, to a tentative read, to a more solid read, and how the play adjusts accordingly. If you're not paying attention, you could easily have missed villain's overplayed flop on the A8 hand (only remembering that you split with another 8), or not remembering that he is capable of bluffing the turn AND river (he didn't give up his bluff on the river on the AAKK hand). Remembering these things is central to developing a solid read.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not hard to figure out when someone is a habitual bluffer, and it is not hard to adjust to playing them... On the other hand it is much more difficult to adjust to a player capable of bluffing, but who is not a habitual bluffer... but if you base your read of the player on a set of 50 hands it can often be hard to tell the difference between an agressive player getting a feel for the table, and a maniac bluffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Of course the read isn't perfect after very few hands, but you can't wait forever to start playing off your reads. As time progresses, your reads become more solid, but if you're paying attention at a short-handed table (where villains are playing 30-50% of their hands), you should have at least a moderate read after 30-40 hands (5-7 orbits). And this is often enough to tell you how to start adjusting your play.

At a full table, it would take a little longer because players are generally a little tighter (so you have less information about them), but you should still start making adjustments by about hand 50. (To put it in perspective, if you were playing live, you would have played with everyone for about 75-90 minutes by this time. If you can't make any useful observations in that span, you're not paying enough attention.)

[ QUOTE ]
Getting 'reads' on people is simply not as easy as observing a few hands and drawing a singular conclusion. People adjust as the table changes, so our reads cannot be static.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. Getting reads on people (at these levels) is more complicated than observing a few hands, but I don't think it's as complicated as you imagine it to be. Players (at these levels) barely adjust their game. Things that look like adjustments are often just a quirk in their standard strategy (not a true "adjustment") or something completely random (not part of an overall scheme).

Please note that this entire conversation is based on READS and not PT STATS.