Some Random Musings About the Game

[Festus22]

By my best estimate, I’ve now played around 100K holdem hands. Here are a few thoughts and observations about the game:

It can be quite boring. Even playing 60 hands/hr online, playing 25% of the hands means only 15 minutes/hr actually involved in a hand. Given you’re likely not to see a showdown on the majority, it’s more like 10 minutes/hr. Yes I know I should be studying my opponents while not involved in a hand but quite honestly, I can’t do it for that long. When playing one table, I usually read or surf between hands. I’ve taken to playing 2 tables at once to stay more involved and enjoy that much more. Again, I know you lose the ability to closely observe your opponents but the online game is such a revolving door anyway, I can’t see I’m losing that much and in the micro-game, players are pretty predictable. And I do have notes on the “regulars”. But 2 tables is the max for me. Any more and it’s too tough to watch the action, especially if it’s that rare moment when you’re in a hand on all of them. Bless davidross for being able to play 4 – I have no clue how that’s done effectively. I guess you B&M folks have the added aspect of interaction with your opponents and watching a lot more behavior but I have to imagine that since you see so fewer hands, it’s got to get boring sometimes as well.

I think what’s also adding to my sense of boredom is that I’ve only ever played 10 handed ring games for micro limits online. $1/2 and on down and only about 1000 hands or so at $1/2. That’s it. Period. Technically I guess that’s not true since I once accidentally joined a $15/30 game and wondered why the chip colors were suddenly different. The timing was perfect in that before I realized what I’d done, I had posted. 8 hours worth of micro earnings lost in a few seconds! Never once played PL, NL, live or a tournament. Would it be worth while to explore some of these other variations? If so, which ones?

And only being dealt 2 cards. 169 total possible hands. You make a choice of 3 decisions - bet, call or raise - 4 times, once PF, flop, turn and river (not counting reraises and checks of course). That’s all there is to it. And of the 169 hands, you could probably can 125 of them outright. So now you’re left with 44 hands max and a total of 12 playing choices. It’s truly amazing what you do with that can make you awful or fantastic. Wouldn’t it be cool if you’re dealt 3 hole cards and the board play went 2-1-1? Now there are 2197 possible pocket hands. What to do if the flop comes Ah – Js. Does someone have a pocket heart 3 flush. Or A-J-J? Straight draw? Maybe even pocket trips? Just imagine what you’d have to consider. HEPFAP would be a series.

But with all the above being said, this game has some kind of strange draw to it. Is it the seemingly simplistic first impression replaced by an awareness that there’s SO much more involved? Is it the ability to enjoy an activity and make money at it in the process? I can’t imagine I’d play this game if I didn’t enjoy it at some level. As a related thought, at one point, I was a very good pool player bordering on turning pro. I competed in a few national events and managed to even get into the cash. But one day I was practicing and it hit me like a train that I wasn’t enjoying it anymore so why the hell was I doing it? And on that day, I quit the game forever. What a weird feeling that was. My cue is still in it’s case, untouched since that day. I hope the same thing doesn’t happen with poker (and I doubt it will since I’m a very part-timer). But I can relate to those who try to make a go of it. You just have to be doing it for the right reasons – life’s too short otherwise.

Getting back to holdem, since there are a finite number of situations that can arise, it’s pretty remarkable that a forum such as this can thrive. I can’t imagine there are too many situations out there that haven’t been covered already. And the concept of “correct” I find most interesting. Is it the play that mathematically over the long run will yield the most EV? Table texture, player types, tells, etc. would have no impact. That can’t be right since the game would just boil down to a set of algorithms. So is it situational with probability underpinnings? Or is it what the majority of good players would have done faced with the same set of circumstances? Wouldn’t that be the essence of “correct” since making the best situational decisions are what makes a player good in the first place? The other day I had Q-Q in the BB. The table seemed to have an irrational fear toward PF raisers – some would fold to a raise even after they had limped and gave little action post flop. There were 6 limpers to me and I checked. I sure there would be a howl of criticism by not raising here. Isn’t raising the best EV play over the long run? Of course it is but I was playing the situation – doing what I thought was correct at that moment in time. Alas the flop comes Q-7-2, 3 suits. I check, there’s a bet and 4 call. I just call. WHAT! Are you crazy? Giving everyone a cheap look at the turn! Perhaps. Turn is [Q-7-2]-2, 2 flush. I check, same person bets, all 4 call and I raise. All called. River was a 10, no 3 flush. I bet and got 3 callers. I’m good. I won a 20 BB pot. Would I have won a greater amount by raising PF? I don’t think so. Was my play here “correct”? Probably not in the context of how this hand should be played over the long run. But this wasn’t the long run, this was one time and I almost never play this hand this way. I think I won the most I could have in those circumstances. So again, was I “correct”?

It’s also interesting how “good” is defined in the poker context. I guess I’m “good” in the sense that I started playing with $100 and now have $1400 in my bankroll. Or maybe I’m just not as bad as those I play against – that’s probably more accurate. So someone could be considered a good $20/40 player if he can consistently beat the competition at that level but might be considered a bad $60/120 player if he cannot beat the players who play there. Can that be right? The differentiation between good and bad in poker seems to be more difficult than that to quantify. I guess put another way, one way to look at it is how good = how much money a player can make. So if this player can make $100K playing $20/40, he must be a good (very!). But now he plays $250/500 and cannot beat the competition at that level. Is he then considered “bad”? I don’t know. How is a good poker player defined?

And lastly I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank everyone who provides for and participates in this forum. Dynasty, majorkong, Homer, (sorry – holm is kind of lame IMO), Kurn, Ulysses et al – how you guys read through probably every post and provide insight/advice is quite a feat. There’s quite a few out there who keep knowledge to themselves. It’s way cool that you guys continue to contribute so much here. It’s also pretty cool there’s this unwritten rule about being civil to each other and anyone going over the line is usually corrected. Go to most other chats/forums and it’s a one-ups-manship contest of degrading verbal flotsam. It’s kind of like a team atmosphere here with coaches, all star players, journeymen and rookies all sharing this common interest. I think it would be fascinating to discover who everyone really is, what they do, look like, age, etc. I’d bet I’m so off base with my mental image of some of you it’s laughable. And I’d venture a guess and say most wouldn’t have me pegged accurately either. Someday perhaps, we can plan some kind of event that brings us together (I’m an east coaster).

My musings meter has peaked. Until the next 100K…TC!

[Lost Wages]

Nice post.

Wouldn’t it be cool if you’re dealt 3 hole cards and the board play went 2-1-1?

Try Omaha H/L where you get 4 hole cards, try to make the best hand and/or worst hand and only get to keep 2 of your hole cards at showdown.

It’s also interesting how “good” is defined in the poker context.

I read a quote somewhere today that "You are only as good as the other players are bad". Sounded about right.

Good Luck,
Lost Wages

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]
By my best estimate, I've now played around 100K holdem hands. Here are a few thoughts and observations about the game:

It can be quite boring. Even playing 60 hands/hr online, playing 25% of the hands means only 15 minutes/hr actually involved in a hand. Given you're likely not to see a showdown on the majority, it's more like 10 minutes/hr. Yes I know I should be studying my opponents while not involved in a hand but quite honestly, I can't do it for that long

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither can I; I'm usually playing two tables at once as well. I haven't played near 100k hands -- more like 10k or 20k is more like it. And what helps a lot is playing different types -- something you said you haven't done yet. I've played full ring games, shorthanded, tournies, HU, and NL. There are intracacies to each I'm still trying to figure out -- soooo much to learn! It's really kept my interest piqued. I highly recommend it.

[davidross]

This is a very good post, and you raise some interesting points.

I don't think I've ever been bored playing poker, in the sense that I'd rather be doing something else. When I played 1 or 2 tables I would surf the net, and I do always have the TV on when I'm playing, but I don't think that's becuase I'm bored as much as I need theh stimulus.

If there was a perfect way to play poker, then I think we'd see more computers playing and winning as we do in chess. There is too much about this game that is situation dependant. Your example of the QQ hand is a good one. Maybe you would have made more by raising pre-flop but probably not. Over the long term raising in that situation is almost certainly +EV, but you made a judgement call and it worked.

I love the example of hands heads up against each other. AKo is a favorite over JTs heads up, and JTs is a favorite over 22 heads up....but lo and behold, 22 is a favorite over AKo. I fantasize about being in a 5 way pot with 22 against 4 guys with AKo drawing dead. This game has so many permutations and combinations that make it a pleasure to play each day. I see something new each time I play.

I hope you continue to enjoy the game, but if not, you'll move on to something else you enjoy. Just have fun. Good luck.

[crockpot]

if you find yourself getting bored at the tables, take up shorthanded play. you get a lot more action and it can be just as profitable if not more if you are good at it and pick your opponents well.

like more card combinations? try omaha. the pot-limit form is not only challenging but very profitable. unfortunately, the basic premises of omaha make it seem less simplistic than many beginners like in their game of choice, but there are still plenty of idiots. for some reason the same people who realize that constantly calling raises on middle pair in hold 'em is stupid never think the same about hands like bottom two pair in omaha.

[Gamblor]

Haha right on david

I have a similar fantasy at the WSOP final table:
Hand history:

Seat 6: Johnny Chan: dealt JJ
Seat 7: Ray Zee: dealt JJ
Seat 8: David Sklansky: dealt QQ
Seat 9: Mason Malmuth: dealt QQ
Dealer: Amarillo Slim: dealt KK
SB: Doyle Brunson: dealt KK
BB: Gamblor: dealt AA

Johnny Chan bets all in
Ray Zee raises all-in
David Sklansky raises all-in
Mason Malmuth raises all-in
Amarillo Slim raises all-in
Doyle Brunson raises all-in
Gamblor calls.

(As is standard with my game, flop comes 789. turn: T. and just to piss me off, i make the set on the river A)

[CrackerZack]

You inclusion of the 3 authors seems strange... I'm guessing this isn't the big event [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Gamblor]

Just wanted them to read about their big bustout on their own forum.

[Mike]

I like your insights, I think we all come to the same point. For me it has led to changing my playing times and my game. Why play five to eight hours (B&M), when I can make the same or bigger profit in three hours? A reasonable win appears to be in the neighborhood of 15 to 25 BB at $4-8. If I can make that much in three or four hours max, what's the point of hanging around?

I have found that action tends to dwindle as stack size grows, my mistakes multiply with time, and my focus goes. Playing fewers hours I also find I'm not playing rote math poker. I am now doing things to upscale my profit, and I have a lot fun doing it. Then all of a sudden I know it's time to go.

Table selection has become much more important. Some days I want to really think and work, so I go play the tough guys in the day time. I know my win rate is going to be small to negative, but it's not important on that day. I want to be challenged. Other times It's Friday night and the new WPT players are there and it's feast time.

I too have a life other than poker. Some of the people I see at the tables are there fourteen hours a day. I wonder if they ever had a life to begin with or they fell into poker as something they could participate in with out really participating. Watching a bunch of old farts who haven't washed their hands in 10 hours, eat with those same fingers, sit at the same seats I sit in and play with the same chips I use, I think you get the picture. Makes online look good some days. B & M poker about is the only place I wash my hands before and after using the bathroom.

My Mom went though your pool journey, only hers was bowling. Very few women pros when she played - early 60's, and very few tourneys allowed woman pros and those that did didn't pay enough to make it worth the trip - sound like golf? One night she came home,put her bag in the closet and it's been there ever since. I was only a kid at the time, but I asked her why once years later. She told me, there was no challenge and no money. She almost always won, and it was boring. I haven't even seen her even watch a game on tv or pick up her ball since then. I can relate to you and pool through her.

Yes, we have the advantage of having so many folks giving very good advice. I do not think anyone on this forum can say they haven't learned from the different views of the same hand. Books only take you so far, and tuition at the tables can be very very steep. Makes me wonder how players in the past survived without the tools and advice I have access to. Also I find poker evolves, what was a good play last year is ad naseum this year.

Good post, thanks for taking the time!

[MaxPower]

Interesting post Festus. A few comments.

I have been playing Holdem for about 5 years. I find it more interesting now than ever before. The more I learn and improve the more interesting I find it.

Because I studied the right books, I have never been a losing player. But I look back on how I played 2 years ago and realize that I wasn't as good as I thought I was. And I'm probably not as good as I think I am now. Anyway, in poker how good you are is less important than how bad everyone else is.

I still see things at the tables that I have never seen before. The numer of situations isn't as limited as you think.

Also, in your QQ example, I would say that if players are willing to fold to a raise pre-flop after already limping in, you would be crazy not to raise.