6/12 HE: 3 lessons. Report & Questions Part 1.
Asha34
it. I talk at work, with friends, with family, with strangers. I suppose I
should be more discreet. But I'm not.
I invite strangers to my games. I check them out a little, asking questions,
looking for hints of weirdness or dishonesty. But what, after all , can you
tell from a brief conversation or two on line or on the phone.
So this guy I met on line invited me to a game. He's a college kid, a
Harvard lad no less. I figure that, at 20, he thinks he knows the game much
better than he does. So if he's hosting, I'm playing.
He's playing 6/12 HE, up from his typical 3/6 game he tells me. There are a
bunch of other students in the game -- most awful I'm assured. He plays on
line. He drops the name of a few poker clubs I've played in. This is sounding
GREAT!
So I show up, meeting him and a couple of friends in Harvard Sq. (He can't
meet me at his room because Harvard has strict security and he has to lead me
into his building). OK. Anything for a good game. So what if I'm primarily
a Stud player. I've read the books, played a few dozen hours in casinos all
over the place. I play Turbo. I hold my own. I have years of experience.
Hell, I'm a winning player! Bring on these children. I'll gladly take their
money.
He has these very fancy chips. (This is going to be sweet). Yeah he seems
smart; he went to a good prep school, is well mannered and sophisticated for
his tender years. But he's a child. And I'm a veteran, wizened poker
semi-pro. Hah, it will be sport.
His friends are a similar bunch. One is an 18 year old Freshman, a few more
are sophmores and there is even a high school senior in the bunch. If I win
all of their money, will their parents track me down? Nah, they're very
confidant Harvard students. Boy, won't this feel good (don't gloat though --
it won't look good and they may not invite me back).
Boy, they've got plenty of money. I pull out my $600 and buy in. I'll
intimidate them with my bankroll I think. Three of the guys do the same!!! A
couple are "short stacked" with only $400 or $300 or so. Well, at least I
don't have to feel bad about taking their money. (Where do they get it. Jeez,
when I was in college I felt rich if I could scrape together $20).
So we play. I kid you not. The first two hours and there were only about 5
showdowns -- only about a dozen hands which even went to the River!!!
I go down about $75 the first hour and then build it back to a positive $60
after two. There is ALOT of raising and folding. It's a tough game -- I think
a really tough game. I say, to the group, "Hey, where are all of the easy
players that were suppose to be here. You guys are really strong players".
They laugh (almost too quickly). One says, "The law school guys couldn't make
it -- they're the fish."
I say, "You know, I should leave. This game is tough. How am I going to
get an edge over you guys." They laugh.
It's clear they don't know what to make of me. They weren't born when I
started to play. And yet they're not even slightly intimidated. I raise and
they often reraise. One guy always looks at me when I look at my cards. He's
19 and he's looking for tells. It's not that they know the patter, jargon and
argot of poker. Anyone who's hung out in a casino for a couple of days can
sound like a poker player. But they have all of the moves and savvy of people
who play a lot.
That's when I learn LESSON #1. Don't stereotype. Rich Harvard students are
not, necessarily bad players or even mediocre. They can be good players. So
what if they're young. So what. That doesn't mean they can't play.
Suddenly, it seemed, I was being outplayed. NO doubt about it. Some of
these players were reading me and putting moves on me in a way that I couldn't
match. I'd semi-bluff raise and they'd reraise. I'd bet for value and they'd
fold. OK, OK maybe it was just the cards and the circumstances and
coincidental. Maybe they really didn't read me that well. But it happened a
number of time.
And I was down about $225 three hours into the session.
And that's when I learned LESSON #2. Trust your initial instincts and act
on them. I thought I was in a tough game. I even said that I should leave.
But I didn't want to be impolite.
Mandy
junior poker enthusiasts. If you have as many years of experience as you
say you do, there is no reason for the game to have seemed so tough.
Was there any possibility of collusion in this game?
Gary Carson
it to a snowballing effect of multiple mistakes.
I to was a college student at 20.
At 18 I was in Vietnam. Married at 19. In college at 20.
I was young. I was inexperienced (well, not that inexperienced). I
was a little stupid. But I don't think I was a child.
Some 18 year olds and 20 year olds are children. But, don't assume
it.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Hamlet
like I'd play 15-30 (if I played that high). He's very tight, he doesn't
bluff much, etc. He plays fairly good ABC poker. I think he gets extra
action because he's young. Too many people who have played poker for 20
years stopped learning anything new 19 years ago. He's not great yet, since
he hasn't logged alot of hours, but he is already better than most 3-6
players.
"Asha34" <ash...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010321222714...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Terrence Chan
wrote:
>Too many people who have played poker for 20
>years stopped learning anything new 19 years ago.
Hey, now *I* have a new sig file candidate. Good one!
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
Linda Sherman
news:20010321222714...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> I even said that I should leave.
> But I didn't want to be impolite.
I have trouble believing you couldn't beat a bunch of college kids. Sounds
like you had a bad day and just didn't adjust to the game and maybe got a
little on tilt without realizing it. I wouldn't rule out cheating either.
There was a lot of it going on in the college games I used to play in.
College-age kids don't always have the strongest ethical center.
Also, next time, suggest playing half hold-em half stud. Make them play your
game once in a while.
Lin
Asha34
likely that I did what I pride myself on not doing -- going on tilt. But read
your post again. This time, substitute "blacks", "Jews", "seniors" or "women"
for "college kids".
That's really one of the points of my post. You really CAN'T believe the
stereotype. Why can't a 21 year old or even a 19 year old who has played HE
seriously for 3-4 years, studied the game, thought about it, done the
simulations, read the books, played a few hours every day on line, be much
better than a guy like me who has played thousands of hours of Stud in a
casino, but only a couple hundred hours of hold em; has read all the books but
who doesn't play ANY poker every day.
Age, in and of itself, is nothing. Neither is life experience when it comes to
winning poker. The fact that I can sit down in any card room and play poker
and usually win against average players doesn't necessarily give me any edge
with players who happen to be younger.
As far as cheating is concerned, maybe. But I wouldn't give it more than a
.01% chance. My money was spread around among five of the players. The hands
I lost were nearly always heads up. The dealing was amateurish -- no way the
cards were manipulated. Could they have been marked? They obviously weren't
discernable by me. Daub? Trimmed? Would they have brought out two ratty decks
instead of having them marked and new looking to throw me off? Unlikely. I
paid close attention to the cards for the first 20 minutes or so (as I always
do in a new game). I really think not.
But again, "College-age kids don't always have the strongest ethical center" is
stereotyping that, in my mind at least, really doesn't correspond with what
I've observed. Hell, no age group always has the strongest ethical center. In
fact, what I've observed is that adults seem less ethical than college
students.
Lin, thanks for your thoughts and confidance (if misplaced). Frankly, I just
think I was outplayed by these guys. (As far as playing Stud...I did my best
to get them to suggest that we play. But it was their game and I was a guest.
And they didn't play anything but stud.)
The question I have for myself is what to do when I am invited back. Do I go
and try to play better the next time and beat them or do I follow my own advice
of avoiding tough games. Can my ego withstand admitting that I'm not good
enough to go back and should stick to softer games? That's what I'd do in a
casino...pick another game. Why should I let my pride get in the way of
avoiding a college game?
Ashley
Nate7out
>is
>stereotyping that, in my mind at least, really doesn't correspond with what
>I've observed.
>As far as cheating is concerned, maybe. But I wouldn't give it more than a
>.01% chance.
or they could have stabbed your ass in the courtyard and taken your whole roll.
i tend to err on the cautious side and not go to a game alone with all
strangers... anyway, glad things worked out
what limits do you normally play?
if you usually play 20-40, then that $6-12 game is a great way to learn how to
play a tough holdem game...
if $6-12 is your normal limit, then maybe you should sit out...
Ken M
who had a regular game in their dorm room were signaling each other. It was
obvious as hell when you looked for it, but you had to look for it. I'm not
saying this is what happened to you, but it is possible.
It is also possible you were outplayed, I was probably a better player in
college than I am now - simply because I was quicker.
I'll make one other comment to invite flames. I heard a quote once that "All
men need to be married because it civilizes them." My experience tells me that
adolscent males in groups have very little moral center. In the army, we
always made sure a combat unit had mature individuals included because it
insured control My Lai happened mainly because a bunch of young guys got out
of control.
One of the concerns expressed by the Feds about "Sammy the Bull" going into the
witness protection program was that "he seems to be remaining violent as he
gets older." Experience is that criminals tend to get less violent with age.
The crime rates have dropped because there are less adolescent males in the
population. I don't think what Linda said is sterotyping, at least as far as
adult males are concerned.
Gary Carson
This post is so full of misconceptions that I just don't know where to
start. I should probably ignore it, but god (my god, the one true
god) won't let me.
>The only time I ever ran into large-scale cheating was in college. Three guys
>who had a regular game in their dorm room were signaling each other. It was
>obvious as hell when you looked for it, but you had to look for it. I'm not
>saying this is what happened to you, but it is possible.
>It is also possible you were outplayed, I was probably a better player in
>college than I am now - simply because I was quicker.
I would be surprised if it was't true that almost every game I've
every played in had someone who was cheating in some way. Usually
trivial and ineffective, but cheating none-the-less.
>I'll make one other comment to invite flames. I heard a quote once that "All
>men need to be married because it civilizes them." My experience tells me that
>adolscent males in groups have very little moral center.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
>In the army, we
>always made sure a combat unit had mature individuals included because it
>insured control My Lai happened mainly because a bunch of young guys got out
>of control.
The Staff Sgt wasn't a young guy. Capt. Medina wasn't a young guy.
>One of the concerns expressed by the Feds about "Sammy the Bull" going into the
>witness protection program was that "he seems to be remaining violent as he
>gets older." Experience is that criminals tend to get less violent with age.
That's just an example with some Feds with a weak education. I'm not
aware of any study that directly addressed the idea that crimnals tend
to get less violent with age.
What numerous studies have found is that violent criminals tend to be
young. The typical weak-brained cop might conclude from that that it
means criminals get less violent with age.
Other studies have found that violent crimnals are a very small
percentage of criminals. That suggests many alternative explanations
for the research observations. The obvious one would be that the
violent offenders just tend to end up in prison at a younger age --
and statistics on prison demographics support that.
The only longitudital study of any significance that might directly
address your assertion was one done by Wolfgang in Philidelphia about
50 years ago. Many characterisctics of our criminal population has
changed in major ways since then.
>
>The crime rates have dropped because there are less adolescent males in the
>population.
That's the simplistic, sound bite explanation. But, the premise that
our crime rates are dropping isn't even true. The index crimes don't
reflect drug offenses. And, contrary to what your government tells
you, drug offenses don't have a strong correlation with property
crime.
>I don't think what Linda said is sterotyping, at least as far as
>adult males are concerned.
Whether her stereotyping was accurate or not, it's a stereotype.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com