Message from discussion
Sgt Rock's Poker Philosophy Part 1
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn53feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s54.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <402FF05E.B88BF1A1@all.com>
From: Sgt Rock <nos...@all.com>
Organization: US Army Signal Corps, Ret.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Sgt Rock's Poker Philosophy Part 1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 457
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.16.189.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s54 1076880465 24.16.189.0 (Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:27:45 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:27:45 GMT
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:27:45 GMT
I make no claim to be a poker strategist or theoretician. Neither am I
a poker expert, nor a poker authority. And anyone who has played with
me will tell you that I sure as hell am NOT much of a poker PLAYER, at
least not in the way that guys like, for example, Jesus and Ivey and
Lederer are PLAYERS.
All I am, really, is a wannabe player, a wannabe writer, a certified
WCBSA (World-Class Bullshit Artist) and...
The World's Foremost Poker PHILOSOPHER (self-proclaimed).
There, I said it; I'm finally out of the closet with this. All these
years posting essays and reports I always kept the ego in check; never
claimed any title, until now. Last couple times I made a big post, my
pal Izmet and my girlfriend Angelina both told me the same thing: "You
really must write a book!" I replied that I *am* writing a book, one
chapter at a time, here on RGP. The project is coming along just fine,
thanks, albeit slowly.
This report is the next chapter, and contains mostly Poker Philosophy,
plus some description of the 20/40 thru 50/100 limit Hold 'Em games here
in Seattle. In deference to all the newbies on RGP, it is also a "back
to basics" kind of post. You veterans of poker who already know
everything may find little of interest here, and might want to just move
on to the next flame war, ALL CAPS babble, paranoid conspiracy rant,
egomaniacal boast, or celebrity put-down.
---
The Player Orientation Triad
Most poker players, probably to include you and me, approach the game
with a focus on one or more of three key factors. While we discuss two
of these factors- Results & Luck- perhaps you'd like to ask yourself
what the third and *really* important factor is.
Results. This is probably the most "popular" orientation. Most players
take a results-oriented approach to the game, meaning that RESULTS are
what they focus on, and are pretty much all they care about. Doesn't it
seem reasonable to think that winning pots and winning sessions equate
directly to poker success? Players who think this way will typically:
* Want to book a win TODAY, and often tend to:
* Quit early if winning (for the day.)
* Play longer if "stuck" (for the day.)
* Become upset if the hand they folded "gets there and would have
won."
* Become upset upon seeing that they were bluffed off of the best
hand.
* Focus on winning the pot more than on making good decisions.
* Become "tiltable" after suffering bad beats.
There's more to say later about Results-oriented thinking, but right now
I just can't wait to talk some about that *other* player orientation,
forever my perverse favorite, the always-popular but fallacious
demagogue of gambling in general and poker in particular:
Luck. I have posted before that I know everything there is to know
about Luck. This is not a frivolous claim, and is no exaggeration.
Indeed, it is this fortunate omniscience that empowers me to claim my
title as The World's Foremost Poker Philosopher (self-proclaimed) and it
is with complete confidence and authority that I instruct you on this
topic. Accept, trust and embrace all the wisdom that I share, my
children, and believe it truly, and you too shall be cast free from the
bonds of superstition, released from the shackles of pagan ignorance,
and rescued from the daemons of bad beats and bad runnings.
Wow. Sorry if that went a little over the top. This Luck stuff really
gets my juices flowing.
The Luck-oriented approach is popular with so many players that you
can't help but marvel at the pervasiveness of such stupidity. There
even seem to be different levels of "Luck" players, and I think of them
as "hardcore" (conscious) and "softcore" (subconscious)
luck-orientation.
The hardcore luck-oriented player does things like:
* Demand deck changes when "running bad."
* Want to take the "lucky seat" in which another player made a nice
score.
* Sit out when the dealer who previously "beat them up" comes into
the box.
* Play (raise with?) their "favorite" trash hands, no matter what.
Most players are smart enough to recognize how silly those concepts are,
yet many are still "softcore" luck-oriented, and will adjust their play
or otherwise make decisions based on whether they are "running good" or
"running bad" at that moment. Apart from the psychological impact that
"running good/bad" might have on your table image, or on your own
psyche, the whole concept of "how am I running?" is, well, stupid.
My life is filled with mysteries, and one of the most enigmatic is
this: Why do so many people (especially gamblers!)think that a random
event will be influenced or effected by the outcome(s) of other, recent
previous random event(s)? The average player exhibits quite a poor
understanding of the meaning of that word: RANDOM, and instead appears
to believe that some mysterious force, some intangible and indescribable
magic principle, is somehow going to influence the outcome of a RANDOM
event. Some examples:
* This craps table hasn't rolled boxcars for an hour, so:
- No way it's gonna roll now, or;
- 12 is "overdue"; bet on it.
* I haven't flopped a set with my last 29 pocket pairs, so:
- There is NO WAY I'm gonna flop one this time, or;
- It's almost a sure thing that these deuces will flop 222.
Random (adj, 1565): Relating to, having, or being elements or events
with definite probability of occurrence.
Meriam-Webster gives several definitions, but this is the one I like
best, the one that really makes sense in a gambling context. Rolling
boxcars and flopping a set in the examples above are both "events with
definite probability of occurrence," and unless someone is manipulating
the cards or dice, that "definite probability" is always the same,
without regard for the outcome of previous trials.
One Vegas pro I know makes fun of people who, as he puts it, "try to
make reason out of randomness." These players take note if lots of
sixes, or maybe clubs, have shown up on the last few flops. They think
that significant, and they have, they believe, discovered some
meaningful trend. There is no reason in the randomness they observe,
but they imagine that there is, and may act upon their false conclusion.
The Luck-oriented gambler seeks to catch and ride a streak much in the
same way that a surfer will catch and ride a wave. If you've ever
talked to (or been?) a "serious" craps player, you will know that this
is the strategy they embrace: Bet big when you're "on a roll." OK,
fine, whatever. These folks are deluding themselves. Here's the truth:
In the course of Random events, streaks happen.
But as you "drive down the highway of random events,"
you can't see those streaks through the windshield;
you can only see them in the rear view mirror.
Gamblers often believe that streaks tend to perpetuate themselves. This
seemingly reasonable extrapolation of logic is probably the most widely
embraced, and costly (for players, though profitable for casinos)
misconception in all of "gaming." I've always believed that it might
have some value for Sports betting, where, yeah, "momentum" really can
be meaningful to athletes. But then a ballgame or a race is hardly a
random event.
---
Don't Use The Gerund
AI *really* would like to count how many there are out there reading
gerund is the "...ing" form of a verb. You know, like running,
suckling, crying, cheating, winning, losing, etc. When we say that we
are "running good" or "running bad" in a poker context, that describes A
CONDITION in the present tense-- "right now"-- as though we were "in
love" or "running a fever" or "sleeping." Now please, repeat after
me: BAD CONCEPT. BAD, BAD, BAD.
If you point at a guy who is snoring in his chair and say "He's
sleeping," you have used a gerund, and it makes sense. He was asleep
before you said it, when you said it, and will probably still be asleep
after you're done saying it.
If I'm in a poker game and say that "I'm running bad," that does NOT
make sense. Maybe I have suffered bad luck over the last hour, day,
week, or month, but that in itself is no reason to expect my present or
future luck, from the deal in progress onwards, to be particularly bad
or good or anything. Future random events are NOT influenced by past
random events, so how could I ever be "running bad?"
Actually, in the history of the universe to date, no player has ever
BEEN "running good" or "running bad." Not ever. Certainly we have all
run good or run bad (past tense) at times, and to be sure, we will ride
those waves again. If I say "I ran terrible yesterday" or "I hope I run
better tomorrow," that might make sense. Just don't use the gerund.
Do you wonder why I'm making such a big deal about a trivial nuance of
speech? Well, it is the MINDSET associated with the concept of "running
good/bad," as expressed by those words, that becomes very meaningful in
the game. Even though no player has ever really been "running
good/bad," in every game every day there are times that a player and/or
his opponents PERCEIVE that he is "running good/bad," and the
psychological implications are significant indeed.
If I and/or my opponents perceive that I am "running bad," can they run
over me more easily?
If they perceive that I'm "running good," might I be able to run over
them a little?
If I (wrongfully) think that I'm "running good," might that induce me to
get overconfident and burn some chips?
---
Seattle Poker
We never did get to Bellagio last Xmas/New Years. For weeks we agonized
over whether or not to make the trip, and in the end decided to just
wait for WSOP to do Vegas. Probably the biggest thing to help us decide
is that limit Hold 'Em games here in Seattle these days are so good
that, hey, there's no good reason to go elsewhere.
Anything bigger than $10/20 is "Class III" in Washington, and the only
such public game in Seattle is at the Muckleshoots Indian Casino in
Auburn, 14 freeway miles south of our house. For the last few years the
Mucks Poker Room only had one Class III table, and for the last few
months it has consistently been $20/40 with $30/60 overs. Now, thanks
no doubt to the crowd growth generated by WPT et. al., they have a
second Class III table that is sometimes a second (must-move) 20 game,
but sometimes- at least a couple times per week- is a $50/100 Hold 'Em
game. That's good, huh?
In starting the 50/100, a handful of players "agreed" to each buy-in at
least $2,500, so in their minds, that was the required buy-in for anyone
wanting to join "their game." The house rule, however, is that a buy-in
is ten times the small bet, e.g., $200 for a $20/40. By that formula, a
$50/100 buy-in should only be $500.
Well I heard about this game, and naturally I was interested. VERY
interested. I also heard about the $2,500 buy-in and that really put me
off. Although I would want to buy $2000 or more to play $50/100, I just
HATE to think about the wanna-play guys in the room who might like to
come into this game with, say $500 - $1000 or so, but who can't or won't
buy $2,500.
So I asked a floorman about this big buy-in, and he started to tell me
what "the players agreed to..." I reminded him that it's a public
cardroom and that making rules is his job, and not the players'. He
explained that he "can't stop" anyone from buying-in for $500, per the
house rules, but that the players had made it clear that if anyone
bought less than $2,500, they will immediately quit the game en masse!
Sounded like bullshit to me, but when I played it for the first time
(bought $3000...) the flooorman came over during the game and said he
had a player who wanted to come in with $2100- all he had- and did
anyone object? I objected to any wannabe player being pressured to buy
so much, and to limiting the field to guys with deep pockets, but for
once I kept my mouth shut. Yeah, I know, that IS hard to believe. The
players wanted to know who it was; that would help them decide if they
would "allow" this guy to play! Can you believe this shit?
I have a problem when a clique of players wants to treat the public
cardroom game as though it were a private game. I mean, if they want to
act like this, they should just go play at Fred's house. But they did
"let" this guy play. Away from the table I let the shift bosses know as
politely but firmly as I could how ridiculous the $2,500 buy-in was.
Seems to have worked, because a week later they dropped the 50/100
buy-in to $1,000. I personally think $800 might have sounded more
attractive and "seemed" more manageable.
When the $50/100 game doesn't go, the $20/40 with overs is still a
rockin' game, and the second game cranks up quite often. There are a
few dozen regular players, in a WIDE range of talent and skill levels.
:-) Lots of new faces, lots of "TV Players," God Bless America, Amen.
Weekends they get up to three $10/20 games. Mrs. Rock has been parking
it in the $20/40 five days a week, and working hard at her chosen
profession. Last month or so we've been playing the $50/100 and/or
$20/40 a few days a week, and playing on Paradise, Stars and Party some
too, but gee, what a game this Seattle $50/100 is. More on that later.
---
The Real Deal
We talked about the Orientation Triad, and the Performance and Luck
orientations, and you were going to think about the third factor. Did
you decide the same thing I did?
Performance. This is the third factor in the triad, and is the one that
*really* matters. It describes how well (or badly) you play, in terms
of skill level, decision making and execution, plus mental and emotional
discipline. The best players are neither Results nor Luck oriented, but
rather are Performance oriented.
If you accept these hypotheses thus far, you might wonder about the
relationship between the three factors. How do they effect one
another? Surprisingly, it turns out that the relationship between
Performance, Luck and Results is so easily understood that it can be
expressed by this simple philosophical equation:
Result = Performance ± Luck
That's it? Well, yeah. Satisfaction gar-ron-teed, or TRIPLE your money
back. Some of you who read this may scoff that everything said here is
quite obvious, that there's nothing even slightly profound in any of it,
you already knew all this stuff, and Sarge is just a pedantic
simpleton. If so, well, you're probably right on all counts. But
here's the thing: Even though *everyone* who is not blatantly stupid
(this may even include a few of the players in your game) already knows
these things, don't the vast majority of players behave in a manner
quite oblivious to the logic or reason given above?
Sometimes to just a small degree, but more often to a large extent, MOST
players I observe are more Results or Luck than Performance oriented.
Someone posted here recently that Roy Cooke claimed a 3 big bets per
hour win rate in the Mirage 20/40 salad days (pre-Bellagio.) I played
some with him then, and don't doubt that claim a tiny bit. He is the
most Performance-oriented and least Results-oriented guy I know, and in
fact I learned (stole) the term "Results-oriented" from him.
---
Why Coping with Luck is Part of Performance
The more times we repeat a random event, the more likely it becomes that
the cumulative outcome will approach the expected result. But along the
way, the short term results will fluctuate, will deviate, and in the
gambling context, we call this Luck. I posted at length before about
how the theoretical long run net effect of Luck should be zero, but why
it often is NOT zero in the psychological poker venue. Rather than
repeat all that here, may I please refer you to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7lb210%24n6i%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain
Back already? OK, here's the point. The best player and the worst
player in your game both have winning days and losing days. In the
short term, that ± Luck stuff can easily prevail, and can (often does)
reward pathetic Performance with a big win, or punish superb and
inspired Performance with a crushing loss. Hand after hand, day after
day, your dollar results are going to take a roller coaster ride,
period. If you are "Results Oriented"-- if you make an emotional
investment in your "Result" for individual pots or sessions-- then your
emotions will take that roller coaster ride as well. That's not good.
Your Result will ALWAYS fluctuate, and there's not a damn thing you can
do about it, so any value or focus you put on that is wasted and
misdirected energy, or worse.
If you are "Performance Oriented," and focus your attention on your
performance, then you've got the feline by the coccyx. Performance is
the one thing that you CAN control. It's the one thing that CAN be rock
steady, no flux, no variance, day after day. It's up too you. As you
play on towards that dim, distant and barely visible light at the end of
the tunnel (the long run) remember this: Performance can and should
become Result, without regard for Luck.
My old essay (link above) explains how the normal swings of good and bad
Luck can destroy your bankroll if you react inappropriately to those
fluctuations. Avoiding that- maintaining mental discipline and maybe
exploiting luck but never being its victim- is part of Performance. If
you perform well in this area, then the net effect of Luck IS zero.
Then, the equation becomes simply:
Result = Performance
---
The Marx Brothers
Two newbies showing up some in the Seattle 50/100 game are 30-something
guys, buddies, who must frequently be reminded that they can't speak
Arabic during a hand. Their English is superb, tho; I chatted some with
them about business, computer technology, stuff like that, and they are
highly educated and very sophisticated, fun, friendly guys. Usually.
One of them has a quick temper, and can get real mean real quick if he
feels like someone has dissed him in any way.
These guys don't play for shit, but they're fearless, and seem to be
made of money. For some reason, don't quite know why, I call them The
Marx Brothers. One night they came into the game just as I was leaving,
and bought $2000 in chips from me. Paid me with brand new, sequentially
numbered hundreds. Makes you stop and wonder for just a second, if you
know what I mean.
---
Variations on a Theme
Games like Poker, Blackjack and Video Poker differ from most other
casino games, because they provide opportunities to Perform. After the
initial bet, you still make decisions, like check/bet/raise/fold/call or
hit/stand/split/double. That's Performance.
Games like craps, roulette, keno, slots, etc., provide no such
opportunity. You make your bet, then you await the outcome. Easy game,
no decisions, no Performance. These games still have an Expectation,
though, like, you know, -1.41% and -5.26% for passline craps or double
zero roulette red/black bets, respectively. For these games, the
equation:
Result = Performance ± Luck ...becomes instead:
Result = Expectation ± Luck
...and here again that ± Luck stuff will often produce short term
Results that are quite different from the Expectation. Since there is
no Performance component, however, the long run net effect of luck is
zero. I mean, how do you "go on tilt" in a craps or roulette game,
where every bet you can make already has a built-in irrevocable,
irrefutable and irreversible negative expectation? Eventually, then,
Result = Expectation in these games, and Luck is no more than a
transient factor.
---
SWM vs. Mr. Bizarro
Another guy been showing up some in the Seattle 50 game is an SWM
(Superfish Wealthy Maniac) who will raise before looking at his cards 20
deals in a row, no kidding. He's boisterous, cocky, arrogant, loud,
knows little about poker, chugs the booze-- in short, everything you
love to see in an opponent, but disdain in most other walks of life.
First time I faced him he ran a $1,000 buy-in up to about $8,000, then
back to the carpet, then was building it back up again when I took an EO
after only 8 hours. One time I made the nut flush against him on the
river and capped it (4 bet cap in this mickey-mouse room...) with Ad Td,
but he had a straight flush with 5d 8d. Ouch.
Anyway, on New Years Day there was a new guy, whom I will call Mr.
Bizarro, just to SWM's left. Check this hand, will ya? 6 players dealt
in; 4 fold. SWM open-raises from the SB, and Biz calls in the BB.
Heads-up.
Board comes: A K K, K, J
SWM bets the flop; Biz thinks for 15 seconds, and calls.
SWM bets the turn; Biz thinks for 30 seconds, and calls.
SWM bets the river; Biz thinks for 45 seconds (these guys been watching
way too much TV), and calls.
Pot = 14 sm. bets = $700, less $3 drop.
SWM says "You got me." Biz shows T8. SWM mucks. No, I am not kidding.
---
Later that day we hit the $29K+ bad beat jackpot in the 50 game, when
Biz' TT beat AA, after a flop of ATT. AA took the beat and the big end
of nearly $15K, and toked the dealer $25. I got a table share of $1050
and change. Ni han. I still dislike the jackpot, and would prefer the
extra buck in each pot I win, but I'm pretty OK with the jackpot lovers
that it brings into the game.
---
Exculpatory Evidence
Would you believe I learned that word last year watching Law & Order
reruns on cable? Now that I've made my strong case for being
Performance-oriented and against being Results-oriented, I have to
reveal to you some compelling empirical evidence that I've recorded in a
long-term case study, and that belies and contradicts my assertions.
Mrs. Rock. This woman is by nature Results-oriented, and so she does
ride those emotional waves when her dollar results bounce up and down.
Although her Performance is consistently (read ALMOST always) very
strong, she has the same swings of Luck we all do, and while not
particularly "vulnerable," neither is she impervious to the
psychological damage those swings can do. Ah, but then who is? You?
Me? Probably not. But we should try to be.
So anyway, here I am, the tight assed no emotion logical philosophical
Performance-oriented grammatically-correct obsessive-compulsive teacher,
while she, my student, is emotional, wants results TODAY, and always
wants to know if we are up or down for TODAY. And now that I've used
however many thousand words to explain why my approach is good and hers
bad, I also need to tell you again that her bottom line dollar Result
STILL beats mine by several hundred percent, year after year after year.
---
(Continued in Part 2)
Sgt Rock
US Army Signal Corps, Retired
mail to - sgt DOT rock AT comcast DOT net
|
