Hold’em frustration – Poker only post

As an average bigger limit player sitting down at a low limit Hold’em table, most of the players with the exception of you are mostly passive and semi loose, meaning they don’t like raising and love to be able to call a single bet. When you are not a loose passive player yourself, or you never learned how to adjust to passive loose games, they can cause more than a little frustration. You want to be aggressive because it works for you in your ‘normal’ game. You want to punish the other players for playing cards that should have been thrown away, because that is what you read, or were taught.

You bet and raise, and lose more chips. Getting frustrated, you crank up your aggression. After all, stepping down to this level of poor play, winning should be easy. You know you can make your losses back with a few pots in your normal game…or can you? Now you will need to win to make up for your losses at this small game, and you have to win more to show a profit in your regular game. If the cards are not there in your regular game, your session is not going to be a happy one.

When playing low limit Hold’em at a loose passive table, I prefer to think of myself as the IRS at the table using the Laffer Curve (which I just learned of). I tax the players at a rate I think they will pay to have a nice passive game. I defend them from invaders by raising, and otherwise cutting off the action of newly seated aggressive ‘bigger’ players. Usually those quick stop players leave in frustration to their bigger game, and my little kingdom belongs to me once again.

Of course passive players pay a tax to me for this service. Taxes are paid in the form of pots I win. I pay for their defense at the table in bets I may lose to a more aggressive player who just sat down. In some cases a bond of sorts is formed between the other players and myself. Of course more aggressive players will never understand how or why this works. In the animal kingdom there are many examples of mutually beneficial parasitic relationships. A savvy good player at a low limit table can become accepted as a beneficial parasite if they are wise, think about everyones game at the table, and the reason the game is there to start with.

This bonding happens by myself taking on a strong aggressive player in the defense of the passive players, sort of like a watch dog. The passive players are happy because they can continue to play almost every hand as before and they are not part of being mean to the newly seated aggressive player. Individually, they do not feel they are paying too high of a price having me sit at the table with them. I win an infrequent hand now and then, rarely raise, and seem to make some ‘lucky’ big hands, just like them.

It is like schooling fish in the ocean. No single predator fish eats the whole school of fish. They eat some of the fish, but never to the point of causing irreparable harm to the school of fish. The fish in the school know that some of them will not survive, and they accept it as their lot. The same concept happens on the African plains.

I can already hear non-thinking more aggressive players screaming that I am completely wrong! Those weak players need to be punished for playing the junk they do! When they get to the card room a few will find themselves sitting at a passive table, and they will set out to prove that they are right and I am wrong. Passive players are not stupid players.

They play that way for reasons other than to win money. If they feel they are being bullied, one of three things normally happen. They clam up, and the table becomes uber tight, they leave to find another table, go home, or turn into maniacs. Eventually they are replaced by other more aggressive players if they leave. Then the table then turns wild aggressive for a short period and then just as suddenly turns tight.

Share

Holdem, vision, perception, and groceries

Here I am writing about something that I thought I would never be doing again. Playing poker…. I wrote a few months ago that Holdem had become too serious and the players were playing at least as well I do. What this did was turn Holdem into a matter of luck, who was going to be the luckiest in the next few hours. When I wrote that post I was absolutely certain  I was not going to be playing Holdem again.

As life would have it, some things never really change, even though most things do. Some weeks ago the weather was terrible for longer than I can sit in the house and do nothing. I had been using Holdem simulator software for fun, and I had changed the way I was playing. It was making a difference even though it did not seem correct for the table conditions I thought I was playing against at the poker room.

Poker is like chess, or any other game of skill, where the players are evenly matched at the beginning. For every strategy there is an equally effective counter strategy. My problem with my game was the game had changed and my strategy did not. For those of you who play Holdem, I started out again at $2-4, and now have a bankroll to move up to $4-8. I am showing a win in most sessions, although that is all relative, and means little other than I can play a little bigger when I wish.

It is always easier to see what is going on from the outside, when we are not personally involved in the situation. I think this is a lot like our eyesight. Over our whole development as human beings it was important for men to see a long distance and not close up. For women it was more important to have fine detail vision for close up tasks. I imagine this was because of the division of the tasks that were done. The men hunted, and the women gathered, made clothes and such.

My thinking is my little hiatus from Holdem gave me a chance to step back an look at the situation from a distance. What I had been doing was using my fine vision and expecting different results from doing the same things. The results over time may not have been that bad, but they were not have been optimal.

The same is true in our work. If you look around with a detached manner at the people in almost any work place, you find people using their fine vision performing their activities. Because they are looking at a very small picture of their work, they are missing out on the bigger rewards that they should be working towards.

For example, if you there are two similar stores of any type in your vicinity that both have the same products, say a grocery store, you usually have a favorite. Using our fine vision, reasons why we prefer one store over the other are varied. The prices are cheaper, the store is newer, parking is easier, and the list goes on and on.

This is usually the reason people feel they like one business better than another, but it is not always the truth. It may well be that if on the same day, if I walked into one grocery store and bought twenty items, and then drove to the store I did not like as well, and bought the same twenty items, the second store may have the same or cheaper prices.  So there goes any arguments for why we prefer one grocery store over another.

What really goes on is with our fine vision we enjoy the way the stock people or cashiers talk to us when we interact with them. Using our distance vision, and distancing ourselves from the situation it is easy to see the only real difference is service. If our favorite cashiers leave the store, we may find we do not like our favorite store as much anymore. In fact, the prices (really the way we are being treated) are getting higher, and the competitions prices start to look better to us. What a difference a little distance makes in how we perceive our world.

Share

Rise and fall of my playing poker, or blogging for fun and challenge

In the late nineties, I thought playing Blackjack at the local casino would be fun, and I could make a few dollars a week extra spending cash. I did, but it was not all it was cracked up to be on the money end. I had little invested, just my initial twenty dollars, and at the end of a year I was up just a few dollars over four hundred. Not a bad profit considering the money was essentially free, and all I had to do was drink free soda, and sit for an hour or so at a blackjack table each week.

Once in a while I would go into the poker room, and watch people play cards for money. The game in vogue at that time was Seven Card Stud. I had played stud at the kitchen table just like many other people, so I thought it would be an easy transition. The upside would be more money, and less risk to what money I cared to risk each session of poker. It was a much harder game than I had thought, and stud ate up most of my little four hundred dollar bankroll before I started breaking even, and eventually winning more than I lost.

I learned to be a good stud player, very good in fact. I was showing a small but steady profit at one to five dollar spread limit stud which was the only stud game going. It was a far cry from the kitchen table games, and I had to buy a book or two and think about what I read, and how I played, but I was winning a few dollars over the month so I was happy.

At this time Texas Hold’em was getting popular, and not too many people played it, but those that did, and seemed to know what they were doing would make more from one pot of hold’em than I would in five or six hours of stud. So I did the reasonable thing and taught myself how to play hold’em. Of course my risk payed off, and I was making pocket change from playing hold’em. Never enough to really do anything with, but enough that I played for almost five years on other people’s money.

This year it dawned on me, that what had happened to stud was now happening to hold’em. The money was getting harder to win because the players were getting better. Even the worst player at the local hold’em game today is as good or better than the better players from five or six years ago. I understood then that stud had gone the same way when I made the switch to hold’em. When I switched from stud to hold’em, the usual stud suspects consisted of mostly the same players every night. What this meant for myself was those of us at the table were fighting over the same slice of pie, and most nights breaking even was a good night.

After the last holdem game I played this summer, I looked around the poker room to see how many new faces were playing, and found there weren’t any. I realized then that the days of just going to a poker room for a few hours and winning a bit were gone. From now on as long the economy keeps getting tighter, the remaining poker players will get better, or slow down as I have. Those people who used to go out occasionally and play a few hours of poker on a Friday night are going away quickly, as they can no longer afford poker because they find themselves losing consistently.

This is the current state of my own, and other’s poker playing. I always played poker for fun first, and money second. But just like the stud game of old, the fun times and the easy money are all gone. All that is left for me at the poker table is a lot of hard work for very little money. I work hard enough at my regular job, and I do not care to work hard at the poker table, where is the fun in that? I met some great people playing poker and learned an awful lot about myself, and real life. I think everyone should give poker a try, or try something similar, like golf, tennis for example. Any game that partially plays in your head is a good game to try. There are a lot of life lessons to be learned if one puts forth the effort in these type of endeavors. Myself, I am, looking for another challenge.

I heard blogging takes you to the same places, so I think I may give it a try….

Technorati Tags:
, , , life choice, , ,

Share