You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
The best poker article you'll ever read (I think)
I have just come across what I think is the most best poker article I've read. I honestly think 99% of Sky Poker's players can learn something from this.
We often hear people wonder why they lose to 'worse' players, and how people could possibly do the things they do. It doesn't make any sense, they're just bad players, etc. Then I came across this article from Nick Wealthall, who (I believe) is one of the best poker writers of our generation. Yes, that good.
Here's what he had to say:
I'd love to see what you guys think of Nick's article. Discuss it amongst yourselves - is he right? Do you honestly do what he recommends? Is there something else which could help our collective games more?
Enjoy.
Comments
"This may be the most important 940 words you ever read."
This guy needs a reality check.
Disappointing. "This may be the most important 940 words you ever read." This guy needs a reality check.
Posted by GaryQQQ
Attention seeking headlines like "This may be the most important 940 words you ever read" and all the weird "I've had a revelation" type speak makes Wealthall sound like the poker equivalent of David Icke.
It often works the other way though. When someone i dont know min raises the turn i dont think "well i have a good hand, i dont want to be getting bluffed here" i think "my opponent doesnt realise hes turned his hand face up because bad players never bluff here" and it matters very little whether hes bluffing in this instance because you make more money by folding long term. Vs a good player you can widen their range because you know they think you will fold.
You need to think about how your opponent see's his/her hand, pehaps your opponents rules are nothing like yours.
He who can AFFORD to lose the most, will win the most.
EG- I have £100 you have £10, if we play till one of us has all the the money I WILL end up with your £10.(this is a cahs table rule)
I think Offshoot's point was the very same point you're making, about seeing it from the opponent's 'set of rules'. I.E. a 'good' player might not clickback a particular turn with the nuts because it turns his hand face up, a weaker player might not think about how his action appears to others and just wants to get more money in with the best hand without making them fold, thus he can fold and be correct long term. It's unusual that a guy or gal who just plays for fun is gonna think 'well clicking back the turn makes my hand face up, and the reg will know this, so I'll do it with air as a bluff', maybe sometimes but longterm a fold will be right.
There are plenty of people who can afford to lose a lot and it does not translate to them winning a lot.
If I was playing £1/£2 HU cash with Phil Ivey and he starts with £1000 and I start with £10,000, I certainly wouldn't be betting on myself to come out of that the winner.
to sum it up to beat micro you have to think above level 1 but also understand the rec players are only playing level 1.
Once you understand your oppo tendacies and how they play/think - poker becomes easier - obviously
This works all the way up to high stakes- just basic poker fundamental rule no1.
But this is the great thing about a game with incomplete information, you have to come to a decision at some point as to who your playing against and how they play. You may get right or wroung in the first instance but after playing them a while you should develop an understanding of how they play and how they think about the game. Then you can move onto even more higher level thinking, and more deeper levelling - but some would argue this just ends up as guess work with no fundamental theory behind it - just a feeling. As levelling includes exploiting peoples tendacies, you may just be exploiting yourself with no math based strategy to stop yourself being exploited. If you wish to play a levelling game where your whole game is based on exploitation than don't be surprised when your expolited yourself by a better higher level thinking player.
good luck- gameinagame
lolarticle
In the big prize games I think its not uncommon to have 3 or 4 players on the same laptop and change players, which also changes the playstyle. A $1000 buy in, each putting $250 and each taking a "shift" works very well.So you've just spent 40min learning what I'm likely to do and all of a sudden I swap and you're playing someone else who has sent the last 40 minutes learning your game and you've never played him, but you think you have 40 mins of info on him. But on smaller stakes watching your opponent works.
But always remember, if it gets to showdown the best will always win, no matter what the maths says.
r u serious ?
very simple rule -if you suck at poker - u lose the most money
Poker is not set out with a set amount of money to lose or win at the start of each game
the game doesn't just start and end
the only deciding factors as to who would win in your example is varaince and who is making the greater amount of +EV decisions
errrrr that's called cheating, but if that does happen then you notice the change in play style and adjust accordingly.
You have to adjust constantly in poker.
The bolded bit is kinda obvious, the math is always correct in poker
I kinda agree where you shouldn't think in absolutes, but we still should base our decisions on percentages.
The cards are random, but the decisions are not.
If the decisions are random, then the correct decisions will always come out on top.
In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think) : Yeah I agree 100% with the argument that you need to be thinking what hands your opponent would perform x action with rather than the hands you would perform x action with. The problem with the article is it doesn't really offer any advice on how to do this.
Posted by cgoldie
Maybe he is both of those things but I think you'd have to know the guy to say. The fact that people still listen to him would seem to suggest that he's doing something right. Maybe people like arrogance and superiority?
Gary, I'd point out that your criticism of him as "Attention seeking" is more just a statement of the obvious. He's written an article that's intended to be given attention.
Anyway, some of the other criticisms that this article isn't a "revelation" are a bit silly. It should be fairly clear from the moment you start reading whether the article is meant for you. If you already think about your opponent's play, then it's not that this idea isn't relevant to you, it's just that you've already had that "revelation". To those who haven't had that moment of realisation, maybe this could be helpful.
There are a lot of people who could benefit from taking this article to heart. Unfortunately for them, many players just like to play to personal "rules" for how to play the game "correctly". They don't want to change because they like the certainty that they are playing "right". That's why they get upset when they lose to people who are playing "wrong".
He would have to drop down and adapt his thinking.
Levels go up as well as down, imagine playing the wsop when one minute your playing Gus Hansen and the next your playing Sexy Sue the bar owner from Texas.
And to add to the complexity you have to also think how these various level players think about you - if they do at all.
Alongside this you have a load of other factors to take into consideration while playing a hand.
No wonder only a small percentage are wining players