The best poker article you'll ever read (I think)

cgoldie

In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think):

In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think) : That's true, but then it would have been more than 940 words :P I think the inference would be that, if you are genuinely a better player than your opponent, you have progressed through the mindset or skill level your opponent is currently on. That said, it can be very hard if you're naturally a very loose player to think of a very tight player's range, so I agree it could do with more explanation.  I still think Nick's key point is a really good one though - so many players I know STILL to this day think "he can't have that because he would have played it differently" when they're mistaking it for how they would have played the hand. If you can make that very subtle change in thinking, I believe it would help anyone trying to hand read.
Posted by Sky_Dave

Yeah I guess it would make it a bit longer but it would be nice to see a short breakdown on levelling basics towards the end of the article to re-inforce it.

I guess I always assume people on forums like this would be aware of the basic concept but I'm probably totally wrong. Thinking about it though it's more apparent in cash hand evaluations when people post just the hand and ask for the correct decision without giving any player info. I think from that we can see that some people may have missed this fundamental theory.

unknown_username

I think that his article has merit myself. It makes sense and tbh, is fairly obvious to most people.If any piece of writing pushes us towards looking at situations from a different perspective then it can't be bad surely. 

Unfortunately, the same problems keep on being brought up in a game where people look for an edge in oreder to win. Unfortunately, luck/variance plays a significant part. Consequently different strategies exist to counter certain types of player. The problem is that unlike purer forms of card skill such as contract bridge accusations of loss through opponents ineptitude become more prevelant. people get angry and frustrated by it, myself included, and the money involved pushes that anger and procrastination through the roof. 

Adaptation to players IS the key but isnt a guarantee of exact success. Good players will only get a winning % over a period of time. The 'bad' plays will always be there but good players want that as they will eventually triumph.

 Poker is a game of percentages. Success only comes over a period of time due to the nature of the game. ....

long live the bad beat story as it justifies our skill levels after we are kicked off a table....

unknown_username

I think the article has some merit and in some part is one of the reasons I believe my game has improved over the last year.

Firstly I started out as a newbie and time & time again I got plenty of abuse for playing unconventional hands. It mattered not, I was enjoying my poker and was playing for fun.

Over the next couple of years my game continued to improve (Some may disagree:) but I was happy to reach a level where I was playing ABC Poker. It didn't make me a winning player, especially in MTT's, but it certainly made me lose a whole lot less, which meant I could play a whole lot more.

But soon I reached a level where I would get frustrated by being constantly beat by the newbies & fishes of the poker world & not once thinking to myself "I was once at that level" - It's not uncommon for poker players who have a decent ability to suffer the same frustrations.

My ability continued to progress and this is where I had my most dramatic change.......Certain elements of my poker became ABC, simple decisions during a hand needed no thought process like raising in position or on the button regardless of your holding cards. I could give many other examples, but all i'm saying is....I didn't need to think about the simple stuff.

So...Once the simple stuff was looking after itself, I had more time to concentrate on other things like, working out how much experience & what level the players on my table were at and this is where it all changes.........

I know most of the regs on Sky so can assume a lot from my notes and my experience playing against them, but I see a new player at the table and I concentrate all my thoughts onto them. I look out for things like how much they are raising pre-flop, are they raising in position, do they have any betting patterns and always ALWAYS keep a note of their starting hands when it comes to a showdown.

From all these factors a good players can work out what type of player he is playing against and what level of ability he has. Given this information we can adjust our playing style, opening hands etc and gain a very good edge against the "fishies" of the online poker world.

I'm not overly keen on refering to players as "Fish" I prefer to think of them as just players of a "Differing Ability". Some players don't want to improve and just play for fun. Some players may never improve or may not want to. All we have to do is gain an edge.

tbh - I think the article could have been written in less than 90 words........

Think about the ability of your opponent........Is he Good or is he Bad?

Then..........

Think about the board.......Is it good or bad for a GOOD opponent?
Or
Is it good or bad for a BADopponent?

Extract this from the article and and this is where it has its merit. Probably pretty irrelivent for the more experienced players, but then you wouldn't find the more experienced players complaining about or asking how to beat the fish, cause they already know the answer. 

cgoldie

In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think):

I'm not overly keen on refering to players as "Fish" I prefer to think of them as just players of a " Differing Ability ". Some players don't want to improve and just play for fun. Some players may never improve or may not want to.
Posted by POKERTREV

I prefer the term "casual players", then regs and then semi pros and pros. I hate the fact using terms like fish and donk are such the norm in poker. It's like owning a shop and referring to your customers as c***s!

KING2600

Very, very underwhelmed with that. Nice 'revelation'...

jonjo75

I prefer this one by the same guy.
http://www.bluffeurope.com/poker-news/en/Columnist/Dick-swinging-with-Nick-Wealthall_12981.aspx

day4eire76

I found the little interview with James Atkin a better read.Also would like to see him on the show again.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think):

I found the little interview with James Atkin a better read.Also would like to see him on the show again.
Posted by day4eire76

I concur. He's seen and done plenty in his poker years ( and not all of it good!), he really knows his stuff. He busted my mate at the Grand Prix earlier this year; don't think anyone at the table recognised him.

thefa1lacy

Surely he hits the nail on the head with this line though!?

"That’s why poker isn’t a sport or even a pure skill game."

bbMike

In Response to Re: The best poker article you'll ever read (I think):

Pokers golden rule-- 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)
Posted by VickiPKR

I read this differently to others, I think the point Vicki is making (and please correct me if wrong) is that Bankroll/utility and variance play a huge part, and the skill edge is fairly small. Of course in the long term a better player will triumph over the better rolled player, but there is acknowledgement that at some point across the journey variance will dictate that the better player gets stacked. 

There is a great story/book that touches on this at (what was at the time) the very highest levels of cash. I recommend The Professor, The Banker and the Suicide King (inside the richest poker game of all time) by Michael Craig. Really good read.