What do poker and an onion have in common?
I'm learning how to play poker; a never-ending process. You never completely understand this game; that's what is so awesome about it. Every time you learn one thing, you see another thing to learn. That's what poker has in common with an onion; it's a game of layers. Every time you peel one off, you have another one to peel.
I see that fact fascinating some players, and frustrating others. Here's a little hint. If you don't love the PROCESS of learning; if each layer of additional mystery you reveal as you peel the onion of poker knowledge frustrates you, rather than fascinates you; if you have a need for ABSOLUTE, DEFINITIVE answers and strategy; then this isn't the game for you.
In chess, for example, you can memorize the correct move for every situation that presents itself. All the pieces are on the board, in full view; 100% of the information regarding the game is available to you, the only limits are your ability to memorize and your powers of observation and concentration.
Poker is different. The only absolute information you have is the two cards you hold and whatever falls on the board. There is an unbelievable amount of additional information available to you, but it's only obtainable through close observation and deductive reasoning; Sherlock Holmes and Adrian Monk would both be great poker players!
I teach a beginners' poker class on Thursday nights, and the most common thing I get from beginners is a desire to have definitive answers for what they're supposed to do. Many of them get very frustrated when I give them the answer that is the absolute key to winning at poker:
"That depends."
It sounds like a smug cop-out, but it's so true. Here's an example: the other night, I was playing in a 1-2 NLHE game. Another dealer who was playing at a different table walked up and asked whether I would call a 12.00 preflop raise with JT suited.
"What position were you in?" I asked.
"On the button", she replied.
"How much do you have in front of you?"
"60.00"
"What position is the raiser in?" I ask.
"Under the gun"
"How loose or tight is the raiser?
A little frustrated, she says: "Loose!".
"How big is his stack?"
"Over 300.00"
"How many callers?"
Now, she is clearly frustrated; to the point of being pissed: "One", she snaps.
"How loose or tight is the caller?"
"Forget it!" she says as she shows me her palm and stalks off, muttering to herself.
I wasn't trying to be difficult. All of the questions I asked her were questions she should have been asking herself, as the answers to them are critical in the making of this decision. There are situations where I would instantly fold JTs to a 12.00 raise; situations where I would gladly call; and situations where I would shove all my chips in the middle with that hand when raised to 12.00, depending on the answers to those and other questions.
The number one request I get from students in my class is a list of playable hands. "What hands can I play; what hands should I fold?" I had the same question when I started playing. Early on in my learning process, I came across a point-ranking system for opening hands, which I thought was a brilliant idea that would revolutionize the process of learning how to play poker. The original system I came across wasn't that accurate, so I spent months, literally hundreds and hundreds of hours adjusting and comparing the values until it was virtually identical to every statistical-value chart, computer simulation and EV table I could find. I even found a way to factor in position!
Bottom line? It's a waste of time. The effort a student puts into learning how to instantly calculate the points (and therefore the statistical value and theoretical "playability" of a hand) could be better spent learning the LOGIC of opening hands. The fundamental flaw behind the point-ranking system (and also every chart of opening hands you'll find) is that they don't teach players WHY one hand is playable and another is not, and how situational factors affect those decisions. With so many variables affecting the value of an opening hand, it's much more important to teach someone what questions to ask; how to REASON their way through the problem.
You'll find the same common thread all through poker; every "answer" is dependent on numerous factors, most of which aren't immediately obvious. To arrive at the right answer, you have to figure it out.
One of my life-mottos came from a Nissan commercial (kinda sad, huh?):
"Life's a journey, enjoy the ride."
Regardless of the source, those are some amazing words. I believe they apply to poker as well. In this game, if you don't enjoy thinking, if sublety, texture and nuance frustrate, rather than fascinate you, if you need absolutes, if the PROCESS of arriving at an aswer isn't at least as satisfying to you as actually having the answer, this probably isn't the game for you.
I see that fact fascinating some players, and frustrating others. Here's a little hint. If you don't love the PROCESS of learning; if each layer of additional mystery you reveal as you peel the onion of poker knowledge frustrates you, rather than fascinates you; if you have a need for ABSOLUTE, DEFINITIVE answers and strategy; then this isn't the game for you.
In chess, for example, you can memorize the correct move for every situation that presents itself. All the pieces are on the board, in full view; 100% of the information regarding the game is available to you, the only limits are your ability to memorize and your powers of observation and concentration.
Poker is different. The only absolute information you have is the two cards you hold and whatever falls on the board. There is an unbelievable amount of additional information available to you, but it's only obtainable through close observation and deductive reasoning; Sherlock Holmes and Adrian Monk would both be great poker players!
I teach a beginners' poker class on Thursday nights, and the most common thing I get from beginners is a desire to have definitive answers for what they're supposed to do. Many of them get very frustrated when I give them the answer that is the absolute key to winning at poker:
"That depends."
It sounds like a smug cop-out, but it's so true. Here's an example: the other night, I was playing in a 1-2 NLHE game. Another dealer who was playing at a different table walked up and asked whether I would call a 12.00 preflop raise with JT suited.
"What position were you in?" I asked.
"On the button", she replied.
"How much do you have in front of you?"
"60.00"
"What position is the raiser in?" I ask.
"Under the gun"
"How loose or tight is the raiser?
A little frustrated, she says: "Loose!".
"How big is his stack?"
"Over 300.00"
"How many callers?"
Now, she is clearly frustrated; to the point of being pissed: "One", she snaps.
"How loose or tight is the caller?"
"Forget it!" she says as she shows me her palm and stalks off, muttering to herself.
I wasn't trying to be difficult. All of the questions I asked her were questions she should have been asking herself, as the answers to them are critical in the making of this decision. There are situations where I would instantly fold JTs to a 12.00 raise; situations where I would gladly call; and situations where I would shove all my chips in the middle with that hand when raised to 12.00, depending on the answers to those and other questions.
The number one request I get from students in my class is a list of playable hands. "What hands can I play; what hands should I fold?" I had the same question when I started playing. Early on in my learning process, I came across a point-ranking system for opening hands, which I thought was a brilliant idea that would revolutionize the process of learning how to play poker. The original system I came across wasn't that accurate, so I spent months, literally hundreds and hundreds of hours adjusting and comparing the values until it was virtually identical to every statistical-value chart, computer simulation and EV table I could find. I even found a way to factor in position!
Bottom line? It's a waste of time. The effort a student puts into learning how to instantly calculate the points (and therefore the statistical value and theoretical "playability" of a hand) could be better spent learning the LOGIC of opening hands. The fundamental flaw behind the point-ranking system (and also every chart of opening hands you'll find) is that they don't teach players WHY one hand is playable and another is not, and how situational factors affect those decisions. With so many variables affecting the value of an opening hand, it's much more important to teach someone what questions to ask; how to REASON their way through the problem.
You'll find the same common thread all through poker; every "answer" is dependent on numerous factors, most of which aren't immediately obvious. To arrive at the right answer, you have to figure it out.
One of my life-mottos came from a Nissan commercial (kinda sad, huh?):
"Life's a journey, enjoy the ride."
Regardless of the source, those are some amazing words. I believe they apply to poker as well. In this game, if you don't enjoy thinking, if sublety, texture and nuance frustrate, rather than fascinate you, if you need absolutes, if the PROCESS of arriving at an aswer isn't at least as satisfying to you as actually having the answer, this probably isn't the game for you.
posted by Sean at 8:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home