It's The Little Lies That Tell The Big Story
I'm a fan of Law & Order; have been for years. I especially like Law & Order: Criminal Intent. It focuses on Det. Bobby Goren, a quirky, hyper-intelligent guy whose incredible range of knowledge, powers of observation and psychological skills help him solve crimes. I've often thought he'd make a pretty good poker player, and was rewarded not long ago in an episode where he ran across a group of poker players and expressed a knowledge of hold'em; especially probabilities and tells. I knew it! In another episode, having nothing at all to do with poker, he said something that really stuck in my mind:
"It's the little lies that tell the big story" (108th Rule of Aquisition).
Over time, the more I've thought about that quote, the more relevant it's become to me, especially at the poker table. Read on and see why.
I think "play the player, not the cards" is the most misunderstood concept in poker. Poker is based on math and probability. There are 52 cards in the deck, and the probability of virtually every possible occurrence can be calculated with a good degree of reliability and factored into virtually every decision. That math isn't easy to learn, however; especially for someone like me, who sucks at math and hates it. Soon after I began playing, I came to understand the importance of math and probability in this game, and set out to not only learn it, but to create a learning system to simplify that math and make it much more accessable to "normal" people. It's worked, but that's another story.
I find it pretty ironic that I, after having mastered only basic postflop pot odds and having a pretty good understanding of preflop pot odds (so far), am thought of as a poker math whiz in my casino. I've barely scratched the surface of the underlying, fundamental math of this game.
When poker math is being discussed, more often than not, players will say:
"I play the player, not the cards." or,
"Poker isn't a card game you play with people, it's a people game you play with cards.", etc..
Over time, I've come to believe this is primarily a defensive behavior. People saying things like that, for the most part, don't know the probabilities, and aren't willing to put in the effort to learn them, so they tend to negate the importance of them; it saves them from feeling stupid. If you don't understand something, ridicule it.
Now, the "play the player, not the cards" comment is attributed to Doyle Brunson, yet I've seen interviews where Doyle (who holds an MBA from Hardin-Simmons University and worked as an accountant before becoming a poker player) talks about how he used to run hands out hundreds, even thousands of times, recording the outcomes to arrive at the probabilities. I believe it was on FSN's "Beyond The Glory" where he said the biggest advantage today's players have is that the odds and probabilities of the game have all been computed to the nth degree, and are readily available, where, in the old days, they were largely guesswork.
I'm not discounting the importance of psychology and playing the player, but every time I deal, I see inexperienced players trying to glean information from a staredown, hoping to see a pulse in someone's throat or how rapidly they're blinking behind their Oakleys, when they can't read a board strategically or know even the most basic odds and probabilities. The bottom line is that the math of this game is inescapable. If you choose to remain ignorant of it, you may win hands, you may win sessions, but you can never make a consistent profit. If all you know is the math, however, you won't be any more successful at this game. To be a consistently winning poker player, you have to master odds and probability, strategy (most of which derives from those odds and probabilities), AND people skills. It takes all three to be a complete player.
I also believe, however, that there is a progression of learning, with poker math and probability being the foundation of the game and people skills being the most advanced. When I laid out my learning syllabus, my strategy was to make odds and probabilities the first thing I learned so that, at some point, they would be such an integral part of my game that applying them would be virtually automatic. Since I wouldn't have to spend any time and intellectual energy there, it would free me up to spend more time and effort observing my opponents, looking for betting patterns and physical tells, etc.
That has worked well for me. While I feel I'm really just dancing around the edges of what it means to be a poker player, the fact is I can look at a flop and instantly see the nuts. I can also instantly see most of the draws (not just one I might be on) and instantly know the odds of hitting them. I still have a long way to go with this, but working as hard as I have on strategic board reading and learning the odds has made a big difference in my game, and I can clearly see how continuing to put effort into it will cause even greater rewards.
While I'm not yet to a level of learning where my primary focus is on people skills, I have picked up a lot on the way. Here's something that happened the other night:
I've been doing very well lately. Two nights ago, though, I had a pretty rough session. In cash games, I'm a big hand player; patiently waiting for strong starting hands, laying down what is often probably the best hand to big bets after the flop when the reward just isn't worth the risk, knowing those chips will all come back to me when I get the flop I need. Not this night, however. Twice, my AK hit two pair, only to run into sets. Another time, my straight on the turn got beat when my opponents' two pair filled up on the river. I was winning most of the small pots I got into, but this was not my night for the big pots.
I'd been playing for about 8 hours. I had a little over 300.00 in front of me, but was still stuck close to 200.00. I was sitting in the 7 seat, on the button. The action folded around to the player in seat 5, who limped in. The player in seat 6 folded, and I looked down and saw:
Ac Jc, and raised to 12.00
Now, the player in seat 5 had been in the game since I sat down. He's an Asian-American, probably in his early 30s. Over the course of the night, I'd learned he was a software engineer from out of town who had a flight home at 7:30 in the morning, and was going to play until he had to leave for the airport. He was a somewhat loose, somewhat passive player, who usually called, except when he occasionally went all-in. There wasn't much in between. He was stuck over 600.00 in the game, and I'd busted him once myself. He had about 200.00 in front of him and was playing inexperienced-tournament-style, raising preflop with any Ace, any paint, and any pocket pair. He was also playing frustrated, trying to win back his losses before he had to leave, so he was in a lot of pots and had turned up the aggression considerably. When he just called my raise after limping in at first, I didn't put him on much. The flop came:
As 9s 5h
He checked. With 27.00 in the pot, I bet 20.00. He quickly called. I watched him closely as the next card fell, but I didn't pick up on anything. The turn came:
As 9s 5h Th
He checked again. With 67.00 in the pot and two flush draws and three open-ended straight draws on the board, I didn't want to mess around, so I bet 50.00.
Now, this game was a little playful, with a lot of table talk and showing cards when heads up, so I wasn't surprised when he asked:
"So, how big is your kicker?"
"How many weak kickers have you seen me turn up tonight?" was my response. I'd gotten AK a number of times, way more than I should have statistically, and I was hoping he'd remember that and possibly fold AQ. I'd had TERRIBLE luck with being drawn out on that night, and wanted to just take the pot down right then and there, before he had a chance to hit his kicker if he DIDN'T have AQ. He thought about it for a minute, then said:
"I'm going to raise you 50.00, just to be sure you have it.", and put out a biscuit.
Normally a statement like that would set off an alarm bell or two. The 137th Rule of Aquisition says "THE WEAKER THEY LOOK, THE STRONGER THEY ARE", and that was definitely a statement designed to appear weak, but a few hands before, he and I had been in a hand with another player who was all-in. There was about 30.00 in the main pot, and 20.00 in the side pot. I had pocket 9s, and the flop came with one overcard, a J. Out of position, I bet 25.00 to find out where I was in the hand, and the player in seat 5 folded. He was really pissed when he saw my cards, saying he'd had JT, but was convinced I'd had him outkicked. Knowing he was frustrated by his losses, was trying to get even before he left, and was upset that he'd folded a better hand to me the last time we'd tangled, I did something I almost NEVER do, I looked at my cards to be sure which was which, then showed him my Ace.
He thought about that for awhile, talking to himself about his "Queen kicker". He seemed to be "Hollywooding" to me, and I told him so, saying he'd raised with Ace-paint every time I'd seen him have it all night, but had just limped into this hand before I'd raised, so if he was tring to sell me on his having a Queen kicker, I'd only believe it if saw it.
He responded by saying: "I won't show you my Queen, but I'll show you this." and turned up an Ace.
I thought about that for a minute. When he'd just called my bet on the flop, I thought he might be on a draw. When the T came on the turn and he'd check-raised me, I'd wondered if he'd had TT and made a set, or AT and hit his kicker. Showing the Ace ruled out TT, I figured the limp-call preflop ruled out AK and AQ. and he'd walked the dog several other times that night when he'd had two pair, so I decided I had the best hand. I looked at his chips, saw he had about 120.00 more, and put him all in.
He immediately called, turning up his AA. Ouch.
Now, while he absolutely outplayed the shit out of me on that hand, I am also absolutely convinced that I'm a better player than he is, so, the question remains, why are so many of my chips sitting in front of him? I came up with two primary reasons. 1) I am stupid, and 2), I am REALLY stupid.
I'd been outplaying this guy all night. The only two pots that he and I'd gone to showdown with that he'd won had been suck-outs. Every other time, I'd either had him outkicked, or had hit a straight or a flush that he hadn't even noticed. I'd also taken him off of better hands a number of times. I knew this because he's one of those guys who likes to show the cards he's folding, letting everyone know how tight he is and how good he is at making THE BIG LAYDOWN. I got overconfident and EXPECTED to win, either by having the best hand or by outplaying him, both of which I'd been doing since I sat in the game.
More importantly, while I'd discounted one tell (his acting weak), I'd also overlooked one glaring tell that absolutely should have let me get away from that hand. Know what it was?
When he showed me his Ace, he DIDN'T LOOK AT HIS CARDS before doing so! Think about it for a minute. He's trying to sell me AQ. He said he wouldn't show me the Queen, so wouldn't he have looked at his cards before turning one up to make sure he showed me the Ace, and not the Queen? Sure, he may have known which was which, but, that's a lot less likely than what the truth was; he knew it didn't matter which card he turned up, because they were BOTH Aces!
That was the little lie that told the big story; the subject of this post. Too bad I wasn't paying attention. What really stings is that exact tell won me my first live tournament, more than a year and a half ago, when I was a MUCH-less advanced player.
It was late in the tournament, there were four of us left out of the 20 who started. I was heads up with a kid who was a freakin' maniac. I flopped a Queen for top pair with my AQ and bet the pot. There were two Clubs on board, and I wasn't going to mess around. He called. I instantly put him on a draw. His standard move when he had ANYTHING was to bet or raise, The only time I'd seen him call on the flop all night long was when he was drawing at straights or flushes.
The turn was a Club, which concerned me; if he'd been on a flush draw, he'd hit it. He checked, I bet the pot to find out where I was in the hand, he just called. Maybe he'd decided to slow-play me, but every other time he'd hit a draw that night, he'd bet or raised it for value.
There was a blank on the river. He checked, I bet 1/2 the pot, and he pushed all-in!
As I sat there thinking about it, he said:
"If you call, baby, it's all over.", mimicking Scotty Nguyen when he'd won the 1998 World Series. I was pretty suspicious. First, this kid bluffed a lot. second, the 136th Rule of Aquisition says "MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE STRONGER THEY LOOK, THE WEAKER THEY ARE".
Now, I'm a table-talker. Honestly, more often than not, I don't pick much up, but, every once in awhile..........
"Got the flush?" I asked.
"Yup", he quickly responded.
"If you've got the flush", I said, "show me a club".
He looked at his cards, turned up the Ace of Clubs, and said: "See?"
I instantly called and turned up my top pair. He laughed, turned up the King of hearts and said:
"How'd you know?"
"You looked at your cards", I responded, "If you'd had two clubs in the hole, you wouldn't have had to look."
There was a lot of discussion about that among the other players at the table, with several saying he would have looked, regardless, to be sure he turned up the higher Club, but virtually every time I've seen someone show a card when they had a flush, they either say:
"Pick one", or they turn over a card without looking.
Besides, if he'd made a flush with his Ace, it would've been the nuts. If he was going to show a flush card in the hope of attracting a call, and he was going to look at his cards to be sure he showed me the RIGHT Club, the Club to show would be his low card, just in case I had a flush, too. If he showed his low flush card, I might think it's his high card and call with my flush. The only way he was showing the highest possible Club was if he was trying to sell me on his having the nuts so I'd go away.
If I was smart enough to make that read so long ago, when I was such a less-advanced player, why can't I do it now?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I still have a looonnnnngggggggg way to go.
Update: 05.08.06
I've been thinking about this situation since first I wrote this post. That's the reason I do it. The process of writing these posts causes me to think about the situations I'm relating, hopefully learning from them in the process (The 56th Rule of Aquisition: "IN EVERY MISTAKE LIES A LESSON."). Pondering this has inspired me to come up with the 252nd Rule of Aquisition: "IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW WELL YOU APPLY WHAT YOU KNOW."
That actually deserves it's own post, which will come at a later date, but the "quick read" is that any time you think about a hand and find yourself slapping your forehead and saying "Doh!" after it's over and you've realized you missed something that should have been obvious to you, that you KNEW, but just didn't think of at the moment, you know that you need more drilling on the knowledge you already have. Knowledge is useless unless you can access and apply it in critical decisions; useless.
"It's the little lies that tell the big story" (108th Rule of Aquisition).
Over time, the more I've thought about that quote, the more relevant it's become to me, especially at the poker table. Read on and see why.
I think "play the player, not the cards" is the most misunderstood concept in poker. Poker is based on math and probability. There are 52 cards in the deck, and the probability of virtually every possible occurrence can be calculated with a good degree of reliability and factored into virtually every decision. That math isn't easy to learn, however; especially for someone like me, who sucks at math and hates it. Soon after I began playing, I came to understand the importance of math and probability in this game, and set out to not only learn it, but to create a learning system to simplify that math and make it much more accessable to "normal" people. It's worked, but that's another story.
I find it pretty ironic that I, after having mastered only basic postflop pot odds and having a pretty good understanding of preflop pot odds (so far), am thought of as a poker math whiz in my casino. I've barely scratched the surface of the underlying, fundamental math of this game.
When poker math is being discussed, more often than not, players will say:
"I play the player, not the cards." or,
"Poker isn't a card game you play with people, it's a people game you play with cards.", etc..
Over time, I've come to believe this is primarily a defensive behavior. People saying things like that, for the most part, don't know the probabilities, and aren't willing to put in the effort to learn them, so they tend to negate the importance of them; it saves them from feeling stupid. If you don't understand something, ridicule it.
Now, the "play the player, not the cards" comment is attributed to Doyle Brunson, yet I've seen interviews where Doyle (who holds an MBA from Hardin-Simmons University and worked as an accountant before becoming a poker player) talks about how he used to run hands out hundreds, even thousands of times, recording the outcomes to arrive at the probabilities. I believe it was on FSN's "Beyond The Glory" where he said the biggest advantage today's players have is that the odds and probabilities of the game have all been computed to the nth degree, and are readily available, where, in the old days, they were largely guesswork.
I'm not discounting the importance of psychology and playing the player, but every time I deal, I see inexperienced players trying to glean information from a staredown, hoping to see a pulse in someone's throat or how rapidly they're blinking behind their Oakleys, when they can't read a board strategically or know even the most basic odds and probabilities. The bottom line is that the math of this game is inescapable. If you choose to remain ignorant of it, you may win hands, you may win sessions, but you can never make a consistent profit. If all you know is the math, however, you won't be any more successful at this game. To be a consistently winning poker player, you have to master odds and probability, strategy (most of which derives from those odds and probabilities), AND people skills. It takes all three to be a complete player.
I also believe, however, that there is a progression of learning, with poker math and probability being the foundation of the game and people skills being the most advanced. When I laid out my learning syllabus, my strategy was to make odds and probabilities the first thing I learned so that, at some point, they would be such an integral part of my game that applying them would be virtually automatic. Since I wouldn't have to spend any time and intellectual energy there, it would free me up to spend more time and effort observing my opponents, looking for betting patterns and physical tells, etc.
That has worked well for me. While I feel I'm really just dancing around the edges of what it means to be a poker player, the fact is I can look at a flop and instantly see the nuts. I can also instantly see most of the draws (not just one I might be on) and instantly know the odds of hitting them. I still have a long way to go with this, but working as hard as I have on strategic board reading and learning the odds has made a big difference in my game, and I can clearly see how continuing to put effort into it will cause even greater rewards.
While I'm not yet to a level of learning where my primary focus is on people skills, I have picked up a lot on the way. Here's something that happened the other night:
I've been doing very well lately. Two nights ago, though, I had a pretty rough session. In cash games, I'm a big hand player; patiently waiting for strong starting hands, laying down what is often probably the best hand to big bets after the flop when the reward just isn't worth the risk, knowing those chips will all come back to me when I get the flop I need. Not this night, however. Twice, my AK hit two pair, only to run into sets. Another time, my straight on the turn got beat when my opponents' two pair filled up on the river. I was winning most of the small pots I got into, but this was not my night for the big pots.
I'd been playing for about 8 hours. I had a little over 300.00 in front of me, but was still stuck close to 200.00. I was sitting in the 7 seat, on the button. The action folded around to the player in seat 5, who limped in. The player in seat 6 folded, and I looked down and saw:
Ac Jc, and raised to 12.00
Now, the player in seat 5 had been in the game since I sat down. He's an Asian-American, probably in his early 30s. Over the course of the night, I'd learned he was a software engineer from out of town who had a flight home at 7:30 in the morning, and was going to play until he had to leave for the airport. He was a somewhat loose, somewhat passive player, who usually called, except when he occasionally went all-in. There wasn't much in between. He was stuck over 600.00 in the game, and I'd busted him once myself. He had about 200.00 in front of him and was playing inexperienced-tournament-style, raising preflop with any Ace, any paint, and any pocket pair. He was also playing frustrated, trying to win back his losses before he had to leave, so he was in a lot of pots and had turned up the aggression considerably. When he just called my raise after limping in at first, I didn't put him on much. The flop came:
As 9s 5h
He checked. With 27.00 in the pot, I bet 20.00. He quickly called. I watched him closely as the next card fell, but I didn't pick up on anything. The turn came:
As 9s 5h Th
He checked again. With 67.00 in the pot and two flush draws and three open-ended straight draws on the board, I didn't want to mess around, so I bet 50.00.
Now, this game was a little playful, with a lot of table talk and showing cards when heads up, so I wasn't surprised when he asked:
"So, how big is your kicker?"
"How many weak kickers have you seen me turn up tonight?" was my response. I'd gotten AK a number of times, way more than I should have statistically, and I was hoping he'd remember that and possibly fold AQ. I'd had TERRIBLE luck with being drawn out on that night, and wanted to just take the pot down right then and there, before he had a chance to hit his kicker if he DIDN'T have AQ. He thought about it for a minute, then said:
"I'm going to raise you 50.00, just to be sure you have it.", and put out a biscuit.
Normally a statement like that would set off an alarm bell or two. The 137th Rule of Aquisition says "THE WEAKER THEY LOOK, THE STRONGER THEY ARE", and that was definitely a statement designed to appear weak, but a few hands before, he and I had been in a hand with another player who was all-in. There was about 30.00 in the main pot, and 20.00 in the side pot. I had pocket 9s, and the flop came with one overcard, a J. Out of position, I bet 25.00 to find out where I was in the hand, and the player in seat 5 folded. He was really pissed when he saw my cards, saying he'd had JT, but was convinced I'd had him outkicked. Knowing he was frustrated by his losses, was trying to get even before he left, and was upset that he'd folded a better hand to me the last time we'd tangled, I did something I almost NEVER do, I looked at my cards to be sure which was which, then showed him my Ace.
He thought about that for awhile, talking to himself about his "Queen kicker". He seemed to be "Hollywooding" to me, and I told him so, saying he'd raised with Ace-paint every time I'd seen him have it all night, but had just limped into this hand before I'd raised, so if he was tring to sell me on his having a Queen kicker, I'd only believe it if saw it.
He responded by saying: "I won't show you my Queen, but I'll show you this." and turned up an Ace.
I thought about that for a minute. When he'd just called my bet on the flop, I thought he might be on a draw. When the T came on the turn and he'd check-raised me, I'd wondered if he'd had TT and made a set, or AT and hit his kicker. Showing the Ace ruled out TT, I figured the limp-call preflop ruled out AK and AQ. and he'd walked the dog several other times that night when he'd had two pair, so I decided I had the best hand. I looked at his chips, saw he had about 120.00 more, and put him all in.
He immediately called, turning up his AA. Ouch.
Now, while he absolutely outplayed the shit out of me on that hand, I am also absolutely convinced that I'm a better player than he is, so, the question remains, why are so many of my chips sitting in front of him? I came up with two primary reasons. 1) I am stupid, and 2), I am REALLY stupid.
I'd been outplaying this guy all night. The only two pots that he and I'd gone to showdown with that he'd won had been suck-outs. Every other time, I'd either had him outkicked, or had hit a straight or a flush that he hadn't even noticed. I'd also taken him off of better hands a number of times. I knew this because he's one of those guys who likes to show the cards he's folding, letting everyone know how tight he is and how good he is at making THE BIG LAYDOWN. I got overconfident and EXPECTED to win, either by having the best hand or by outplaying him, both of which I'd been doing since I sat in the game.
More importantly, while I'd discounted one tell (his acting weak), I'd also overlooked one glaring tell that absolutely should have let me get away from that hand. Know what it was?
When he showed me his Ace, he DIDN'T LOOK AT HIS CARDS before doing so! Think about it for a minute. He's trying to sell me AQ. He said he wouldn't show me the Queen, so wouldn't he have looked at his cards before turning one up to make sure he showed me the Ace, and not the Queen? Sure, he may have known which was which, but, that's a lot less likely than what the truth was; he knew it didn't matter which card he turned up, because they were BOTH Aces!
That was the little lie that told the big story; the subject of this post. Too bad I wasn't paying attention. What really stings is that exact tell won me my first live tournament, more than a year and a half ago, when I was a MUCH-less advanced player.
It was late in the tournament, there were four of us left out of the 20 who started. I was heads up with a kid who was a freakin' maniac. I flopped a Queen for top pair with my AQ and bet the pot. There were two Clubs on board, and I wasn't going to mess around. He called. I instantly put him on a draw. His standard move when he had ANYTHING was to bet or raise, The only time I'd seen him call on the flop all night long was when he was drawing at straights or flushes.
The turn was a Club, which concerned me; if he'd been on a flush draw, he'd hit it. He checked, I bet the pot to find out where I was in the hand, he just called. Maybe he'd decided to slow-play me, but every other time he'd hit a draw that night, he'd bet or raised it for value.
There was a blank on the river. He checked, I bet 1/2 the pot, and he pushed all-in!
As I sat there thinking about it, he said:
"If you call, baby, it's all over.", mimicking Scotty Nguyen when he'd won the 1998 World Series. I was pretty suspicious. First, this kid bluffed a lot. second, the 136th Rule of Aquisition says "MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE STRONGER THEY LOOK, THE WEAKER THEY ARE".
Now, I'm a table-talker. Honestly, more often than not, I don't pick much up, but, every once in awhile..........
"Got the flush?" I asked.
"Yup", he quickly responded.
"If you've got the flush", I said, "show me a club".
He looked at his cards, turned up the Ace of Clubs, and said: "See?"
I instantly called and turned up my top pair. He laughed, turned up the King of hearts and said:
"How'd you know?"
"You looked at your cards", I responded, "If you'd had two clubs in the hole, you wouldn't have had to look."
There was a lot of discussion about that among the other players at the table, with several saying he would have looked, regardless, to be sure he turned up the higher Club, but virtually every time I've seen someone show a card when they had a flush, they either say:
"Pick one", or they turn over a card without looking.
Besides, if he'd made a flush with his Ace, it would've been the nuts. If he was going to show a flush card in the hope of attracting a call, and he was going to look at his cards to be sure he showed me the RIGHT Club, the Club to show would be his low card, just in case I had a flush, too. If he showed his low flush card, I might think it's his high card and call with my flush. The only way he was showing the highest possible Club was if he was trying to sell me on his having the nuts so I'd go away.
If I was smart enough to make that read so long ago, when I was such a less-advanced player, why can't I do it now?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I still have a looonnnnngggggggg way to go.
Update: 05.08.06
I've been thinking about this situation since first I wrote this post. That's the reason I do it. The process of writing these posts causes me to think about the situations I'm relating, hopefully learning from them in the process (The 56th Rule of Aquisition: "IN EVERY MISTAKE LIES A LESSON."). Pondering this has inspired me to come up with the 252nd Rule of Aquisition: "IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW WELL YOU APPLY WHAT YOU KNOW."
That actually deserves it's own post, which will come at a later date, but the "quick read" is that any time you think about a hand and find yourself slapping your forehead and saying "Doh!" after it's over and you've realized you missed something that should have been obvious to you, that you KNEW, but just didn't think of at the moment, you know that you need more drilling on the knowledge you already have. Knowledge is useless unless you can access and apply it in critical decisions; useless.
posted by Sean at 10:46 AM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home