False edges
The bump of my old 'What gives you your edge' post made me think.
All ten people sit at a poker table, and all ten think they have an edge. Logic dictates that someone is wrong.
What are examples of false edges that players use to trick themselves into thinking they are getting instead of giving up the edge?
I'll start the ball rolling:
- Results orientation. "I won last week, therefore I'm good."
All ten people sit at a poker table, and all ten think they have an edge. Logic dictates that someone is wrong.
What are examples of false edges that players use to trick themselves into thinking they are getting instead of giving up the edge?
I'll start the ball rolling:
- Results orientation. "I won last week, therefore I'm good."
Comments
I think the old... "I bluffed you out of a pot once, therefore I'm the better poker player" is a false edge... like the Results orientation, nothing is an edge if you can't do it consistently for an extended period of time.
Here's one that I can take advantage of occasionally...
"he's older than me so I must be better and can bully him"..
I am speaking of No Limit here where mistakes can be more costly than in min bet.
I think everyones edge at the table is increased or diminished by the style and the edge that the other players bring to the table. It is affected again by the table dynamic created by the blending of these individuals.
Every action has an opposite reaction. This means your edge is exploitable in some way and so is your opponents. The one that leads to bigger mistakes is the one that is going to be the biggest loser.
The only edge that is truly can not be exploited is adaptability. If you can always (successfully) play the style that will give you the biggest edge based on your opponents perceived edge you can truly beat the game.
Take it a step further. Maybe Game Selection is even a bigger edge than adaptability because you simply look for the game where your style gives you the biggest edge.
I know....a bit of a rant so I will answer the question. Tight is right! Too many TAG's can't lay down their big hands.
This can include silly errors like those who include the chips they are calling with in the pot odds equation (hmm pot is 100 chips plus his 1000 bet plus the 1000 I need to call with thus I am getting 2-1 on my call), as well as those who believe specific play is always good or bad (ie: a fellow saying anyone who sees more then 30% of flops is bad - the actual player mix and style of the game do not matter to him). I even saw a person mocking another for not having proper pot odds to make a bet (the concept of fold equity made no sense to him and he dismissed it).
A lot of these people believe in what they are saying and those beliefs give them a sense of having an edge on opponents.
Many play a very tricky game, too tricky and while it at times looks fancy the end results are usually worse then straight forward play, particularly at the lower limits (where more passive players roam). Checking flop and turn to set up a potential check raise on river (which often results in check check anyways) rarely wins more then simply betting into passive players.
A lot of people also misuse aggression and believe they are better because they are aggressive. Betting $50 into a $2 pot when the only hands that can call or raise have it beat. It seems strange, but I see that often and many times the person will show the bluff after and not realize just how silly it was (since the same result could have been had with a $5 bet if he really wanted that $2 pot) even if his "aggressive" bluff works.
Well it related more to overconfidence.. But my question was more about the collary to 'What gives you an edge'.
Ex: "I have an edge because I'm tight." The person could think that tight is their meal ticket edge, but in reality it's what makes them exploitable and actually the loser at the table.
Things like that. Usually it stems from overconfidence and underestimating villians.
I mean, read that edge post. It reads just like my original statement. We've all got these monsterous edges and can't be beaten because.. 'I look into the soul of my opponent'. What crap. But hey, I'm cynical by nature.
This almost made sense to me. The point I fail on is the original "All ten players at the table can't have an edge" statement. Image definately affects winrate, but I would say that image management is your edge in that case.
I consider an 'edge' to be the statement: "I have this skill and it will in turn produce a positive win-rate".
Anyway, nice post cadillac.. if I wasn't on the clock right now I'd actually think more about what you've written.. I think it's quite interesting.
I'll toss this one out there:
"I can play loose preflop because I have a HUGE edge postflop reading people."
While to some extent this might be true (especially in NL), I think too many people overestimate their own ability, especially when the stacks aren't particularly deep.
Can you have one edge that makes you a winning player?
You would have to be at least good at so many things other than the one thing that gives you an edge for this to be true.
If I am a great hand reader but am not so good at the following:
Understanding position
Pot control
Bet Sizing
Aggression
Value Betting
Making Bluffs that make sense
Understanding betting lines
Calling down light
Can I win? I realize that some of these are intertwined.
Or do we assume that a player has all of these skills inline?
Speaking from my own experience, building my poker game has been like building a house. You need a solid foundation (I consider this to be the math), and then you build on top of that foundation brick by brick. You can't do it all at once so you do it piecemeal and incorporate each new tool into your existing skill set. Some times it gets difficult to see if you are actually getting anywhere and sometimes you flick a switch and the whole house lights up!!
These are the moments that I love.
No, but they can have ones they THINK make them a winning player, but really don't. I guess I need to revise my original statement.
"All ten people sit at a poker table, and all ten think they have a positive expectation of winning".
I'm trying to get at a list of 'anti-patterns' that describe the way losing players (who don't think they're losing players) justify themselves.
Well, I think the answer to this is yes with a healthy amount of depends built in. A lot has to do with the game you are playing. Low limit games or some live games can be so bad that having a basic understanding of starting hands and pot odds could be enough to give a person enough of an edge under those conditions to be an expected winning player.
Once you increase the level of competition it becomes a lot trickier as many of the basics are there for every player and a whole slew of elements comes into the mix which can even create odd situations where Player A has an edge over B while B has an edge over C and C has an edge over A.
You can add even more layers of detail (and confusion) by adding the whole concept of levels. If I know your edge and capitalize on it do I have an edge if you are aware I am doing that etc etc.
Interesting topic as it can go either general (ie: online players have a basic edge over live players based on experience from their sheer volume of hands played) or a specific analysis of an individual.
"I'm trying to get at a list of 'anti-patterns' that describe the way losing players (who don't think they're losing players) justify themselves."
Saw this after I made my post.
I find most justify their beliefs based on the limits of their knowledge of the game, so their perception of the world has an innate flaw from the start.
For instance , if a person does not ever consider what an opponent has but only plays his cards and the board, he may win at some games either by chance or due to even worse opponents, and that may strengthen his belief that he is a good player because he only plays good cards and plays good hands and draws post flop, albeit in isolation. If he is incapable of grasping the concept of putting opponents on a hand then that will have no value to him when it comes to evaluating his own skill level.
That's a fairly basic concept for someone to completely miss but this certainly is the case for more subtle and complex concepts in poker.
Not quite sure that made sense. Lack of sleep and too many one outers have removed my edge (whether real or imaginary) for the day :P
Ah...I follow... you only had to post 3 times for me to get it! LOL.
How about "fearless". That adjective falls out of Mike Sexton's mouth every episode of WTP and is pretty misleading.
You have to be willing to lose in order to win but just jamming your chips in the middle is not gong to be enough.
Ding. It's probably the easiest trap to fall into too.
I like that list. A lot.
Definintely. It's like that transition you go after reading SmallStakes Holdem. You ignore the actual game you are playing at (where a raise means big hand) and start 3 betting people like mad.
There are a ton of players out there that don't practice this at all and figure they can beat any type of game. I know I personally have problems with aggressive games but I'll stay in one when it develops.
I don't know if I can win at small stakes games live.
There are some games that are raked so much that I wonder if I can win long term.
I make about 4bb/100 online over the last 50K hands.
That translates to about 1 Big bet an hour live.
If the other players are as tough as the players on line then I won't make enough to cover the rake/toke/jackpot (yuck).
This is conjecture because I don't have enough live hands to form a significant sample size....
Comments?