Television, documentaries, and beating foxes -- weblog
Excerpt from my poker log. Full log at www.CanadianPoker.com (I know... I know... but I am trying to build a little traffic).
February 13, 2005
Television, documentaries, and beating the foxes.
General Interest
Talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Many new players are emulating what they see on TV. There are two areas in which this is noticeable: (1) Trying to emulate play and (2) Trying to emulate the commentary.
In regards to play, I am definitely seeing more aggression than one used to see. It is not usual to have one or two players at the table who are hyper aggressive. These are usually fairly new players. They have (I think) heard the buzz phrase: “Aggressive play is the way to go.†And, they are trying to live up to this idea. The problem, of course, is that aggression has its place and can be misapplied. Often, with these new players, it is. On the other hand, better to build aggression early since many new players are much too passive. In any event, the basic point is that many new players are coming into the game with much more aggression in the tank than used to be the case.
In regards to emulating television commentary, what I notice is that players now LOVE to offer a post-hand analysis. Often, there is a conversation that is “I had to do this because XYZ, etc.†And, often the conversation and the ideas that are being put forward are completely wrong. It is usual that a concept has been learned (I think form TV) and then misapplied. So, player X will say “I had to raise to isolate you.†But, the situation that has just played out, isolation is exactly the wrong thing to do. TV is causing a sort of “half learning.†I suspect that poker books do the same thing, but it seems more pronounced lately – perhaps because TV is encouraging the post-hand analysis to happen out loud.
Canadian Poker on television. I have met with an excellent television production company and started developing a new television project. It is in the very initial stages, but I am excited about three things: it is not like anything presently on TV, it is a modest project that will be fun and non-intrusive if I can lift it off (meaning it will have very little intrusion in my family or job), and it has a modest budget. Poker on television is hard to pull off because the fees paid to the producers are very low. Consequently, building something that has much of a budget is very difficult. I will disclose more as we get further into development. The other problem I have is that I am still 34% owner in Fifth Street Publishing Ltd and because of an increasingly difficult legal situation I am anxious to avoid any obvious conflict of interest.
University of Regina Journalism. A group of U of R Journalism students spent the day with my on Saturday making a documentary. It is about the growth of poker and, in particular, the appeal of poker to young people. I had a ton of fun. We did a long interview about poker generally and the causes for its huge growth in the past couple of years. Then, the fun part, I “held class.†I made the claim in an earlier interview that if I was given a sufficiently disciplined student that I could make her into a winning player with two hours of training. And, I said I would put my money where my mouth is and permit her to play with my money. So, Amanda and I spent a couple of hours together. Basically, I went over the starting hand requirements from my book (simplifying them somewhat) and then spent one hour with her coaching her while she played $5-10 online (she made $72 online) After a quick supper, and we all trooped off to Saskatoon’s Emerald Casino. The staff was great and the players were great. After about an hour’s wait, Amanda got a seat in the $10-20 full kill game. She was, by long and away, the tightest player at the table, a fact that did not go unnoticed by the participants (hard to be subtle when you have a television crew following you around). Over the course of about 2 ½ hours in the ring Amanda played three hands: K-K, A-Ts, and K-K. She won two and lost one (failing to follow the rules I had set out for her in the hand she lost) and finished up $50 on the session. She kept $30 and I got $20. A really fun day and I will look forward to seeing the show in March sometime.
Poker Nerd Content
Defending your blind. I had a simple thought pop into my head about defending the big blind. If there has been a raise then ask yourself: “would I play this hand for s single bet on the button if I was offered the same odds?†For example, suppose that there is a raise and two callers. In the big blind you are being offered 7-1. Should you call? I used to routinely call at 7-1. This meant, however, that I was playing some really sketchy hands – hands that I wouldn’t even think about before mucking them on the button. So, now what I do is ask myself, “Would I play these cards on the button after six limpers?†There are, obviously, a lot of hands that one will play, but there are also lots that one will muck. This has tightened me up a little in the big blind and this has always been something I need to do.
What does he think of you? I have been giving more and more thought to Daniel Negreanu and the other super tough players. In the past, most of my thinking has been directed as my cards measured up against their range of hands and what bluffing opportunities that presents and are profitable, etc. Implicit in that is the question: “What does he think of me? What box does he have me in?†These will be the critical questions to answer when deciding how to proceed against a lot of foxes. Many players – even many of the players that are regarded as top pros – do not give a enough thought to their opponents. But, the REALLY tricky one’s do. You will NEED to understand how you are perceived to be able to make a judgment about what his bet means.
Changing gears. Related to the above comment, changing gears simply means – moving oneself out of the box that one’s opponent thinks you are in. So, there are lots of players – and I mean LOTS of players – at the WSOP who are not really capable of much second level thinking. Against them you may simply deploy the standard reckless-run-them-over toolbox. But, when you are forced to tangle with the foxes you must start be asking yourself, “What does he think I have?â€
February 13, 2005
Television, documentaries, and beating the foxes.
General Interest
Talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Many new players are emulating what they see on TV. There are two areas in which this is noticeable: (1) Trying to emulate play and (2) Trying to emulate the commentary.
In regards to play, I am definitely seeing more aggression than one used to see. It is not usual to have one or two players at the table who are hyper aggressive. These are usually fairly new players. They have (I think) heard the buzz phrase: “Aggressive play is the way to go.†And, they are trying to live up to this idea. The problem, of course, is that aggression has its place and can be misapplied. Often, with these new players, it is. On the other hand, better to build aggression early since many new players are much too passive. In any event, the basic point is that many new players are coming into the game with much more aggression in the tank than used to be the case.
In regards to emulating television commentary, what I notice is that players now LOVE to offer a post-hand analysis. Often, there is a conversation that is “I had to do this because XYZ, etc.†And, often the conversation and the ideas that are being put forward are completely wrong. It is usual that a concept has been learned (I think form TV) and then misapplied. So, player X will say “I had to raise to isolate you.†But, the situation that has just played out, isolation is exactly the wrong thing to do. TV is causing a sort of “half learning.†I suspect that poker books do the same thing, but it seems more pronounced lately – perhaps because TV is encouraging the post-hand analysis to happen out loud.
Canadian Poker on television. I have met with an excellent television production company and started developing a new television project. It is in the very initial stages, but I am excited about three things: it is not like anything presently on TV, it is a modest project that will be fun and non-intrusive if I can lift it off (meaning it will have very little intrusion in my family or job), and it has a modest budget. Poker on television is hard to pull off because the fees paid to the producers are very low. Consequently, building something that has much of a budget is very difficult. I will disclose more as we get further into development. The other problem I have is that I am still 34% owner in Fifth Street Publishing Ltd and because of an increasingly difficult legal situation I am anxious to avoid any obvious conflict of interest.
University of Regina Journalism. A group of U of R Journalism students spent the day with my on Saturday making a documentary. It is about the growth of poker and, in particular, the appeal of poker to young people. I had a ton of fun. We did a long interview about poker generally and the causes for its huge growth in the past couple of years. Then, the fun part, I “held class.†I made the claim in an earlier interview that if I was given a sufficiently disciplined student that I could make her into a winning player with two hours of training. And, I said I would put my money where my mouth is and permit her to play with my money. So, Amanda and I spent a couple of hours together. Basically, I went over the starting hand requirements from my book (simplifying them somewhat) and then spent one hour with her coaching her while she played $5-10 online (she made $72 online) After a quick supper, and we all trooped off to Saskatoon’s Emerald Casino. The staff was great and the players were great. After about an hour’s wait, Amanda got a seat in the $10-20 full kill game. She was, by long and away, the tightest player at the table, a fact that did not go unnoticed by the participants (hard to be subtle when you have a television crew following you around). Over the course of about 2 ½ hours in the ring Amanda played three hands: K-K, A-Ts, and K-K. She won two and lost one (failing to follow the rules I had set out for her in the hand she lost) and finished up $50 on the session. She kept $30 and I got $20. A really fun day and I will look forward to seeing the show in March sometime.
Poker Nerd Content
Defending your blind. I had a simple thought pop into my head about defending the big blind. If there has been a raise then ask yourself: “would I play this hand for s single bet on the button if I was offered the same odds?†For example, suppose that there is a raise and two callers. In the big blind you are being offered 7-1. Should you call? I used to routinely call at 7-1. This meant, however, that I was playing some really sketchy hands – hands that I wouldn’t even think about before mucking them on the button. So, now what I do is ask myself, “Would I play these cards on the button after six limpers?†There are, obviously, a lot of hands that one will play, but there are also lots that one will muck. This has tightened me up a little in the big blind and this has always been something I need to do.
What does he think of you? I have been giving more and more thought to Daniel Negreanu and the other super tough players. In the past, most of my thinking has been directed as my cards measured up against their range of hands and what bluffing opportunities that presents and are profitable, etc. Implicit in that is the question: “What does he think of me? What box does he have me in?†These will be the critical questions to answer when deciding how to proceed against a lot of foxes. Many players – even many of the players that are regarded as top pros – do not give a enough thought to their opponents. But, the REALLY tricky one’s do. You will NEED to understand how you are perceived to be able to make a judgment about what his bet means.
Changing gears. Related to the above comment, changing gears simply means – moving oneself out of the box that one’s opponent thinks you are in. So, there are lots of players – and I mean LOTS of players – at the WSOP who are not really capable of much second level thinking. Against them you may simply deploy the standard reckless-run-them-over toolbox. But, when you are forced to tangle with the foxes you must start be asking yourself, “What does he think I have?â€