Why im not posting as much as usual.

Its a little rant really, and just some thoughts about where my game is going. A lot of the threads here simply dont interest me anymore. A LOT of the HA descisions are pretty straightforward, dont limp utg with KJ etc etc, and to be honest replying to them is just plain.

What really has started to get me about this game, is that certain situations that id have taken for granted as an easy descision a few months back, arnt quite as simple as they seem. An example of a hand that springs to mind was a thread Ronald posted about raising with AJ. Chris made a comment to me that went something like "Your seriously not telling him to shove a 17BB stack with AJ". It provoked a lot of thought about MY game. I came to the realisation that ive kinda reached a new level of thought about poker, for a while I thought i was moving backwards. Yes I was telling him to shove, I didnt want to post it, because it was something that i felt would have been an easy decision not to several months back. So for my own sake i decided to study and apply Slansky-Chubukov rankings to my thoughts and discovered that i was somewhat correct in what i was thinking. I still have to apply the math and post, but im playing too much at the moment for that

Some other hands and analysis that goes on here, while in the vast majority of cases is correct, sometimes i feel its that there is something vital missing in it, Im not sure if its me a lot of the time, but in essence i think that im starting to reach a new level in the understanding of poker. The vast majority of decisions are not cut and dry, and im kinda starting to feel like a total beginner again, things i took for granted 6 months ago, are now begining to look much more complex to me. I wont really be posting that much until im sure of where my thought process on this is going.

Just so ye guys know, im not by any means saying anything bad about the posters here, and if anyone has an issue with this thread plz PM me, dont post flames, or ill request the thread locked. Im just rambling a bit.

On another note, I made the final table of the 14K GTD on Full Tilt again tonight and made $500

End Rant ~TB

Nice post TB, your thoughts are most likely correct to think that there is something missing in your game and everybodys game.
Don't forget to remember that poker only takes a short time to learn but a lifetime to master.

Your opinion is always respected here.

Great job in tournie tonight!!!

$500 is a healthy pickup

TB, nobody here can question your game as you've shown incredible discipline working your way up in limits by a strict plan. I tend to agree with you that the numbers, odds, rules, strategies, and what's right and wrong isn't really cut and dried. While the purely technical aspects of the game are very important, poker is and always will be a game of feel. So much is dependent on the table you're on, the situation, your mood, your bankroll, and many other factors that there probably is no guaranteed right answer to any situation. Continue in your quest by all means...

Sounds like you've reached a plateau, a stepping point to a new level.

In music studies people reach points where they think their playing sounds bad, or the seem to lack creativity. Others listening to them don't hear a difference even though it can be frustrating to the musician.

Somewhere something is percolating internally, and then all of a sudden it comes together and a new level of musician comes out of it. What you're describing doesn't sound all that different.


Thanks for letting us know, and your thoughts are always a high point for me in the HA.

TB, since I have joined this community, I have always looked forward to your perspective on HA's posted for analysis. It is just natural progression that you have 'moved up in thinking', if you will.

When you wrap your noggin around the new ideas and theories bouncing around up there, make sure you post again (not that your necessarily leaving). New ideas and different perspectives are the lifeblood of this forum, or else we are just regurgitating the same old, same old.

Robbie

You are one of,oh, half a dozen or so posters whose perspective always gives me pause for thought.

Congrats on the FT cleanup, btw, nice days work.

Nice post TB. Life away from the felt can be a revealing introspect back into the game of poker. So, enjoy! Would like to continue to read your posts though.

Makes sense to m Tenbob,

Every six months or so since, I've started I've had revelations about the game.

It's like coming to the top of a hill and instead of finding the summit, finding another hill to climb.

Recently I've added a whole bunch of things to my game that a year ago I would have considered bad play, and they would have been bad play because I wouldn't have understood what I was doing.

Phil Gordon talks about finding a way to play that suits you while understanding how others play and why they play that way in order to improve your game further.

I agree that many hand histories cover the same ground or are straightforward and I've answered the same questions on quite a few forums. I go through phases of wanting to answer loads cause I get something from it then periods when I don't find value in it.

I remember that hand... even if you're not in a position to post in huge detail I'd appreciate an overview as to why you thought a shove was optimal, because I really can't see it at all.

I agree with the 'interest' thing. I find myself making more and more one or two sentence replies to HA threads without really knowing I'm doing so until I look back. In the past I'd be all like, "this is how you justify this, blah blah blah", now it's more like, "easy shove" or w/e.

So I guess advising a player like me on the correct play - AND getting me to understand it becomes increasingly difficult. Or getting me to understand that there is more than one answer and how to decide which to apply. And realizing that the answer for me and the answer for you are completely different.

Hmm - that would put you in a pickle when advising in strategy threads.

But don't stop trying lol. I always read with respect everything that both of you advise because you are successful at the game. Sometimes you just have to give us your best advice and let us go through the growing pains same as you are. When it doesn't work for me - it doesn't mean your advice was wrong for me. It means that I don't yet fully understand when to apply it to get the best overall results. (like the raising more advice I get from both of you lol).

Anyway - thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think what is going on is the masters giving way to the grasshoppers. I too have found myself at a crossroad. I am taking a break from playing, (except for a freeroll here and there).

It seems that most of the core members of two years are getting jaded. We have covered most of the topics related to poker in one form or another. I still can come up with something that hasn't been covered to write about but it is getting harder to do that. My playing has hit a point of where I really need to sit back digest it and, like Tenbob, change it. I know what he is talking about. And this last month has had me really focus on my playing and others. And I am tired of getting beat against the wall by the quality of players today then what was online two years ago.

I think poker has hit a saturation point and slowly will subside to level that will be good to play at again. Ratings are going down for the televised shows, so that's losing its cache. And I am beginning to think that the online law that was passed was a good thing. It hasn't hurt us from playing but it has limited how many new players that are going to be able to donk you out. Especially the kids who have no concept of the game.

I have also come to the realization of at what level my play is at. I have no aspirations to go to the WSOP. I know I am not at that level. But I do know that I can play well enough to win the occassional big tourney. I now know where my strentghs lay at and I need to stick to them instead of chasing the great poker kill.

So it's time to sit back and relax and read some books. I am going to try some live play over the summer. Maybe that's what I need to really get me going again. And I think my postings here are going to go in a different direction.

Be honest TB and admit that you are sick and tired of Dorkus' self-proclaimed superiority AND all the Irish drinking jokes...

Come up with a humdinger of a Hand Analysis question, but instead of posting it, pm whoever's input you want, then post the replies once everyone has replied. This will stop people's responses being altered by what they have read before, and will stop the same people getting first shot at your posts. Only mean to do this as a one off, i don't think it's been done before.

I have always liked your posts TB,, we have covered a lot and it is harder to come up with something new since we have been here a while,,, keep going though, i enjoy the things you post,, BTW, congrats on the $500. win,, great>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. buck

Thanks for the encouragement folks. Some nice ideas floating around in this thread. Nice to see all the "old school" cardschat posters here as well. Nice idea for the HH Rob, the next tricky one I come across ill implement your idea, unless you come up with a tricky one first

Chris, as soon as i get some free time, and when the double FPP promotion is over at Stars ill get to working the math on that AJ hand, i had a quick look earlier and it will take me a little while to make sure the thread dosnt turn into waffle

A tiny bit this and thanks for the credit, but it's more to do with situations that arise in a really specific context with lots of information available that goes beyond the hand itself or preflop %ages and PT stats.

It's the difference between saying "you should adjust your game to suit the table, your stack and the point in the tourney" and interpreting this to mean play looser when it's tight and tight when it's loose and then taking it a step further and being able to refine that to exploit the tiny edges that all add up by folding 99 unopened one hand late in a tourney and playing it the next because something has changed in the interim that makes it right to do so.

In both cases it could easily be correct to call, but something about context makes a subtle but important difference (change in size of stacks, loose/tightness of the blinds, suckout on the previous hand and a dozen other things).

It's the thing that helps you let go of KK on a fairly benign low flop due to the action and then call an all in with AJ on a J high flop.

For me it's been about playing a lot more aggressively and being able to do this because I've been able to structure hands and pots in such a way as I avoid overcommitment when I'm behind. This means betting a lot more on hands which previously I would have let go and making more definitive decisions on the strength of someones hand based on their betting in order to make strong plays (or laydowns) in mid-late tourneys.

What underpins this though is a really strong understanding of the fundementals of the game which in the case of hand histories and analysis is usually going to provide a single "best" answer. This is because the HH is largely devoid is context so the default "standard" play is going to be the recommendation.

Long post already, but just to finish, Mrs Irexes often watches me play tournies and while she's doesn't comment on a hand while it's in play I often narrate my thoughts.

Quite often I'll watch someone for hours at my table and have described to her what they are doing, what their weakness is and that I am waiting for a particular situation to arise so I can bust them or double up. This might be something like picking up a strong hand in the blinds where I can push with KK and generate a call from an early position raise with A6s. In pure terms this would be a poor play and a different strategy might bring better EV, however the context dictates a different play.

Often my big moves in tournies are things like this, or the rarer big bluff or draw chased because of the implied odds despite it not being the "best" move if the hand were taken in isolation. I also pick up a lot of smaller pots by picking on people in spite of rather than because of the cards. Mrs Irexes and I will high five and agree it was the right hand and play at the right time.

Anyway I'm rambling, but the jist is that the fundementals remain pretty much unchanged and the bits that seem to keep evolving become harder to explain in the context of a forum which can make a HH answer seem shallow and lacking the depth of a "real" situation.

So how would/could things work for you, Irexes, if you were trying to create an ideal situation via internet?

Say you, TB, DM, FP where wanting to sit down and talk over some poker. You'd start with HH, brief situational info, then questions back and forth to clarify reads, etc? Probably via IM rather than a forum with the delays.


Or say Dakota or I hired you as a coach, would you be looking for an entire session/tourney, or to have IM while watching the coachee actually playing at the table or something more comprehensive like that?

If Dakota hired me as a coach I'd stick a sheet of paper to her monitor that said "Raise" .

Other than that anything that provides incomplete information is losing some of the context. This is why Chris' videos have been so well received, you get the whole story rather than the climax of a particular hand.

Best way would be to sit with someone while one of you played and verbalise every decision and read with a view to learning from the other about how they think and approach each decision and with a view to discussing it once the thing is over (I guess any realtime communication would work, but you need to see the cards). Mrs Irexes has been passively learning like this for years now and plays a mean SnG when the mood takes her. One of the many reasons why my poker chair is a double-recliner sofa

For me the best bits of poker books are those where the pro talks through what they were thinking and why, step by step as the hand evolves.

I'm not knocking the evaluation of individual hands as it is absolutely fundamental to growing understanding of the game. I love doing it and learn stuff every week from posting, reading and thinking about hands. I'm just pointing to something beyond a technically solid game, which I'm sure has more layers the further you go. I'm enjoying exploring the bits I've caught sight of and anticipate a whole load of revelations in the years to come.

Heck I get that from you for free.

And it's cheap at half that price

I thought tenbob gave her one of those a long time ago


I'm glad to hear the last bit; we look forward to your comments on things too. One of the reasons that I don't belong to any music forums/groups anymore is because I found there wasn't much value or learning for me anymore. Always telling beginners the same things, plus there's no way to jam over the internet the way CCers can sit down and play together.

Much appreciated.

I think the beauty of poker is that there's always value to be had from understanding how others think about and approach the game (including their mistakes and holes).

Yes your correct, IM really is the way to go when discussing detailed poker concepts. An example would be a few weeks ago when FP, myself and Debi discussed some issues on relative starting hand values, doing it though posts on the forum would have turned out very unproductive. Thats not the point of poker forums either, if we all done it on IM then poker forums would not exist at all.

Ive given some poker coaching before on MSN with some of the newer members here, usually on $1 sit and gos, which we have played together (dont worry never colluded, id happily bust my student) and that sort of play has helped me just as much as the person im teaching. Again not the point of Cardschat.

Im off to the pub now Enjoy the limit holdem donkament

I'm a bit of a late arrival in this thread because... Well, I've been drunk. Anyway.

What Irexes says is true. Some plays that are absolutely awful when done by players who don't know what they're doing can be considered complete genius when done by someone who knows what they're doing. For several reasons.

One of them being that seemingly "bad" plays can still be profitable for meta-game reasons. But it takes a strong player to correctly exploit that edge.

Another is that a move that is probably -EV against typical players may be very +EV against the right opposition. Strong players can differentiate between the two, whereas weaker players may fail to see the distinction.

When we answer questions on a message board, especially when we're not given reads (which people fail to include more often than not) we're stating default plays against default players.

Furthermore, there's usually a tendency to recommend "safe" plays. Whereas I might 3-bet QJs from the big blind, I'd probably not recommend others to do the same. Often, balance is the name of the game and sometimes mixing it up is not the same as always doing something. See above regarding default plays; the stuff we post in HA is usually the "mostly" plays.

Also, risky plays that are profitable may only be profitable if they're done by someone who knows how to continue in the hand. Take again the example of 3-betting QJs in the big blind. Clearly not a winning play if I'm after that hell-bent on going to showdown with just top pair against what is clearly a monster. Or if I'm re-raised and then lay down much too easily against a maniac.

Anyway.

Finally,

I can agree with all this, it makes sense. But there is something about this whole thread that puzzles me, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Its understandable that, at times, one can get frustrated by certain responses on HA threads, mostly because certain plays have profitability or don't based on who and how they are played, as you point out. Also, the "mixing it up" , as you call it, is frequently overlooked. Still, I don't see any harm in it.

Suggesting to PM hands to the desired parties from which you would like a response, therefore putting in higher consideration opinions expressed by "old school" CCers, are both certainly within anyone's rights, they don't particularly bother me and are none of my business. They do, however, kill the spirit for which a poker forum is intended. Furthermore, opinions expressed by new and old members will always serve the purpose of giving an idea of what others think of the game, which, in turn, can be valuable information, regardless if its coming from a donk, a beginner or an expert. It still has, more or less, some sort of value.

Again, this is not an attempt to create controversy, I'm just a little puzzled and perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the line of thinking that I sense throughout this whole thread is not constructive and will limit the "good" that can come out of debating hands. Often it can happen that you express an opinion on a certain hand and the way it was played, and you post your opinion based on that. All this doesn't imply in any way, shape or form, that by reading another opinion you can't have a change of heart on the subject, assuming you keep an open mind and the will to reconsider your initial thoughts. Within that lies the greatness of poker forums.

That's just my 2 cents and I repeat, for the 3rd time, that I don't intend any harm.

Geez joe, you're so polite.


But I can fully appreciate where you're coming from as the HH and strategy sections are the reason that I come here. The fact that most people are friendly and supportive of each other's situations is a plus and is part of the reason I chose CC instead of some others that I looked at, but on the other hand I don't post a lot in the social sections.

But I post with trepidation sometimes in some threads because I consider myself an advanced beginner. I don't mind making stupid comments so much but I don't want to annoy others with my ignorance. Rex and FP in particular have a lot of patience that way.


You know, in martial arts there are belt levels. Intermediate belts help train beginners, senior belts help train intermediates, and the sensei focuses on working with the senior belts. It might be difficult to structure, but something like that might be something to consider too.

I think that there's a huge difference between playing the cards you are dealt and playing poker. The hand histories typically lend themselves well to how to play the cards, but there are so many other factors involved that it's sometimes very hard to come up with a good analysis. Is the table playing tight or loose? Is the initial raiser a maniac or a rock? Is the big blind in the position where they are fairly short stacked and probably will go all in with ATC? Do you have so many chips that you want to limp into 40% of the hands with junk and then make plays after the flop? A lot of these things get overlooked when looking at hand histories, and that leads to responses like "Easy fold PF" "Shouldn't be in the hand to begin with" etc etc.

I myself took a VERY long break from poker, and since I started up again I've found myself playing far better than a year ago, yet I'm hesitant to post any hand histories. "ZOMFG you raised UTG with QT soooted???"

Every situation is so different it's very hard to not respond with 'it depends'.