Mike Caro's law of loose wiring

It`s expressed in broad terms, Chuck, and capable of more than one interpretation.

The main idea I take from it is this: If you are first to act in a betting round, your action (whether fold, check, or bet) becomes a major piece of the information on which players to your left base their decision. Therefore, early position players have the possibility, by their behaviour, to influence opponents to their advantage.

This makes reasonable sense, though it runs somewhat contrary to the usual perception that late position is most advantageous.

Hey Chuck,

I've read pretty much everything on Poker1.com. I got there before I found Cardschat and to be honest lots of it is very useful.

All I think he's saying here is that most people don't understand why they make the decisions they make at the table. And because of this, if you can make specific decisions and understand the benefits of those decisions you can then manipulate the opponents you play against who don't. Caro is also all about playing people in a live setting, so when at a table you can develop influence over opponents who aren't all that experienced or aware of the psychological realities of the game.

What do you think?

Cool; that's pretty much what I got out of it last night (4AM ) but it didn't really sink in yet. The key thing being
I found it kind of odd how he said that

I find this 'law' interesting, but don't see how it could be the most important thing to teach people...

Caro's "law" is stressing the point that while it's nice to be able to dissect a hand rationally, people aren't rational. If I'm in a situation where I might as well raise as fold, it's not entirely clear what makes me go for one or the other. I mean, I'm not randomly going to fold the nuts. But I might randomly fold a mediocre hand, and call with it otherwise.

If you can "steer" me in the direction you want, then you'll be able to induce a fold or a call, depending on what you're after. That's what this article is about.

Jeez...I really was 1/2 asleep last night. Forgot completely about why he said this was such a good rule (pretty much what you just summed up, FP). It's how psychology takes its effect in poker by doing this 'steering'. Making people change their minds on those marginal decisions to give you a better outcome.

Thanks for the input guys! I hope to post more stuff from Mike Caro in the future for more analysis.

Ok ok ok I *think* I have a handle on this that other folks may not... or it could be the 4am and too much coca-cola speaking. Anyway, this is what I saw immediately in his (VERY interesting) article. He says that

"If choices are not clearly connected to their benefits, people usually interact in ways that make outcomes unpredictable."

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty much saying that

"If people don't know what happens when they push a button, then random stuff can happen because people might push ANY button at all."

right?

What has been failed to mention is this however... Mike's Law has a corrolary. I'll call it Lana's Corrolary for short. It goes like this

"If definite choices produce definitive outcomes then people's behaviour becomes increasingly predictable".

As we all know, predicting behaviour at a card table is the difference between winning with 7-2 offsuit and losing with A-K suited.

So here's what I glean from Mike's Law...

DO YOUR BEST to connect a specific choice to a specific benefit, from your opponent's viewpoint, and their behaviour will become more and more predictable the more you do this.

For example, chose one of your opponents and target them specifically. Let's say that EVERY TIME he raises 3x the BB preflop, you re-raise him 6x the BB. Make no special exeptions, make no special rules. Don't try to talk yourself out of it just because you happen to be holding rags to his pocket pair. What you're doing ISN'T attempting to win the pot. You are SPENDING chips in the pursuit of influencing his behaviour in the future. There will come a time when you can use this influence to your advantage.

Have I overstated the Law? Thoughts? Criticisms??