Poker Players Get your mind right!... Food for thought!

Poker Players Get your mind right!


1 You can be beaten by a player with lesser skills

2 Just because you're holding :As: :Ah: it is not guaranteed to hold up

3 That goes double for :Kc::Ks:, :As::Ks: and :Qc::Qd: :Js::Jd:

4 It also applies to any hand, not the nuts, on the river

5 The river does count. Winning on the river happens to every player just like losing there. Winning on the river does not diminish the value of the pot

6 The hand will be contested as long as more than one player is in the hand

7 You have not won until the cards are shown down - this is at the end of the hand OR everyone else folds

8 While you can accurately determine your opponents pockets - maybe they cannot, they may call your bet having mistaken your better packet pair and beat you on the flop with trip sixes!

9 The fact that your hand is actually better than your opponent will not magically cause that player to automatically fold

10 It is not against the rules to be called or bet back at while you hold prime pockets

11 There is no pre-flop hand guaranteed to win after the flop - not one!

12 When a player is playing poorly, constantly reminding said player of this may cause him to play well enough to bust you.

13 When commenting on someone's poor play, comments like "you luckbox, non-playing sob" will not be considered constructive, helpful hints. When you tell someone the story of busting out, "venting" and giving "helpful hints" they don't believe you either.

14 Sitting in the losers lounge commenting on others play does not make you appear to be a knowledgeable or even as good as those who have not yet busted out.

original quote from "Cool Hand Luke" 1967 starring Paul Newman:

You run one time, you got yourself a set of chains. You run twice you got yourself two sets. You ain't gonna need no third set, 'cause you gonna get your mind right.

Thanks. I feel we all need to hear something like this every once in a while. At least I do anyway.
Had to Google the movie. Is it worth watching?

OP already told you - a 1967 movie starring Paul Newman

And it's a great movie at that! Some nice points Merlin. BTW I'm glad #10 is in fact true, because I want all the action I get.

the whole thing is kinda obvious if u ask me

QFT

Exactly.

True, but at least he's making an attempt to make thoughtful, useful, posts. That's more than you can say for most new members who are just free-roll trash.

Jepp...I had a downswing today.,.lost 2 buyins in cash game against players with less skills..that sucks

this is were I'm at here with this one.....maybe a little too obvious....we all know this but maybe some amatuers may not or don't unerstand why AA doesn't hold up maybe thats his point!

Thats me screwed then lol

how true it is ...you can play everything correct and still lose ..thats poker

Oh yeah! It's about rebellion against the "powers that be" - a great movie "Cool Hand Luke"! Another Great poker player movie is the "Cinncinnati Kid". I'd check them both out. They appear periodically on AMC, Turner Classics or at the video store.

I used to play an online strategic TBS game called Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic with lots of orcs and dwarves and goblins and elves and magic and things. We had a player there (called Old Merlin, by coincidence) who started off seeming relatively sane and only ever talked about the game mechanics, then started talking philosophy (a bit like the socratic post below), then started lecturing us about Christianity, and in the end turned out to be a right pain in the backside, so most people just blocked his chat in the end

Sorry, completely off-topic and seemingly random, but for a moment there were just too many similarities

Thanks SubT33 , KingCurtisand others. Maybe those to whom everything is obvious won't mind if I remind myself........

I by profession, am a writer. My poker skill and experience are significantly less. The things I post are my observations of playing seen through a prism of being able to write about them.

Much of the response I receive is positive and helpful - even if others know it already. I am not inventing anything just giving my own perspective.

In my view while poker has a techno-mechanical side (math, position, odds etc.) those things are easily mastered without being a math PHD. Like most other human endeavor - it is the how, when, why and what blend of mechanics / "x'" factors / situation that makes a great player. How often is a pro, while ruminating on what to play doing the math? I'm a beginner and the first thing I can do is the math of a hand! The other rationale to play is more convoluted - at least to me. "xfactors" = (what is he playing, what did he hit, what kind of player, what hand does he have, what has he done in this situation before etc,etc,etc)

Though what I write may be "obvious" to some, reading poker books, watching players both amateur and heralded pro two things are clear 1.) there are many opinions (that work) as to what is correct 2.) There are few who can perfectly apply correct theory flawlessly and it is not always correct to do the "right" thing in every situation 3) Most of those who can spend little time criticizing others 4) in a game of incomplete information there is always an unknown.

So while I may be "obvious", the things I'll be writing here, if I continue to be a member, will if not be helpful or interesting to others it's good for me to "get it out". Members who reading my blogs think it pedestrian - won't bother - those who think otherwise will and perhaps expand ways to verbalize their own perspective of the foundation of how and why they play the way they do.

If nothing else, if I become any good I'll be ready to write a book about it - lol.

Jon (Merlin333)

ps. to NoWuckingFurries you will never see me "chat" on any subject let alone Christianity. Your analogies about me and this other person are comical, childish and off point. I read a lot - I don't agree with everything I read. I am mature enough to not make childish analogies just because I do not agree. If what you are trying to say is that I am lecturing - then it is you who is a pain. Feel perfectly free to block or not read my post. What I am saying should be clear to anyone with average intelligence. It is kind of sad that on a blog where the purpose is to express what you want there are still those who would have appear only what they like and can understand. This reflects poorly on you not me. I guess there will always be those whose first response to anything is negative - sad.

another thought: I write several poker and blogs on other topics, this is the first time anyone thought the Charles Linebeck post "too philosophical" - too funny - he would crack up laughing. To extrapolate those few paragraphs into preaching about Christianity or philosophy is evidence of not ever having understood or even having read either.

merlin i must say, u write really really well

but merlin i dont think NWF was refering to u, u didnt make any comments about christianity

Merlin,again, I appreciate your post, as it is a step in the right direction for this forum. Many times new members sprinkle one liners around the forum, just trying to get 15 posts so they can play in the CC free-rolls. Obviously, you are trying to contribute in a meaningful way, and that is to be respected. However, your response to NoWuck is a bit rash and unwarranted.

Had NWF not included this last sentence and particularly the then I might tend to agree with you. But as it was written, he was just pointing out a strange coincidence. For the record, I very much liked the philosophy.

p.s. - Damn you Pantin, you beat me to the punch, again!

KingCurtis I checked your blog out - cool!!!

Well Pantin007 and SubT33 I hope not. I may be a little defensive - i never joined a forum before where people
seem to zingback for no reason. You are right I am trying to contribute Everyone wants to pick on the new guy.

Just kidding I can take it - if I am incorrect I apologize!!!

Merlin333

Trying to bust an out-of-line all-in player is a recipe for disaster, as the one-time you catch him in a bluff, is the one time he catches you on the River.
And don't forget, there are always 7 or 8 other players at the table that are just waiting to catch you trying to catch him.
Best advice, Don't take the game personally.

NWF and u both joined at the same time, both of yall are new to me

While these tips may seem obvious to some, they are infact helpful. Some people get all upset when their AA's lose to a lower pocket pair. The fact of the matter is that it does happen, and you have to realize that. Thanks for posting this.

As are you to us.......

Merlin333

You are so right. The first "bump" in my game was when I quit playing "bust the namecaller". lol

most of them don't last until the first break anyway - why let them accidentally take you along with them?

That is why I turn chat off except for CC events. I don't see the chatter that could make me mad.

I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote - I certainly didn't say that your post (sorry, blog) was too philosophical, and I wasn't under the impression that my post was attacking you, either

What interests me about your posts (sorry, blogs) is that they can be read on different levels, in the same way that my daughter and I both laugh at The Simpsons, but we are usually laughing for different reasons. For example, your OP can be read as somebody simply stating the obvious, but it can also be seen as having a subtext that it is very easy to assume that all other players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses

Also the reference to Cool Hand Luke probably means very little to a lot of people, whereas to those familiar with the film (movie) it ties in very well with the overall theme of the OP

This is getting "curiouser" and "curiouser". There are several things you said on which we agree about "reading things on different levels... you and your daughter seeing the same thing and taking different inferences". this is the heart of communicating. Each speaker/writer knows (sometimes not) the message they are trying to convey. Each reader/viewer knows (sometimes not) what they heard/saw. It is attention to the third element of communication that let's the reader know their intention was accurately (not correctly or properly) conveyed with clarity and fidelity to the meaning of the communication. Often, from feedback or response, the speaker learns meanings and subjects not originally intended and whether what was meant was received or not.

Everything communicated has different levels and they are sometimes interpreted accurately sometimes inaccurately, seldom are any communications stripped of socio-economic-ethno-education-background (and other) filters. This is often why strangers struggle to be understood and people with similarities, familiarity and history understand more easily.

Clearly what you wrote could be interpreted, I wont use your word "attack", but as critical or having "misunderstood" what I was saying. Criticism is fine and can give rise to a response/reaction. Such a simple a thing as saying "your post (sorry blog)" - twice not being under time constraint and in an easy-edit environment, gives a clear suggestion of some additional meaning.

Response/reaction to what was written can give rise to what can be interpreted as a necessity to defend for example: your remark "...that it is very easy to assume that all other players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses". From my perspective of what I meant to convey that remark is plain silly and opposite the very words written - I am sure most won't feel that way. Anyone who knows me knows better. My view of things I have posted here could not be further from your interpretation. Almost everyone who has contacted me on Charles Linebeck's statement for example get's it. As a matter of fact this is from a lecture meant to dress down a group of smartassed, know-it-all, 18 year old sophomore, scholarship kids who all failed a test simply because they thought they knew everything. I was in that class. It was the beginning, for me, to understand the lessons most adults get when reading those lines.
The listener/viewer never misunderstands but always uses their own faculties, however base or refined, to interpret the message. It is incumbent to the person wishing to be understood to have and employ the tools necessary to convey the message intended. This is why communication is interesting, full of errors and ripe for improvement for by everyone. After all most people want to be understood.

Finally, I am aware that the way I said some things I did may be "misunderstood", some I have inserted purposely and have left as examples of what I am trying to explain. Can you find them? lol

Jon Holt (Merlin333 )


Oh Yeah: I bet more people have a clue about "Cool Hand Luke" than you think..

ORLY? Couldn't tell.

glad that you checked it out....myabe youll try my challeng and add some comments!!!

I love the Napolean quote!

hey, hey, I was free-roll trash for 3 or 4 months, never actually played a CC freeroll though

I also had been free-roll trash when I joined

I like this sentence, where it refers to your view and my interpretation, it implies equality, it accepts that you don't know everything and that we are both potentially able to learn from each other
Although the punctuation is a bit suspect in this sentence there is a much more serious weakness it, in that it implies that you have fallen into the very trap that your tutor was apparently warning you about. Assuming that your sentence means that you and the people that have contacted you about the statement understood it properly, and I didn't. The fact that I am the only person to air that viewpoint does not mean that I am wrong and you are right, only that we have taken different things from it. It's reasonably clear to me that people who think they know better than everybody else will often assume that a lot of other players are donkeys, when in fact if they had played the hand differently (by being more aggressive, for example) that person might not have been in a position to steal the pot on the river, for example. Therefore sometimes it is their play that can be the cause of the problem, and not always other people being donkeys, as they have assumedThere is indeed a subtext to that, but it still doesn't necessarily need to be implied that it is me attacking you, although I could arguably be gently poking fun at you. I have noticed in more than one of your threads that you quite often use the word "blog" in a situation where I would use the word "post". What I am implying by including that phrase twice is that:

1. I have noticed you using the word "blog" in a context that I would not use it (in the same way that I have noticed Munchrs spelling similarities as simularities more than once)
2. If you want to use it in that context you are free to do so, but
3. I will continue using what I consider to be a less ambiguous word, namely "post"
4. Although I wouldn't personally use it in that context I am interested to see whether it provokes any comment from other forum users, if somebody else found your use of the word "blog" in that context strange or amusing they would often react to me highlighting it twice in this manner. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I know better than you, language is constantly evolving, internet phraseology evolves even more rapidly than spoken language does, and "