|
Interview with F Paulsson
Hello, and welcome all to the first in what we hope will be an extensive series of Cardschat member interviews! I'm Chris, aka Dorkus Malorkus, and I'm here with Fredrik "F Paulsson" Paulsson. Hi Freddie!
For those among us who don't know you so well, why don't you start by telling us a little about yourself?
Quote:
|
I'm 28 years old, live in Linköping, Sweden and I work as a project manager at a major electronics production company. I live together in a three-bedroom apartment together with my fiancée, and we have two cats: Galileo and Ada. Oh, and I play the banjo. I'm not good with giving my own bio, but that's about as brief I can be without leaving out anything major, I guess.
|
We know about the banjo, we've seen your avatar! Funnily enough, I've had a question, well, more of a request from juiceeQ, she wonders if there's any chance of seeing a video of you playing the banjo?
Is that a yes, a no, or an "I'll think about it"?
Quote:
|
That's me wondering if there, by any chance, is already a small video on one of the network drives at work from the same party that my avatar picture was taken.
|
I think I speak for everyone when I say I hope and pray that there is!
Quote:
|
I'll look around, see what I can dig up. I can promise that much. Sadly, I'm on vacation right now so it'll be two weeks before I get the chance.. "Sadly," as you understand, is used in a very strange sense here. I'm in fact not sad at all to be on vacation.
|
For the heathens among us who don't read the blog, where are you at the moment?
Quote:
|
Well, I'm actually back home again. We landed Thursday night (I brought Lori with me to Beijing this time), so now I'm just enjoying the heat. Beijing is hotter than Linköping, but has the saving grace of having airconditioned hotel rooms.
|
Okay, moving away from holiday stories and on to the pressing subject of poker - it's common knowledge to anyone that has read your posts on cardschat that you're deeply 'into' the game. What initially got you into poker?
Quote:
|
Well, that question has a two-part answer, really. I started playing poker when I was about 16 or 17, because my friends were gambling maniacs, and I kinda got drawn into it with them. We played no-limit hold 'em - badly, very very badly - for sums that were way higher than we could really afford.
|
I think most of us have been there and done that!
Quote:
|
So we used to end up owing each other fairly large chunks of cash on a constant basis. As a 17 year old, you don't really have any income, so it could take a few weeks or even months before you could pay someone back. By then, you were either deeper in debt or you had managed to swing back and now they owed you money. What made me interested in the game itself was not so much the fact that it was fun - which it was - and that I liked gambling, but when I decided to pick up a real book on poker, Swedish "Pokerhandboken" ("The Poker Handbook"). Now, in retrospect with many more books read, it wasn't a great book but it was the only book on poker that was for sale at the time in Sweden. I realized how much more there was to the game than just trying to bluff and read my opponents. The math and logic lover inside of me fell for the beauty of the game, and I started taking it seriously in a way I hadn't before. I was still a terrible, terrible player though. That took a long time to change.
|
I suspect the fact that you'd actually bothered to read a book made you a less terrible player than your opponents at the time though?
Quote:
|
Well, it should have, at least. Of course, I thought it had made me ready to play in the WSOP, you know the sort of self esteem you get when you think you're the first person to learn something. Whether or not I actually took the advice in the book? Probably a few pieces here and there. I re-read it a few months back, and realized first of all that I had actually misunderstood a lot of the concepts, and secondly that there are many better books on the market today.
|
When you look back on those days now, does it make you cringe at all?
Quote:
|
I kinda do groan from time to time when I realize how little I knew back then. Funny thing is, I'm well aware that I'll feel the same way about today's Fredrik in a few years. "I can't believe I thought I knew how to play poker back then," that sort of thing. I'm sure it'll be there.
|
So you started off in poker as many of us have done, playing about with a few friends, not particularly having a clue about the game. At what point did you become more serious about the game and when did it become more than just 'a mess about with some friends', so to speak? Was it just reading the aforementioned book, or were there any other factors?
Quote:
|
Well, I deposited $100 into Paradise Poker a few years ago... Probably 4-5 years ago. I sat down at a table, thinking that I knew for sure how to beat it. I lost my initial investment pretty quickly and decided that I must've been really unlucky. So I surfed around a bit, and found some online articles about the game. I honestly don't remember who wrote it or which site I found it on, but the main theme of the article was how you're not half as good as you think you are. The author was right, of course. There are very few players who are half as good as they think they are. But the main theme of the article - that you can always learn more - got to me. Unfortunately, or how to look at it, I took a leave of absence from the game for a few years after that. Not entirely; I still played with friends once in awhile, but those times were rare and far between. There was nothing dramatic about the decision, it wasn't even a decision really. I just found other things to keep me busy. But then about a year ago, I decided to pick up poker again. I found myself with a lot of time on my hands in internet connected hotel rooms around the world, and so it seemed like a decent pastime. I deposited $50 into Poker Stars, looked around for some articles about poker on the net, and discovered just how big it had gotten while I was "away". It was about that time that I decided to give it more time. I had always liked the game, just never really had taken the step to take it seriously. $50 may not seem like a step to taking it seriously, but it's all you need really.
|
So you missed the initial online poker "explosion" that occured after Moneymaker winning the 2003 World Series of Poker (WSOP)?
Quote:
|
Yeah, definitely. We didn't get televised poker in Sweden at the time, so the whole Moneymaker thing was not something I had noticed. I had seen some ads in papers for poker sites, of course, but I was gone when the big boom happened. Now they're showing "Celebrity Poker Showdown" and whatnot, though. I don't generally watch poker on TV, though. I like watching the WSOP reruns on TV when I visit my in-laws (who live in Minnesota), because some of the hands can be intriguing, but overall, I don't enjoy it all that much.
|
So, you re-started in poker as many of us have done, with a humble $50 deposit. what game and limits were you playing to start with?
Quote:
|
I played limit hold 'em, probably $.10/$.20 or so. I actually lost the first $50, and had to redeposit. Very embarassing. But the next $50 has lasted me a year now.
|
You must really enjoy playing poker if you were willing to grind it out at .10/.20!
Quote:
|
Well, I did, and I do. I didn't see it as a grind, I saw it as a learning experience. I think that's a healthy way to look at it. And even at $.10/$.20, a bad beat is still infuriating! It gave me a chance to study the game more, playing limits where I wasn't in any financial peril, and this time I took the studying seriously.
|
It certainly seems like a good way to learn tilt control relatively inexpensively, for one thing.
Quote:
|
It's a good place to learn things like controlling tilt, yeah, as well as patience.
|
Where is your game 'at' now? What limits do you routinely play? Are you still more a limit holdem player, or have you tried venturing into no limit?
Quote:
|
After a year of working myself up, I play mostly around $3/$6, limit hold 'em shorthanded tables. I've taken the occasional shot at $5/$10 and even took a few hundred bucks to a $10/$20 table just to try it out, but those are exceptions not the rule. When 2+2 Publishing announced that they were releasing Sklansky and Miller's "No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practise," I decided that maybe it was time to try no-limit for a change. There are a couple of reasons for why I did that. One of them, ironically, was that I was travelling so much and had less time to play than before. I say ironically, since it was the travelling that got me started in the first place, but that's the truth. My business trips have become more and more work, and less and less beer and poker!
|
What is the world coming to?!
Quote:
|
I know, it's crazy. I'll bring it up with my boss; this cannot be allowed to continue! Another factor was that I was going through a fairly brutal downswing, and I felt that I needed to change track to get some perspective. I'm also mostly into poker for the intellectual challenge (more so than the money, anyway) and felt that no-limit could be fun to try to learn. A downswing, on a side-note, that I haven't had a chance to recover from yet. But it's just a matter of sucking it up and moving on.
|
The downswings at shorthanded limit must be quite a sobering experience?
Quote:
|
They are. The swings are crazy, and when the percentages aren't going your way you suffer for it. It's still one of the most profitable games I've found though, precisely for the same reason. The average win-rate is great, but the when the hammer hits you in the face, you hurt.
|
Have you ever tried your hand at anything beyond holdem cash games? Omaha or Stud? Tournaments? Do any of these appeal to you at all, or do you consider yourself strictly a holdem cash game player for the forseeable future?
Quote:
|
I've played a few sit-and-goes, and a very small sample of tournaments. I've also tried Omaha at some rare times, but to be honest, I'm probably going to stick with hold 'em cash games for the time being. I don't like tournaments that much because they require an investment of time that I'm not always prepared to make. I'm a fairly spontaneous person, so dedicating a whole evening, when there might be something more fun to do, is not something I do often.
|
Certainly in a cash game you can generally come and go as you please.
Quote:
|
Exactly. I can decide to leave at any point I like, for any reason I like. Including being hungry, or being invited to a party, or Lori telling me that a good movie just started on TV.
|
How about games aside from Hold 'em?
Quote:
|
Well, I'm mostly indifferent about Omaha and Stud. I play Hold 'em mostly out of habit, I suspect.
|
Many people see you as a very mathematical person, which is why I'm a little surprised you haven't ventured into Omaha...
Quote:
|
Yeah, I realize that. I think I'd enjoy Omaha, and I'm fairly sure I'd be able to get the hang of it. So far, though, I've stuck to Hold 'em. As I said though, this is more because of sheer habit than anything else. I may well make Omaha my next learning project. Would be a fun challenge.
|
I like to think i've covered quite many of the user-submitted questions about your poker career almost by accident, but there are a couple of questions i'd like to tag on before we move on, if that's okay?
Xandit asks "Has poker been beneficial to you in other aspects of your life?"
Quote:
|
Without being able to give any exact example of how or why, the answer is a definite "yes." I believe that everything you learn is helpful, even if you can't see the immediate use. And thinking logically about problems is a pretty good exercise for your brain. I mean, I read a lot of books on a lot of different topics. Learning about black holes may not be something I can make immediate use of in my line of work, but learning is never wasted. The same goes for poker, and the same goes for everything. I think it has specifically made me more aware of how not everything can go your way, though. That's a pretty important lesson in life to learn, and poker is a pretty brutal professor about that one.
|
So you're saying that poker is almost comparable to anger management therapy?
Quote:
|
Haha, yeah, I suppose. You have to learn to deal with the bad beats and the frustration, or you're going to let it consume you. Make the best of the situation, look back and see if you can learn something from what has happened, and move on. It's true for poker, and it's true for life.
|
Jesus Lederer asks something I should have maybe touched on earlier but haven't - how many hours a week do you spend playing poker on average currently?
Quote:
|
My weekly average this month has probably been about 3 hours. But I just got back from two weeks in China without playing a single hand, and I've been busy with a lot of other things. More generally, I think I squeeze in about 5-7 hours a week at the tables.
|
So you still have a lot of time for other things, then? Jesus has also asked about your hobbies outside of poker, what else do you enjoy spending time on?
Quote:
|
Well, in theory I play golf. I haven't hit a single shot this season though, but I'm planning on changing that next week. I also read a lot, and I hang out with friends, usually barbequing and drinking beer and listening to music. Sadly, work has consumed most of my time these last six months, so most hobbies have been forced to take a back seat. I go to the gym once or twice a week, too. That's something that I try to make time for regardless of how few hours I feel like I have left over. Staying in shape is a new deal for me, and one that I take pretty seriously. Last April, I decided I needed to drop the extra weight, so I took my eating habits more seriously, got a gym card and lost about 15 kgs (~35 pounds) in 8 months. I'm not planning on gaining it again.
|
Do you think staying in shape and working out helps your poker game?
Quote:
|
To some extent, probably. Is it +EV to make sit-ups? Well, compared to watching TV, perhaps. If you need to improve your win-rate, I'd say posting in the hand analysis forum will get you there faster, but health should always be taken seriously of course. If you feel better about yourself, everything will go better, poker tables included.
|
We briefly mentioned the WSOP earlier, and of course it's running at the moment. Several have asked if it's a long-term aim of yours to make it to the WSOP, or if you are not particularly bothered by it? beardyian in particular asks "How long before you win the WSOP?"
Quote:
|
I have no ambition to go to the WSOP, no. I mean, if someone would pay to send me there I'd go of course, but I haven't signed up for any of the qualifiers, because it doesn't interest me, really. As for me winning the WSOP, that's not likely to happen! My focus is on beating cash games right now, and to move up in limits eventually in both limit and no-limit hold 'em games. Tournaments are not a part of it at all at this time.
|
All the members expecting to see you plucking your banjo at the final table of the WSOP main event will be disappointed, though!
Quote:
|
Well, I vow to you that if I ever get to the WSOP Main Event final table, I'll bring my banjo and sing "Man of Constant Sorrow".
|
We'll hold you to that! Okay, i have a beast of a question here from Beriac, he asks "F Paulsson, people who've followed your blog know you as something of a limit specialist who is now making a foray [back] into no limit Texas holdem. As someone who has posted some thoughtful ideas about the difference between the two, which do you feel is: (a) the purer poker, (b) ultimately more lucrative, and (c) more fun?"
Quote:
|
Oh my. Well, there are so many answers to that question.
|
I think Beriac may be on some kind of secret mission to make your head explode...
Quote:
|
Haha. Could be, could be. He has Professor Chaos as his avatar, after all.
|
Perhaps we should tackle it one step at a time? Which do you enjoy more, limit or no limit, or is there no discernible difference?
Quote:
|
Well, limit hold 'em is more relaxed, for sure. I won't say that one style is more fun than the other, but there are differences in how they're played. Now, there are reasons why others may feel that no-limit is more "fun" or more "pure," and I think some of those reasons include the fact that you can make successful big bluffs in no-limit. For me, bluffing has never been something I enjoy in itself (I like dragging pots though) so the fact that I can make bolder and more daring bluffs at a no-limit table doesn't automatically make it more fun for me.
|
The fact people tend to call bluffs at low stakes no limit online makes it even less fun too, I'd imagine?
Quote:
|
True, heh. At this point in time, I feel more comfortable playing limit, which is hardly surprising. But it's also more challenging to play no-limit, which makes that more interesting. I don't know, to be honest. I think I like them both, just in different ways. As to which game is more pure poker, well... That wholly depends on one's definition of what "real" poker is.
|
The general consensus among poker players is that no limit is more lucrative, would you agree with this?
Quote:
|
Not for me right now, that much is for sure. But I can believe that for a skilled player, this would be the case.
|
Not for you purely because you haven't had as much practice playing no limit?
Quote:
|
Right. My no-limit game is still very much in its infancy; I have a lot to learn for sure. I have a lot to learn at limit as well, of course, but I'm farther along in my progression there. But for me, to just quickly return to the "pure poker" question - the game of poker is a matter of exploiting weaknesses in your opponents. A skilled no-limit player has a lot more weapons at his disposal to do this in no-limit than at limit, undoubtedly. Therefore, I'll agree that no-limit is a more intriguing form of the game. Learning all the subtle nuances of the game is more challenging than in limit, but that's not to say that limit is easy to master, of course. I'm afraid that's about as good of an answer as I can come up with.
|
|
28-07-2006, 7:00 PM
Similar Threads for: Interview with F Paulsson
PokerStars
Party Poker
Linear Mode
