Read this or do not read this, you will regret both.

STL FAN

STL FAN

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
115
Chips
0
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true. This quote by Kierkegaard is the situation in poker where my opponents judge my play. Why? Emotion, ego, and underestimation of another player. Playing the flake, the fish, and evaluation of a TPA, LPA, and TAG, LAG, UAG with a nitty image. All the books of the first two are especially fun because they say to punish limpers, or people that are too tight or loose and passive etc… The information and creativity from this is endless for any horrible style and image.

This leads to underestimating overall play. Reading books led to understanding all the information about why and how to exploit this type of player. So, countering this is actually easy because the straightforward move lets this player know who has read books and what they understand in situations from what is printed in poker books about the weak opponents. This player just has to be obvious with my play to chum the waters for this type of fish.

Social psychology has let this player understand to put my opponent in an avoidance-avoidance conflict. This happens when a person has two choices and either choice will have a negative result. For example, a person has to pay a big fine or face a prison sentence, but in real life they could avoid either situation by running. In poker for example, when my opponent has two choices; fold to one bet or payoff my hand and knowing this player will not re-raise or shove. Knowing they will only call because of the prior information about a specific individual. Either choice will have a negative result, fold to one bet and lose an uncontested pot or pay off the best hand.

After polarized play at the table and hopefully it was against one of the better players; image will let this player bluff in the same manner because the opponent (‘s) will now feel they could be getting trapped again with psychology tricking the brain into folding when they should be calling. This will lead to guessing by my opponents instead of playing properly.

This situation is one where the opponent is fooled and this goes back to the original quote from this post. Because of my prior play and the situation is set up by understanding psychology and the person whom this player is playing poker against with philosophy as the final ingredient. Knowing the situation before it presents itself against the opponent who thinks they are entitled to my chips because of how they label my image, style of play, and then it is polarized in their mind then backed up by what they are seeing at the table; then only to get played by what they perceive as the weakest player at the table. This is where ego and emotion will make their decisions moving forward from this and comparable situations.


This type of player (this covers the majority of poker players) will always over value and over play their hands against me because of the perception of what is a weak player by what they have read, and this transfers to what they think and see at the table. They are simple in thought because of underestimating an opponent and thinking, by putting an abnormal amount of chips in the middle will always be better than understanding the player and the situation. Action, have to give action to get action.


In conclusion, having detailed information that defines how they play their hands; for example, will they call with a hand they will not bet with or bet with a hand they will not call with; this is the root leak in which to exploit people’s universal play. This weak player is trying to get the opponent off their game by pissing them off by my approach and then needling them in the chat. Reverse image and reverse dynamics always gets the other people to play with emotion and ego.

Making concrete decisions against my style is proper in the minds of my opponent because they do not think about the abstract in situations when they feel confident or have a read on a particular opponent but since this player thinks abstractly being one and two steps ahead of my counterparts this will confuse them. A paradox of thinking is created, whether or not to exploit my style after being burned by the weakest player; a person, whom has trained themselves to exploit weakness but when presented with a comparable situation again do they resist the temptation? Just like the title of the post, whether they choose to play against my polarized image or not a player will regret both. Adversity from mistakes does not build character but reveals it instead.
 
gus201

gus201

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Total posts
216
Chips
0
WOW Great Post . You get all that from sitting at the table ? Must take forever to get to that point. Good Skill at the tables , Hope to see ya some time .
 
gus201

gus201

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Total posts
216
Chips
0
Nice post and a great read If you have any more or can write more I would love to read more. I also have a request too :) if you can can write up some posts with more direct info on post flop play and the check raise and reraise ? Thank you


Good Skill at the Tables
 
S

SamBush

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Total posts
94
Chips
0
Is this all your own material if so great work great post!
 
STL FAN

STL FAN

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
115
Chips
0
Is this all your own material if so great work great post!



Yes, for the reasons of my natural personality of being passive. Reading about passive tendencies and how people react to this information. Having played for five years and being passive without much knowledge of poker; this player had to have a complete tear down of my game and rebuild with proper information from two individuals that I trusted and they play loose aggressive. I went to the limit poker tables and observed what people valued as a starting hands and then how they played them because most hands went to the river. .02/.04 limit on merge is where I started when I could play there and before I left because Iron Duke went under I was playing 0.25/.50 limit.


Now that is just one part of what I went through. I had to visit aggression three different times to help adjust my game to fit my style. Learned what Lee Jones had to say about limit poker and expanded on his information but first had to get his information down cold before I could throw away the book and expand on his information to fit my style again. I had his starting hand chart down cold from each position; then I threw it away and basically played any two cards to see what information and reactions I could use about my opponents.


I used check-raises and as many tools that would show surprising aggression. What I wrote is five years of practice and the psychology and philosophy were added about three years ago after I was hitting a wall in my play.


The biggest tool is the read of my opponent pre-flop to the river. I have gained on putting a person on an exact hand pre-flop mostly in situations that were easy to read at first for example, AA because of how confident people are when they play this hand pre if they choose not to shove. Understanding bets for five years has helped. However, it is not an exact science because of the obvious reasons. All though, this tool remains the sharpest because my play is dependent on knowing what my opponent(s) holds for cards.


Only being five years in I believe this is still in the trial and error phase because there is more to learn through observation before I could actually say how profitable this style might be. I believe I do not have enough hands to say there is a theory that would suggest this is a good counter to my targeted opponent.


I am hoping before I graduate, I can produce a thesis paper on this style at the end of my education. Glad to have met you and thank you for the reply. Hope all is going well for you today. The pissing people off in chat is an extension of my roommate back in the mid 90's he was a master smack runner. If he was on your team you loved him, if you played against him you hated him. When I choose to start to play live, I hope to have my smack material down cold as well. But, after playing my approach would be to buy a beer and chat with my opponents. Because on the felt it is not personal it is just business. My drive to win is why I am doing this because I hate losing more than I love winning.
 
STL FAN

STL FAN

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Total posts
115
Chips
0
Here is the other side of the coin of where this style has its tipping points. First some background, believing having to evolve and trying to input new information I may never reach a point of saying I have enough credible information to support a strong thesis because of the evolving style and to say with 100% conviction this is where my play stopped and started because the time required to observe X amount hands for example, using progression and levels to explain how my game and learning progressed the information will not be that cut and dry in my opinion. My game is constantly moving forward so, my intentions is more in line of this player is trying to put himself into a situation for one big score or even if it takes finishing deep in X many tournaments (do not have a figure for this yet) rather than a career in poker. Invest then just play without having to produce winnings to support myself 100% maybe I can become good enough to partially support myself without having to work full time.

This is why the drive to win comment makes more sense because of my refined goals. I believe not stating this would leave the reader wondering over the long run of things this might not be a good idea to attempt this style that might or might not produce profits. However, surprise of the unexpected of not seeing the intended style that is still under construction. My intentions is to create a first time shock affect against people who would not know who I am live; for psychological purposes; after that skill would definitely will have to be better because it is relatable to a pitcher having the advantage the first time they face a batter that has not seen a specific pitcher before because of limited or not enough background about the pitcher. The second and third time through batters and poker players alike adjust some better than others. This is why the material for the chat is a helpful tool to go with my ever changing style. The chat should back up what ever happens at the table as my play tells the story and then chat to influence their thinking against me; this should allow my play and my chat to make sense at all times to fit my image at the table.


The weakness or leaks of my observations especially from the two loose aggressive player’s information; I know what to expect from the aggressive, loose aggressive opponents. However, the better players will adjust online. Identifying the better players and observing their play; even this far some has the ability to keep me in check rather easy; however, this is more situational rather than a situation repeating itself. That is fine for now because when I make it to more final tables and continue to use online poker as an ongoing exercise, I find this type of player will always be at most of them. This is where my disadvantage lies. They know how to put pressure on my type to put me in tough spots unexpectedly as well from the same observation; I feel this dynamic through the screen.


Aggression is now starting to be inserted into my game again because this will slow aggression down. Since I am mostly a post flop player working on timed pre-flop aggression and balancing bets against the blind levels for pot control to help balance my range against my opponents; because this is how this particular player will decipher my holdings through a range, and when out of position for taking back position against certain opponents; this timed aggression pre-flop especially at the final table will show another shock of my ability unexpectedly. The occasional use will let me take down pots pre-flop without having cards against people who are stepping out of line pre-flop. This should balance well with a passive image.


However, from the final table aggression I will now work backwards to fill in the spots in a MTT structure(I am building a deep blind level 15 minutes and up MTT style that works well in turbo sit-n-go's) with timed aggression from specific information. My aggressive opponents understand equilibrium pressure for buying blinds to increase their CSI. These types of player whom are excellent at this do not care what I am doing and they will step up and make plays from their reads just the same as I would. They sometimes make it hard on me as well. Because they are very good at playing against the tournament structure as well; this is why the adjustments are added. So, a person would see the problem I might have of coming up with the credible information for a paper that would have math or other data to support a strong paper because of the changing style of play. This is why time is not on my side and my goals adjusted because of my late start in poker that happened later in life.
 
piney

piney

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Total posts
90
Chips
0
------ Summary ------

So youre saying switch up playing techniques but remain just as aggressive the entire game?
 
piney

piney

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Total posts
90
Chips
0
Nice post and a great read If you have any more or can write more I would love to read more. I also have a request too :) if you can can write up some posts with more direct info on post flop play and the check raise and reraise ? Thank you


Good Skill at the Tables

I love good articles on game techniques too. If you have any good ones...
 
Top