Marketing
Some thoughts after friendly poker discussion..
I was at the Grand Casino at Sheraton yesterday. I didnt play. A picture to prove that I was at least there..
I just watched and mingled with whom I think are more experienced players then me, and I must say, it was a nice experience because I got to listen and participate in some rather interesting conversations about strategy, game fluctuations (not the ups and downs) and the approach. Thing is, I am ready to learn and I am not afraid of the information that I will receive in the course of my learning. I will talk to anybody about poker and I will honestly try and discuss with them the ideas and ways of playing a game. It seems to me that some of the people with whom I spoke are still putting an awful lot stress on mathematics in poker, which I agree, is important, but it is just the basics of poker play. I currently dont think that if you play your game robot like mathematically correct you will be a winning player. Or better, I believe that you can be a winning player, and you can be a winning player for a long time, but my question is: how much will your game improve, and do you think that you will be able to cope with the players at the higher limit games? My point being, you can know what your pot odds are, you can know how much to bet, call or raise in a lot of situations, you can also know what your famous implied odds, and you can be great at value betting, but still you have to know when to drop or not play AA at all. You have to know when to fold a flopped full house because someone has a stronger one, or when you are really beaten in all the reraises that happened on turn. I think that players who know how to throw away second best hand in dubious situations, especially when their opponent has them covered with his bet or raise, are the true overall winners. My idea in thinking this way is that this kind of player will save himself a great piece of his/hers stack by folding at the right moment, that they will be able to later "compensate" and be on the up at the end of the day. If I come up with a more understandable explanation of what I am thinking about when I write this explanation, I definitely will - because I really believe that there is something to it.
***
I spoke to Djonjara and Vanja until late at night about the game and we commented on some of the local players we know and the way they play tournaments and cash games. Local tournaments seem to be so called "crap shots" because of their setting and structure. You start off with relatively low amount of chips, blinds go up relatively quickly and people are willing to call 60-40 out of position and whatever not shots like they are 70-30 in their favor. Since there is normally a cash game after the tournament ends, or when there are tables open, most of the people from the tourney go and play cash. Thing is, they don't change their game - at all. That's what we commented on (Djonjara, Vanja and me).. how some players don't have the basic understanding of the game and play the cash game like it is just another tournament. Some of these players tend to be very loud, frequent-talkers that tend to think thay know everything about the game there is to know. They get upset if they dont win the pot, and they celebrate madly if they suck someone out. Although these players can be irritating, I dont want them to leave since they are always "contributing" in some way. Barry Greenstein calls them "Wannabes" in his book "Ace on the river". For them, every cash game is just another tournament buy-in and they act accordingly. That is probably because they have majority of their money from elsewhere (either parents or work they do) and they don't really (deep inside) care what will be with their poker in long term.
***
During the tournament I also spoke to Sasha and Martin (just names, and nicknames of the people from Zagreb poker scene which might mean something to you in the future), and since they are on a somewhat bigger bankroll and higher limit games than I am, it was definitely interesting to hear what they had to say. Basically, Sasha's approach is more theoretical than Martin's from what I could decipher, but it is also somewhat "tighter" and with less gambling like tendencies. Of course, I am not saying that Martin is a "loose" maniac who decides his moves on flip of a coin, of course not, but I want to say that although when listening to these guys talk you can say that they have similar views and playing strategies, some subtle differences and their manner of explanation shows that they are in the end two very different type of players. One interesting thing I heard them speaking about was about bluffing on the river with over the top all-in move on the possibly dangerous board for the opponent. They were stunned by the amount of times (we are talking a lot of hands for an average) they would be called with a hand overpair on such a dangerous board, and where they lost. They are also claiming that poker has become a lot tougher since there are no more Americans allowed to play - yes, there are "American friendly" sites, but Americans that play there are winning players because the US Legislation concerning online gambling prohibits any monetary transfers from or to online gambling sites meaning that the American players that are still playing at these sites are not making regular deposits, but rather win enough money or even break even that they don't have to, and still be able to play online for few months now after the legislation is imposed). So, the point is that online poker has become much much tougher than it was few months ago, and that strategy tendencies vary and change very quickly now because of the different influx and types of players prevailing at online poker rooms.
***
Enough for now..... go play some online poker at Full Tilt Poker with a bonus code: RB11
Post je objavljen 23.02.2007. u 18:55 sati.