Back in the saddle again
Well, I'm back to playing poker seriously for the first time since the Great Bankroll Implosion of December, and things are going well. By playing seriously, I don't mean that I have been able to return to the higher limits I used to play, or that I have made all that much money, but rather that I'm playing far more often and getting into the groove again. For the first time in several months, I feel like I'm back on top of the game, or at least on my way there.
I have only one person to thank for that -- Doyle Brunson. Buying Super System 2 was the best thing I've ever done for my game. It opened my eyes to see the game in a whole new light.
One thing I can see much more clearly now is my own evolution as a poker player. Or perhaps devolution. Before, I would have voiced that oft-heard refrain, "I'm playing just the same as I did when I was winning, but now it seems I can't win a hand," and the nagging conspiracy theories of online poker being rigged would been whispering a little more loudly in the back of my head. But one thing I remember reading in the past is that when a poor player is being beaten by a better player, the way he is being beaten is often invisible to him. It just looks like the better player is "lucky." I would expand on that thought, though, and say that when a player is beating himself, how he is beating himself is invisible to him. It just looks like he is "unlucky."
That expanded statement pretty much sums up my play over the last couple of months of 2004. I was beating myself, and I just didn't know how I was doing it. More than that, I didn't even know I was beating myself. But after reading SS2, it became so obvious I don't see how I missed it.
Here's what happened. Once upon a time, I fancied myself a pretty good player. Not great, mind you, but doing pretty well and consistently getting better, and I had the bankroll to prove it. But then came the inevitable slide, and I got rattled. I didn't know it at the time, but I began playing with scared money, and anybody who's played cards for very long can tell you that's the same thing as playing to lose. I got much more timid, and of course I got drawn out on much more often. But only takes us to mid-2004. As I worked on my game, I got tighter and tighter, until I was very nearly to the point of only playing Hellmuth's top 10 hands. That slowed the bleeding, but it didn't stop it. Then, sometime in the fall, I finally figured out my starting hand selection wasn't really the issue, but rather my aggressiveness. Even though I was very disciplined about what pots I would get involved with, I wasn't doing enough to keep others from drawing out. So I remained super-tight, but became super-aggressive with the hands I did play. That worked for awhile, but then came another slide, I got rattled again, and I was back to playing timid.
But along came SS2, and it hit me like a bolt of lightning. At first, its advice seemed like heresy: Don't just start playing more hands; be aggressive with them. Jam the pot with your 67s and pray that your opponent has aces. I had my doubts, but I didn't doubt that Doyle had made a lot more money that I've ever seen, so I gave it a shot. And, wonder of wonders, it worked. By being aggressive, I would take down a lot of small pots and outright win some larger ones. That money would add up to enough so that I could literally tackle some monster pots on a freeroll. Of course, there are also a lot of losing hands, and sometimes they're monsters, but they're not enough to push me into the losing column.
But far more valuable than the strategy imparted was the implied philosophy behind it: "Don't be afraid to lose." Huh? Don't be afraid to lose? Are you crazy? I want to win, so I have to play not to lose, right? But wait, if I'm so scared of losing that I'm the one being bullied, then I guess I am losing. Better to take some chances and either win big or go down shooting.
So now when I sit down at a table, I don't just do so with the hope of winning a little money. My goal is to completely take over the table and lay waste to it. I charge in like Attila and the freakin' Huns storming the city gates. Sure, sometimes I'm going to take some heavy hits and I'll have to pull back. Sometimes I'm going to get slaughtered. But so far, the times I've been successful have more than made up for the times I've failed. I'll just have to wait for the long run to see if it stays that way.
I could give a lot of examples of both the victories and defeats of the past few days, and some of each are quite entertaining. But this post has grown long enough. Maybe tomorrow I can hit some of the highlights.
I have only one person to thank for that -- Doyle Brunson. Buying Super System 2 was the best thing I've ever done for my game. It opened my eyes to see the game in a whole new light.
One thing I can see much more clearly now is my own evolution as a poker player. Or perhaps devolution. Before, I would have voiced that oft-heard refrain, "I'm playing just the same as I did when I was winning, but now it seems I can't win a hand," and the nagging conspiracy theories of online poker being rigged would been whispering a little more loudly in the back of my head. But one thing I remember reading in the past is that when a poor player is being beaten by a better player, the way he is being beaten is often invisible to him. It just looks like the better player is "lucky." I would expand on that thought, though, and say that when a player is beating himself, how he is beating himself is invisible to him. It just looks like he is "unlucky."
That expanded statement pretty much sums up my play over the last couple of months of 2004. I was beating myself, and I just didn't know how I was doing it. More than that, I didn't even know I was beating myself. But after reading SS2, it became so obvious I don't see how I missed it.
Here's what happened. Once upon a time, I fancied myself a pretty good player. Not great, mind you, but doing pretty well and consistently getting better, and I had the bankroll to prove it. But then came the inevitable slide, and I got rattled. I didn't know it at the time, but I began playing with scared money, and anybody who's played cards for very long can tell you that's the same thing as playing to lose. I got much more timid, and of course I got drawn out on much more often. But only takes us to mid-2004. As I worked on my game, I got tighter and tighter, until I was very nearly to the point of only playing Hellmuth's top 10 hands. That slowed the bleeding, but it didn't stop it. Then, sometime in the fall, I finally figured out my starting hand selection wasn't really the issue, but rather my aggressiveness. Even though I was very disciplined about what pots I would get involved with, I wasn't doing enough to keep others from drawing out. So I remained super-tight, but became super-aggressive with the hands I did play. That worked for awhile, but then came another slide, I got rattled again, and I was back to playing timid.
But along came SS2, and it hit me like a bolt of lightning. At first, its advice seemed like heresy: Don't just start playing more hands; be aggressive with them. Jam the pot with your 67s and pray that your opponent has aces. I had my doubts, but I didn't doubt that Doyle had made a lot more money that I've ever seen, so I gave it a shot. And, wonder of wonders, it worked. By being aggressive, I would take down a lot of small pots and outright win some larger ones. That money would add up to enough so that I could literally tackle some monster pots on a freeroll. Of course, there are also a lot of losing hands, and sometimes they're monsters, but they're not enough to push me into the losing column.
But far more valuable than the strategy imparted was the implied philosophy behind it: "Don't be afraid to lose." Huh? Don't be afraid to lose? Are you crazy? I want to win, so I have to play not to lose, right? But wait, if I'm so scared of losing that I'm the one being bullied, then I guess I am losing. Better to take some chances and either win big or go down shooting.
So now when I sit down at a table, I don't just do so with the hope of winning a little money. My goal is to completely take over the table and lay waste to it. I charge in like Attila and the freakin' Huns storming the city gates. Sure, sometimes I'm going to take some heavy hits and I'll have to pull back. Sometimes I'm going to get slaughtered. But so far, the times I've been successful have more than made up for the times I've failed. I'll just have to wait for the long run to see if it stays that way.
I could give a lot of examples of both the victories and defeats of the past few days, and some of each are quite entertaining. But this post has grown long enough. Maybe tomorrow I can hit some of the highlights.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home