I'm kind of a semi-professional/recreational player, always live. I'm never gonna be a pokersnowie machine so I need other strengths. Here is kind of what I consider my combinaiton of strengths: getting away from second best hands that so many players seem to just auto payoff, yet being the opposite of a fearful nit in a larger sense. When they see that laying down apparent good hands (even some shown), players often immediately presume it is an easily bluffable opponent. But I play way under my means, and just the opposite is true. In fact I'll gladly race for 500 or so out of boredom. So I often gladly pick off attempts to "run over the guy who lays down big hands." It works a little at 1/2 and even better at 2/5 and even better the few times I"ve played 5/10. Watching the players, it seems an unusual, unexpected combination. And therefore effective. Several times showing up at a session someone said to me some equivalent of, "You're the guy who laid down trips one hand then called me down with two sixes (or even king high) the next hand." And I just say, "Yeah, that's pretty much me." Makes me think they aren't used to dealing with it.

Playing random its easily doable since the very first hand you play poker. Not hard. At all.

See that's just what I"m talking about. If you aren't playing "mathematical," that doesn't mean you are playing random. They're telling you what they have ... about 80% of them in 1/2, considerably less in the higher limits admittedly. These situations where it is so obvious what's up - you fold a big hand and are right, you call with king high and are right - the mathematical player looks at it and thinks: that's completely based on nothing. He's sitting there doing that "Well if its 20% bluff and I call what is my EV if I do this a thousand times," which is the best move if you have no read on what THIS situation is. And, I think, according to their reaction to me, have no idea what your play is based on when it isn't what they use. I really think all that math is just a system for players with no other system to use to be successful at the game. When they saw me call with king high in the spot where king high was probably good (and was), no one would bluff me thinking, apparently, that I always call with king high ... instead of "this guy has a strong tendency to call with king high when king high is good and that's a problem." That's not math at work, and it's not indiscriminately haphazard. In this vein, I've seen math genius types write posts and articles that, had their psycholinguistic skill be anything above kindergarten/nursery school, would never have left such a naked confession in print as indisputable evidence of their deficit on this score. They simply cannot see it or appreciate it just like some don't see the math angle.

Admittedly mine is a counter-punching style employed to foil, so some degree, an overly mathematical strategy. As such attempts go, it ain't bad. It emphasizes psychology, body language, intuitive impressions and puzzle solving, and the opponents counting on him not doing what he's doing.

Math isn't a system for people with no system - it's the best system to help make decisions in a game of incomplete but probabilistic information.