Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit123
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
As someone who's built several bankrolls over the years and have never lost it back playing poker, I would say while at the beginning stages of building/rebuilding a bankroll, taking a lower variance approach and booking wins helps build confidence. When the BR swells, a person can start getting real gutsy making moves left and right. But nothing wrong with folding in marginal spots, avoiding unnecessary stress that comes from cortisol/adrenaline/aggression and waiting for more "in-the-bag" 60/40, 70/30, or 80/20 spots. Some decisions might be slightly +EV according to the theory of poker, but can be -EV for life in general. It's taken me a long time to realize this and I'm still humbled by what I don't know.
I love studying correct theoretical poker. I also love reading players and playing on instinct. Live poker is different than online poker, which relies more on theory and math. I would never make it in online poker. But I crush 2/5 live like it's nobody's business and have done well at 5/10, 5/10/20 in my limited hours. I play crazy hands sometimes that seem so opposed to what the theory of poker says is correct. I limp and raise sometimes with garbage others would insta-muck. But b/c I'm perceived as the most dangerous player in my pool, I get away with a style that few others do at these stakes. 95%+ players just dont play back (especially in 2/5) unless they have the goods, and that makes what I have in my hand less relevant than it would for others.
There are many more intangibles in live poker. That's why many online players struggle live. They're in their heads. They're used to intellectualizing and rationalizing instead of looking into souls. I see it everyday. Grinders who are all theory and play tight and by the book. They might be small-medium winners, but they'll never crush. The real crushers are intimidating because they know how to build stacks. Building stacks becomes par for the course. They're relentless in their aggression. People fold to crushers because they know they're going to have to put in more money on later streets. These theoretical, mostly math-based grinders in these low stakes games don't really understand that poker is about creating an environment where people feel like gambling and being loose and giving action.
I agree with most of what you wrote. I will say that there is some sort of false illusion of "online" players, almost some sort of parallel to perception of nerds. There are many anti-social people that gravitate toward poker and most people seem to assume anti-social players as math-based good online players. After all, if they aren't playing poker to socialize and they don't vocalize their rationale for bad preflop card selection, then they must be online players. Also, I am sure it doesn't help that there are a lot of posts in this forum in which players claim to be "online" players that struggle with live games.
Good players are going to be good in most environments because part of being good is ability to adapt. Boredom on the other hand is a different story, but good online players usually adapt to boredom by playing the same way you are describing crushers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit123
The big winners are dominant personalities mostly. They take up space. Big winners make people play super passively against them. Big winners confuse the heck out of people and make people question every move they make against the winners. The winners rarely pay off, because people play their hands so face up against them. They know how to build pots, who's tilting, who's emotions are high, who's scared, who's antsy, who's ballsy (very few), what people's relationships are to each other.
There are so many times, when I'm in MP or LP where people behind me telegraph they are going to fold, especially when I'm in complete control of the table. I can raise almost as if I were on the BTN or CO. This isn't math. It's observation and recognizing human body language.
But it is math. You can assign confidence level of your read with percentage. If you are absolutely certain that player behind you is folding in HU situation because of body language, then you know your FE is 100%.
If body language tells you that V is scared, you can calculate FE needed through pot size and multiply it by x% to improve your bet sizing. It can be as simple as creating labels and assigning % based off those labels.
Yes, reading body language and understanding psychology is an art, but application of the read can easily be calculated using variables and some simple algebra. A good online player can have strong fundamental of pot odds, range analysis, and calculate equity on the fly, and then apply "live" variables as they see fit, almost like icing on the cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit123
Nothing wrong with being math-based, but it's not enough. Basic math is enough for the most part in low stakes. It's a people's game. It just takes thousands of hours of experience. What makes people donate large amounts of money to the crushers? It's not math. It's emotions.
I agree that math isn't enough to crush live poker game. I think where we differ is how much each of us weighs the importance of math.
There is more than one way to skin a cat and I wish the best for you.