Quote:
Originally Posted by surplus
Same rationale as someone who sits down with blackjack or even slot machine, because the implied meaning of "theory of poker" is that it is +EV. So if something doesn't fit in +EV, you are essentially making marginal decision and is only walking out of casino because of positive variance. That's pretty much how slot players ever "win" money from casino.
If you are constantly ignoring positive EV approaches, you won't be one of the few people selling chips back to the casino.
Bottom line, you cannot go against theory of poker (assuming it means +EV approach to the game) and expect to win in the long run. -EV adjustment because of BR constraint, state of mind, or simply lack of understanding of certain spots are all going to eat into your WR. Don't get me wrong, you could be making bunch of -EV decisions and still walk away a winner because of all the +EV decisions you make as well.
Just remember, having leaks is normal, but the more you can avoid, the better you will become.
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, this was more of a rant than anything. By the way you write, I'm sure this is all common sense.
Last edited by spirit123; 03-27-2018 at 04:23 AM.