My approach to the game is to simply figure out at any decision point what the best play is, and then do that. It sounds cliched, but when I watch other people play, they often don't do one of those two things.

Something I took from an old COTM by APD (I think it was APD) is that knowing the right play is not enough; you have to do it. I have made a lot of money by putting people in spots where the right play for them was to fold--and they acted like they knew they should fold--but they don't do it. All winning players are familiar with this.

Meanwhile, I can count on one hand the number of times I can remember where I said, "I think I need to fold here" but couldn't bring myself to do it. I don't know what it says that 4 out of those 5 times were against the same person.

I am not good at positive self-analysis, so I don't know if I'll give a good answer to the question of what gives me advantages over other players, but here are things that I have noticed in other players that I think not everyone does and that I have tried, hopefully successfully, to emulate.

1) Patience: This should always be number 1. I wait for my spots. Some people have a different idea of what "their spot" is (for example I once stacked off to a limp/reraise with A8o and was ahead preflop) but the best players I see are all good at waiting for what they believe to be "their spot".

2) Not being attached to a "style" of play: The first couple of years I played, I used to drive to the casino thinking to myself, "Today I will work on playing TAG" or "Today I will work on LAG play". THIS IS A HUGE LEAK. DON'T DO IT. Anytime you are determining your own style of play based on what you want, and not what is going to be the most efficient way of beating your opponents, you are hurting your game.

I see a lot of people on the forum who say things like "I raised this hand preflop because I was playing LAG," or, "I c-bet this hand because my style is to c-bet a lot." Every time I see that I think it is totally backwards. You shouldn't be raising a hand because you are playing LAG; you should be playing LAG because you found it to be profitable to raise that hand. Personally I don't care for the labels at all. I just do what I think is going to win me the most money every time and I let my opponents sort out what they think my "style" is. (And I take it as a compliment that my opponents' analysis of me is all over the place--some people have called me a nit, some have said I'm too aggressive and bluff too much; I just hope that means they're watching me adjust to different table conditions.)

3) Avoiding emotional attachment: This is kind of related to the last item, but there are a lot of regs I see who make certain plays, especially preflop, not because they believe it's best against the people they're playing, but because they "don't like" doing it any other way. One category of this is people who never limp in any pot they play. They'll always raise. A lot of these people (but not all of them) will also never fold to a 3bet after they have raised. Obviously this makes them prime targets for limp/reraises. But no matter how many times they see me do this, they will never adjust by limping behind when I limp in front of them! They just "hate" limping. Their "hate" blinds them sometimes.

Here's an example. Early this year I saw a hand where a reg raised to $20 UTG in a 2/5 game. Another reg 3bet him to $80 from MP. This second reg has a very narrow 3betting range. But the first reg called anyway.

The flop came QTT. They got it in on the river, and the first reg--who raise/called--had QTo. The second reg had QQ and took the pot with full house over full house.

After the hand, the first reg said, "Wow, what a cooler." I didn't say anything at the time, but this is not a cooler. You only think it is because you are incapable of recognizing that calling the 3bet is a terrible decision. The reason he never thought about this is because he "hates" folding to a reraise after he has raised.

Here's an example of a hand I played. I have already announced it's my last hand. I pick up QQ UTG, about $1k deep with most of the table. Instead of raising, I choose to limp/reraise. The guy 2 to my left raises, 3 people call, and I 3bet as planned, $115 on top of the original raise. All 4 people call my reraise. Then one of them calls my flop shove after we both flop overpairs, and my overpair is better. I win a monster pot and head to the cage with over $1k in profit.

A lot of people--both in my former game and on this forum--would look down their nose at me for limp/reraising instead of open-raising. They "hate" limp/reraising, for no other reason than their emotional attachment to the idea that open-raising is always better. But limp-reraising is what makes the most money in this spot. No one who open-raised would have won as much as I did on that hand. Not being open to the possibility that a certain play is what maximizes profit can hurt your winrate, and I never do that.

4) Getting in spots with bad players and staying out of spots with good players: I don't mean totally avoiding certain players. What I mean here is, there are certain players who are tricky, can mix up their play, but as a consequence can spew sometimes. My edge over them is not my ability to figure out their game and take pots from them. My edge over them, at least in my opinion, is my ability to avoid losing the pots that they lose, and to beat the fish out of more money than they usually do (by using bigger bet sizing in spots when the fish won't give up a second-best hand). It's simple, but it's worked for me.

Vernon,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question in great detail. Much appreciated and wish you the best of luck in the future.

^^^^ really love all 4 points, very solid.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Vernon, your last post was truly excellent.

One point I'd like to address: you mentioned that your advanced mathematical knowledge has no relation to your poker ability.

I think this notion is erroneous. With a PhD in Mathematics, you must have what many people would call a "mathematical mind." Of course, there is no objective, concrete definition of a mathematical mind. All it means is that you enjoy finding patterns, exploring 'interesting' numbers, performing calculations / executing formulas, etc.

Sure, poker math doesn't require any heavy math. HOWEVER, it still requires that one know WHICH calculations to do!

There are TONS of very intelligent people who play poker but have no idea about all the counting and calculating required to play the game for a potential profit. Even if they had some inkling about the math involved, many would still avoid using the math regularly. An analogy would be the act of using a calculator (or a calculator on one's phone) to calculate a 15% tip on a bill. Any intelligent person can perform this calculation in his or her head, yet we see people doing this sort of thing all the time. People are lazy; people hate math; people just want to gamble.

Your mathematical mind prevents you from going against "the right play." As you said, there's a difference between knowing what to do and doing it. Your mathematical mind gears you towards acting optimally, while someone who is stuck / tired / gambling / not in the mood to do math / a flop junkie / etc. will just do whatever feels good.

Based on this and other statements you've made, is it safe to assume that you don't have a great awareness of your table image?

I agree labels aren't as important as many think, but do you think "winning image" is something that has a bearing on how the game progresses?

Does knowing how each villain perceives us give weight to how we play at any given table vs. each opponent?

Is there an ideal image that your strive for at the tables?

There's a lot of stuff in here that bothers me both as a mathematician and as a poker player.

First, the mathematician parts. My original statement was that advanced mathematical knowledge does not help me play poker well. And that is true. While you are right that a lot of people don't know how much math goes into the game, my point was that if you took someone who knew all the math you learned in high school, sat them down, and told them about it, they'd be able to pick it up very quickly. They would not need any kind of advanced study--just the willingness to do simple math. Mathematical thinking does help, but mathematical knowledge does not. Those aren't the same thing. The knowledge part is what I went to grad school for, and that's the part that doesn't come in handy at the poker table.

Second, the poker player parts. Mathematical thinking can help me figure out what the right play is. It absolutely does not give me the discipline to make the right play after I figure it out. That is a "mental" aspect of the game that comes from somewhere else, not from mathematical skill.

Furthermore, mathematical thinking does not even always tell me what the right play is. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Here is an old example from when I was playing 1/2. I once saw a LAGfish play a hand against a buddy of mine where the LAG made it $15 on the button sitting $300 deep with my buddy, who limp/called. The flop came Axx with 2 hearts, and the LAG bet the flop. My buddy called. Turn came Q. My buddy checks, LAG fires big on the turn. He's clearly setting up a river shove. My buddy calls the turn bet. Then the river comes--it's not a 4th heart. My buddy checks, the LAG shoves, and my buddy calls with JT, a turned flush. The LAG had AK.

After this hand was over and my buddy got up from the table, the LAGfish proceeded to explain to the table why his play with AK was good. "He's going to call me with any ace and maybe some of his queens," was almost exactly what he said. So his analysis was that he was getting called by a range so wide that it included second pair.

If that analysis is correct, because of how many combos of top pair and second pair there are, his bet/bet/shove line is +EV, and you can do the math to back that up. But what makes this a fishy play is that his analysis was not correct--when my buddy calls the turn in that spot, AK is now a bluff. His one pair hands will fold the turn a lot.

There is no computation in the world that will tell you how wide my buddy's range is in that spot. The only way to figure that out is experience and perception, not mathematical computation. The range you are playing against is an input into the computations you have to do to get the right play--it is not a by-product of mathematical analysis.

I usually don't have great awareness of my table image. That is true.

Winning versus losing image I consider to be VERY important, because that is how the fish view me from night to night. It's very powerful, even with people who should know better.

Here's a story. On the surface it has nothing to do with poker, but it really gave me insight into this topic. I was playing a game of Risk with my then-girlfriend (now my ex) and a bunch of her friends. She won. After the game she was talking a little about her strategy and she said, "I wanted to avoid green because he was rolling really well." I stopped her and reminded her that that was just luck, and she said (paraphrasing), "You believe that if you want, but I'm going to avoid someone who's having good luck, until they cool off."

My ex is really smart! But even she is not immune to the power of a winning image.

Now, as for the bolded, ideally you'd hope the answer would be yes. But one of the things I picked up in my experience is that it is SO HARD to find spots to adapt my play for one specific opponent. Why? Because so many pots are multiway. It's hard to try to exploit one person when you could be exposing yourself to someone else. Example: a lot of times I'll find myself in spots where I'm thinking, "If this were heads-up, I'd float here, but with these guys still to act, I really can't do anything but fold." I've learned from experience not to try to float in those spots because then some people will call behind me and I'll have to worry that they have what I want to represent. Or another time I semi-bluff with a flush draw and someone shoves cold with a set behind me (I was priced into calling, and lost). Being multiway forces you to play more "honestly" most of the time.

Like I said before, I don't strive for any particular image at the table. I have found that trying to achieve an image usually takes me off my game too much. I just do what I think is best in any spot and I let what happens happen.

Think I know who you are bruh

But won't out you

Always reading your posts carefully Vernon, from the first moment i got the impression that you know what you are doing. I have to questions:

If you should point out one spesific aspect of the game that a somewhat tight/nitty player should work on , what would that be?

What do you personally think is the biggest/most common leak that live low stakes players have?

PM me? I'll confirm or deny via PM.

Clearly the most common leak is calling too much. Usually calling when they should fold, but sometimes calling when they should raise. To say anything else is overthinking the question. Asking how and why they call too much is a different issue, though, and it's one that depends very much on where and who you're playing.

As for your other question, I reject the underlying premise that a nitty player is necessarily bad and needs to "work on" something. (If you are thinking of weak-tight, that is not the same as being a nit.) I will defer to one of my top two all-time favorite posters on 2+2:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...33/index2.html

Forget the rest of the thread and only read the posts by Princess Azula.

Thanks for your answer, and i will certainly read the thread you put up for me. Have red some of Princess Azula before and much of it is pure gold.

As for the tight/nitty player i agree with you that a player with that style not have to be bad or needs to work on something. Reason i brought up this question is due to my own game not the adress or talk down other players with that style of play.

Sometimes i can feel that i play too tight or too nitty/face up, especially when faced with good aggressive LAGs who are good at manipulating their own range. But i mean, i could be wrong and just being to hard on myself.

Because i am a winner in the game, and only at my second year now playing live cash on a somewhat regularly basis.

Wow, absolute gold from Princess Azula there- and when i am reading his opinions and what he would tell his students about 1/2 live i am certainly to hard on myself.

If that is what your question is about, then here is what I'd say.

Think in advance about specific spots where the LAG puts you in a situation you don't want to be in. Then plan ahead in the hand--figure out why this is a tough spot for you, and change your play (against them specifically) so that this can't happen.

I got a lot of practice doing this in Vancouver because there were a lot of LAGs at 2/5. But the more experience I got playing against them, and planning out hands against them this way, the more I realized most of them weren't that good. They were just loose and aggressive instead of loose and passive. There were only a handful of players in the game I had a lot of respect for (many more that I had some amount of respect for, and then of course there were the total donators). And only one or two of the ones who I thought were the best, I'd consider LAGs. We fetishize LAGs on this forum sometimes, but that is not the only way to play well.

Yeah, for sure. Many players are just loose, and play way to many hands. But related to my thoughts is mainly two regulars in a homegame i usually attend, wich are skilled LAGs. When i wrote good to manipulating their range i mean that they have the same type/category of skillset that Tom Dwan have: He can show up with anything at any time, and put huge amount of pressure of his opponents with big bets, forcing players to make critical difficult decisions for their whole stack when he feel they are on a mediocre hand.

Particularly one LAG i play with regurarly has this skillset.And just when a player is had enough and calling him down with QQ on lets say 10-4-3-5-5 board he tables 67 for the straight or trip fives and felts they guy. Its just often almost impossible to put him on hands, and that scares me a little bit i have to admit. On the other side,this villain has told hero several times that he often loses money to me, because i play a strong range against him and uses his aggression against him. So maybe he respect me for my nit/tight play more than i think

Especially when playing deep (wich often happens as the stacks grow during the night), and i am finding it difficult to figure out what hands to go with against him and figure out when he is bluffing or not.Villain is capable of firing big bets with all sort of hands, its not like he is polarized to only air or monsters with huge riverbets. He also knows me well enough that i dont like high variance play, and usually avoid playing big pots when playing 300 BB or more- and he is good enough to exploit that really well.

Hope i didnt hijacked your thread with this topic Vernon, that is not my intention.I really appreciate that you gave me couple of tips how to handle this type of villains in a more constructive way.

I don't see the posts by Princess Azula.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/se...5&pp=25&page=2