Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodsky418
Hi Mason,
I understand his reasoning – I'm just curious at what level that same consciousness tends to sink in among low stakes grinders .
Thanks for your response and the link to your book!
Best,
Brodsky
Hi Brodsky;
I agree with your implication. Most low limit players don't understand how good variance is for the game, and some high limit players are probably deficient in this area. Obviously, Ivey does not have this issue.
There's also much discussion of this same idea in my book
Real Poker Psychology. Here's an excerpt from page 8:
Let’s look at an example. It’s no-limit hold ’em and you’ve flopped top two pair against your weak playing opponent’s bottom pair and somehow he calls your bet when you move all-in. Notice that this is a pretty good spot and your opponent’s chance of winning can be as low as 8 percent, approximately a 12-to-1 shot, depending on the exact cards that are out. However, 12-to-1 shots do come in, and when this happens it can be quite annoying.
But there’s another side to this. Suppose the 12-to-1 shot could never come in. That is, the probability of your weak playing opponent winning this hand is not in the 8 percent range but is actually zero. What does this mean?
Well, it’s my opinion that there wouldn’t be any poker games since it has now turned into a game like tennis where the weaker player virtually never wins. The fact that the expert does occasionally get drawn out on is the hook that keeps the games good. So what this means is that having the weak player win a few pots like this, and having some winning nights as well, is not only good for the game, but good for you.
Also, here's a link to the Amazon page:
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Poker-Ps...s%2C217&sr=8-1
In addition, I read every now and then that my book has little to nothing in it about poker psychology. Either these people have not read it or have no understanding what "real poker psychology" is about.
Best wishes,
Mason