Special Bug Pages

Showing posts with label poker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poker. Show all posts

Saturday, May 17, 2014

A Little Stress is a Good Thing

“Emotion is not the problem. It’s the key to mastering your game.”
– Jared Tendler, Poker Psychologist

Unless you’re brain dead or some kind of alien robot, playing poker for money will bring out emotions in you, both good and bad. Playing competitive poker causes stress.

And guess what? Neither of these things is necessarily bad for you or your play. In fact, a little stress and emotional arousal can be beneficial to your game and can give you a competitive edge… but only up to a point. Then things start to go south again. Let me explain.

Many uninformed poker pundits, arm-chair coaches, and so-called experts frequently say that you have to be emotionally dead at the tables. They write things like: “to win at poker you have learn to totally let go of caring,” and “don’t think about the money or how you’re doing—you have to learn to not give a crap.”

I used to buy into this notion, as do many amateur players and otherwise smart people that should know better. For instance, I was reading a well-regarded poker strategy book the other day and saw a quote by Katy Lederer, sister of the infamous poker scoundrels Howard Lederer and Annie Duke. In this otherwise solid book, Katy was quoted as saying:

“The cardinal sin in poker, worse than playing bad cards, worse even than figuring your odds incorrectly, is becoming emotionally involved.”

Sounds reasonable, right?

Bzzzzzzzzzt, wrong!

What Katy espouses is a common misunderstanding of the game by beginners. We (correctly) take the level-1 advice of learning to not focus on the results of a specific poker hand, and we expand it (incorrectly) to mean we should learn to completely divest ourselves emotionally during play. These two things are not the same. The former is good advice, the latter quite bad.

The simple truth is you need to care emotionally. You need to be a little stressed. You need to be aroused and focused and peaked. Or else you’re not playing optimally.

Sports psychologists have known about the relationship between stress and performance for years—over a century in fact. Way back in 1908, the researchers Robert Yerkes and John Dodson performed a series of experiments that resulted in something called, not surprisingly, the Yerkes-Dodson (YD) law.

The YD Law states that performance at a task increases with physiological and/or mental arousal. But depending upon the difficulty of the task, this performance increases only up to a point. When levels of arousal become too high, performance decreases. The process is often illustrated graphically as an inverted U- or bell-shaped curve which increases and then decreases with higher levels of emotional arousal. Here's a cartoon version of the YD Law to illustrate the relationship between arousal and performance:


Continued research in this field has found that different types of tasks require different levels of arousal for optimal performance. For example, simple tasks require a relatively large amount of arousal to achieve optimal performance, while more difficult or intellectually demanding tasks require a lower—but still finite—level of arousal (to facilitate concentration).

Playing competitive poker for money clearly falls into the latter category. Poker is complex and intellectually demanding. This means you need to be emotionally aroused when you play, you need to feel the stress of the game—but only up to a point. Too much stress or arousal can cause sensory overload, fatigue, fear, poor decisions, and so on. In other words: tilt.


Tendler really nails it when he writes that emotions aren’t our enemy at the felt—quite the opposite, in fact. 
Understanding--and using to our advantage--our emotions at the poker table are a fundamental key to mastering the game. And embracing the stress part of poker is part of this over-arching emotional puzzle that is poker.


A little stress does in fact go a long way.

All-in for now...
-Bug

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Zig When They Zag

After reading Snyder’s The Poker Tournament Formula 2, and then watching any number of Tournament Poker Edge videos or reading most conventional wisdom (CW) poker books, I have been left a confused. On the one hand, I a lot of what Snyder writes makes a whole lot of sense to me. On the other hand, his advice often runs counter to CW. Chief among these inconsistencies is how loose to play in the different stages of a tournament.

Snyder generally advocates loose play early in most types of MTTs. When other players are timid, you should attack. Build your chip stack and then wield the bully club. He (facetiously) states that he plays pocket pairs, suited connectors, unsuited connectors and gappers, and any other suited or unsuited cards, especially in LP in unopened pots.

In comparison, pretty much every TPE video, not to mention Moshman, Harrington, Gordon, et al advocate playing a tight-is-right approach in the early stages of an MTT, as you want to let others do battle while you observe them and build yourself a nitty image. If others are getting mixed up in pots when the blinds are low, stay out of the fray.

So who's right?

Well, I actually think both are. Chip Utility (CU) discussions aside, the key point is that you should always do the opposite of what your opponents are doing at the table. When they're tightening up, you should loosen up. When they're aggressive, you should be more passive. Zig when they zag, and the profits are more likely to come your way.

Now if I can just reconcile the whole idea of cEV and CU....

All-in for now...
-Bug

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Running Bad



“The cards do not know who you are, nor do they care.” -Anonymous

I’ve been on a long 4-week losing stretch. I’ve been through my database, I’ve run post-mortems, and I’ve double checked my stats. I’ve also looked at my EV plot and replayed dozens of hands… and the conclusion I draw is that the poker gods just don’t like me lately. I’m actually playing pretty good poker and making good decisions, but the cards have not been cooperating. Said another way: I’m running bad.  How bad? Think running with the bulls in Pamplona bad. That’s pretty close.

They say you can’t escape death or taxes in life, but I think a third item to add to that ignominious list is bad stretches of cards in poker. Everyone, if they play long enough, will encounter negative variance stretches that challenge one’s sanity. When I first learned poker at the knee of the Guru, I went 13+ months straight without a losing month (this was back in the Party Poker days, when winning was much easier than it is today). In a way, I think those thirteen months of easy profit actually did some harm to my game; i.e., it made the 14th month when I lost that much more difficult to accept. Winning was just part the game, right? What do you mean I’m losing-- even though I’m doing everything right? WTF is this so-called “bad run” thing? Poker isn’t very much fun, is it?

Every one of us has experienced long stretches in a cash game or a tourney when we can’t catch cards. While the other players around you seem to get dealt big pocket pairs every other hand, you’re catching seven-deuce after seven-deuce. This, folks, is actually very common, and it’s just a micro-type of running bad. What I’m currently going through is the macro version of a bad run. And if you play this game long enough, it will happen to you.

Getting through the pain and misery of a macro bad run is what separates the men from the boys in the game. After several weeks of misery, most players will begin to think they’re cursed, and will either burn through a lot of money trying to break the curse, or else will consider quitting the game entirely to end the suffering. Neither of these things is necessary.

First and foremost, you need to remember that bad runs, like bad beats, are part of the game. You’re not the only poker player who’s had a bad run. We all do. Even the Phils goes through it. When it’s your turn, use the experience to review and plug leaks in your game. Go through your data base and replay hands. Try to separate the part of poker you control (read: your decisions) with the parts you can’t (read: what cards you’re dealt, how your opponents play, and the outcome of any given hand).

Here are a few more things to consider (and, yes, I’m doing pretty much all of them right now):
  • Stick To One Game At A TimeIf your normal MO is to play multiple tables online at once, now is the time to restrict yourself to just a single table. Focusing on one game allows you the maximum time to make good decisions and play as perfectly as possible. One game allows you to practice correct starting hand selection, and then to implement REDi as fully as possible in those hands you see a flop on. Focus on making perfect decisions in a single game, rather than merely good decisions in multiple games.
  • Lower Your StakesThere’s no better time to take your stakes down a step (or two). This has the immediate effect of minimizing your losses. I pits you against weaker players, where you should have a significant edge. It also gives you a chance to play out your bad run at stakes less damaging to your bankroll (yes, this is unsound from a pure mathematical point of view, but psychologically it’s actually quite valid). You can always return to your original stakes when you get your groove back.
  • FocusRestrict playing only to periods where you’re enthusiastic and energized and ready to put 100% of your attention into the game. Playing when you’re not focused (or disillusioned) leads to bad play, which leads to losses, which in turn leads to you turning a normal bad run into an abnormal catastrophe. Don’t sit down to play when you’re brain just isn’t ready to concentrate.
  • Stop BluffingAnother way to say this is: Go back down in stakes and play ABC poker. Minimize bluffing when you’re on a bad run. Bet only for value. Put your money in the pot when you make strong hands, and don’t when you don’t. I’d suggest not even stealing as much as you normally do. Just wait for good cards and play them strong. Your EV won’t be maximized doing this, but you losses will be minimized.
  • Discipline, Discipline, DisciplineStay true to your game. Don’t start playing hands you normally wouldn’t. Stick to the basics. Variance grows larger and points more vertically downward the worse you play.
  • Take a BreakSometimes, the best thing you can do for your poker game is to give it a short break. The Guru used to mandate time-outs of 1-5 days to his students that were struggling or on bad runs. Use that time to watch some poker videos, or read a strategy book…. or, even better, just take a vacation to Europe (like I’m currently doing) and think about something other than poker. Trying to “play through” the bad run, taking beat after beat, can destroy even the most mentally strong among us. Don’t fight the current; just sit on the shore for a while and put things into perspective.
Remember, there is no set duration for a bad run. When negative variance hits it can strike for a day, a week, a month, several months or even years in extreme cases. Worse, variance is completely blind to whom it affects; it has no memory. The secret to dealing with a bad run is to start with acknowledging that it’s actually happening to you. And then take some steps to address. If you don’t, the bulls are going to stomp all over you and your bankroll.

All-in for now…
-Bug

Thursday, March 22, 2012

X-Ray Poker

A preflop question you face on every new deal in Hold'em is whether you continue in the hand or not. Then you have to answer this same question on the flop, the turn, and the river. So how do we decide whether we should continue or fold on each of these betting streets? Is there a systematic means of evaluating your situation and determining whether—and how—to play your hand?

The answer of course is Yes.  To understand how this process might work, let’s pretend for a minute that you have a poker superpower: X-ray vision. You can see what cards your opponent holds hidden in his or her hand. Imagine how easy poker would be with this ability!

For example, let’s pretend that you are dealt a pair of Kings in middle-late position. People start folding in EP, so you are preparing to open-raise when the action gets to you. Ah, but a fairly inexperienced player immediately to your right open-raises instead. When you peer at his hand with your X-ray vision, you see that he has been dealt two Aces. You then look to your left and see that your opponents all have bad cards and are going to fold.

Your Kings are dominated by the Aces, so you consider folding and moving on to the next hand. But you decide a better strategy might be to just call the villain’s bet, with the hope of you hitting a third King on the flop. There is approximately a one in eight chance of hitting a King (actually 7.5 to 1, or one out of every 8.5 times). This is obviously not a very big chance, but your opponent has a giant stack of chips in front of him, is inexperienced, and he likely will pay you off with most or all of them if you do hit a King.

Many beginning players fall in love with their big pairs like Aces, and if your set of Kings is disguised, he will probably think he still has the best hand after the flop, and will be willing to commit all of his chips. If you don’t hit your King on the flop, however, you can easily fold and move on. You will invest a relatively small amount of money before the flop with the hope of hitting your hand; if you don’t hit, you can fold. If you do hit, you can win a large amount.

Said another way, you know exactly where you stand in the hand relative to your opponent’s cards, and then you can make the perfect postflop decisions and actions based on this information.

Whether you realize it or not, what you’ve done in this hand can be broken down into four distinct steps, which are Read, Estimate, Decide, and Implement. In this specific hand, the first thing you did was “Read” your opponents’ hands (via your X-ray vision). You put the villain on your right on a pair of Aces, which he undoubtedly liked very much, and you put the other players left to act on weak hands that they were likely going to fold.

Second, you “Estimated” how strong your Kings were compared to the villain’s Aces (answer: not very strong preflop), how much money you have to invest in the hand to hit a King (answer: the amount that he raised, which is a modestly small amount compared to the stack sizes), how likely it is you’ll hit one of the two remaining Kings on the flop (answer: one out of every 8.5 times), and how much money you could win if you do (answer: the villain’s entire stack).

Third, you “Decided” on a speculative course of action that could potentially pay off big; i.e., you decided to  draw, or set mine in and effort to hit one of the two remaining Kings in the deck. You also decided to fold if you didn’t hit your set.

Fourth and finally, you “Implemented” this draw in a way that minimized your loss (if you didn’t hit a King) and maximized your potential profit (if you did hit your King). You also implemented it in a way that disguised your hand (the majority of people reraise with Kings). You did this by just calling your opponent’s raise preflop.

In other words, you Read, Estimated, Decided, and Implemented. These four steps—Read, Estimate, Decide, Implement—is how professional poker players are able to make such sound decisions at a poker table; they use techniques and thought processes like REDi to logically work through the best course of action for their current situation. This in turn maximizes their profit and minimizes losses.

All-in for now...
-Bug
PS. Obviously, this was an extreme (actually absurd) example. We don’t have X-ray vision, so making perfect reads is essentially impossible. We can, however, make educated assumptions and approximate reads on our opponent to narrow down their range of possible holdings, and this is usually sufficient as a "Read."  For instance, instead of Kings, we might have been dealt a hand like Eights. Further, we wouldn't have been able to put our opponent exactly on Aces, but we might have put him on a range like TT-AA, AQs, and AKo+. We would have then been able to carry out the other three steps (EDi) in essentially the same manner, and probably arrived at the same exact Implementation. REDi is how this is done.

Friday, March 2, 2012

The Quiz Question That Won't Die (Q #48)

Okay, once more into the breach. Here's the math that shows shoving all-in with AKo preflop against the two TAgs in Quiz Question #48 is negative EV.

First, let's look at TAg #1, who was the original opener in MP:
  • TAg #1 Original Raising Range= 15.20% (22+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+,Qjo) 
  • TAg #1's 4bet calling range= 0.90% (KK+) 
  • Probability that TAg #1's will call our shove= 5.9%  (this is just 4bet calling range divided by original opening range)
  • Therefore, probability that TAg #1 will fold to all-in shove= 94.1% (this is just 100% minus the probability that we get called)
Similarly, we can then make some assumptions and calculations about TAg #2:
  • TAg #2 Original ReRaising Range= 5.00% (99+,AQs+,Ako)
  • TAg #2's 4bet calling range= 0.90% (KK+) 
  • Therefore, probability that TAg #2's will call our shove= 18.0%
  • Therefore, probability that TAg #2 will fold to all-in shove= 82.0%
All of this means:
  • Probability that TAg #1 and TAg #2 will both fold = 77.1% (To calculate this, just multiply the two probabilities that the TAgs will fold together; in this case: 82% x 94.1%)
  • Therefore, probability that we get called by at least one TAg =  22.9% (Again, just 100% minus the number in the previous line)
And we know that:
  • Amount we're risking when shoving = $1,500
  • Amount we win if everyone folds = $195 (dead money in the pot right now)
  • Average amount we could win if our shove gets called by one player = $1,590 (this is the calling amount plus the average dead money left in pot)
Next, per pokerstove:
  • Equity of our AK against calling range of one opponent = 18.5%
Finally, we apply the basic EV calculation:
  • 77.1% of the time everyone folds and we win $195
  • 22.9% of the time we get called by at least one player:
    • 18.5% of the time when we get called by one player our AK wins and we win $1590
    • 81.5% of the time when we get called by one player, our AK is beat and we lose $1500
Therefore:
  • Our jamming expected value = negative $61.74
  • If both opponents call, our EV is even less than this amount
  • If I loosen up both of the opponents' calling ranges further to, say, AK+ and QQ+, our EV becomes even more negative (-$103.69) 
  • Jamming all-in is therefore a mathematically bad play
  • QED
All-in for now...
-Bug

Monday, February 20, 2012

Mixed Martial Arts and Poker

I was watching some mixed martial arts (MMA) the other day on television, and, like I frequently do, I found myself thinking of similarities between poker and what I was watching on the screen. Specifically, it occurred to me that the traditional "levels" of poker thought can be compared to the different echelons of MMA. Let me explain, starting with a recap of these so-called poker levels:

Poker is often described as a game that takes minutes to learn but a lifetime to master.  This is an accurate statement. Like any other complex skill-based activity, poker expertise is built upon layers that are individually learned and mastered. It’s like painting a picture: first to be learned and put on the canvas are the broad background strokes, then finer and finer details and layers are added until the entire picture is completely formed. When learning poker, we want to start with the big, broad strokes first. Once we’ve mastered those, we can move onto higher skill items and abilities in a logical, sequential order.

Traditionally, the ability or expertise of a poker player is described in terms of the “level” at which he or she thinks during a poker hand. In a sense, this level corresponds with the ability of a player to outsmart, out-think, and/or out-maneuver their opponents by staying a step ahead of them. This is precisely the reason why some people are able to consistently win at poker; they play at a higher level of thought than their opponents. It’s also the reason why so many people struggle at poker; they play at or below the levels of thought that their opponents are playing at.

So what exactly are these levels of thought? Traditionally, poker players are subdivided into five or more separate skill/ability categories. They are:
  • Level 0 – “I know what poker is”: An L0 player has a basic understanding of the mechanics of the game. This includes knowledge of the rules of poker, what the rank of hands are, and how an individual hand of poker is dealt and played. This is clearly the bare minimum required to sit down at a table and play, but you won’t be a winning player at this level unless your opponents are completely ignorant, or are perhaps drunk or otherwise distracted.
  • Level 1 – “I know what my cards are”: An L1 player knows what his own cards are and how strong they are in general terms. L1 players typically understand things like basic bet sizing, pot odds, draws, and so-called “ABC” poker, in which they bet strongly when they think their hand is strong, and fold when they don’t. Level-1 is where most amateur and recreational players operate (read: stagnate) in their abilities. Typically speaking, a solid L1 player can be a slight winning player at very small stakes, and possibly break even in higher stakes games. But more often than not, L1 players generally don’t make much money playing poker; they have the basic skill set to progress on, but they haven’t yet taken that next step up to L2 thinking.
  • Level 2 – “I know what cards my opponent has”: An L2 player not only understands his own card strength and situation, he’s able to deduce what cards his opponent is probably holding. More importantly, an L2 player understands how to exploit this knowledge. Skills needed to master this level include hand reading, understanding how to apply pressure to your opponent, bluffing, and pot control. To become a consistent, long-term winner at mid-stakes poker, this is the minimum level of skill you need to attain in your poker education.
  • Level 3 – “I know what cards my opponent thinks I have”: At this level of poker thought, the person is truly “playing the player.” He knows what range of cards his opponent has and he knows what range he himself is being put on by the opponent. The player can then counter and exploit this knowledge and force his opponent to make large, costly mistakes. Skills required to master this level include deception, adjustment, balance, and the ability to induce bluffs by our opponents. Because most of the regular, average winning players we face at mid-stakes games are operating on L2, professional players who want to earn a living at poker need to elevate to this L3 level of poker thought.
  • Level 4 – “ I know what my opponent thinks that I think they have”: At L4, poker becomes a much deeper, psychological game. Aspects known as meta-game, setting up plays, image, and tilt control become vitally important to winning. And so on....
There are obviously higher and higher levels that one can play at. Superstar players like Tom “durrrr” Dwan and Phil Ivey seem to have the ability to elevate to a level above their opponents almost regardless of how skilled or experienced those opponents are. For most of us, however, our opponents are (thankfully) just L1 or L2 players—and this is the first secret to understanding how to win at poker. You only need to deduce what level your opponent is playing, and then step up to one level higher then them. It makes no sense to play higher than that. For example, why would you play at L3 if your opponent is barely capable of understanding his own cards and situation (Level-1)? In fact, it can be counterproductive and lead to mistakes. Often players “out think” themselves, over-complicate the hand they’re playing, and often have all their fancy analysis backfire on them if they elevate to too high of a level. In other words, keep it as simple as possible...

...but this means that you do have to elevate your thinking to a level above your opponent. If you don't, you cannot win in the long term. Period. And this in turn means you need to work at your game. You have to push your own personal envelope of skills and abilities. You have to actively work to get better than your opponents. You have to actively work to out-think and out-"level" them. This means hard work that builds, layer-upon-layer, on all the work you've done previously...

...which brings us back to MMA. A few decades ago, in what feels like a previous life, I mastered a highly complex and effective form of karate known as Kenpo. The years of training I went through at that time followed a fairly rigorous and well-defined course of study that all practitioners had to abide by. All beginners, for example, started at the lowest level of "fighting." This white-belt level was essentially a primer in basic self defense, where the student learned how to protect their vital points, how to fall, how to block, and essentially how to keep from incurring serious injury. We also began working at the rudiments of core conditioning and flexibility, which would be necessary for progressing up to the next higher, more strenuous belt levels of instruction.

As the Kenpo student progressed with their training and began to earn more advanced belts, offensive techniques were introduced, such as how to strike and kick. Different attack and defense scenarios were studied and broken down into manageable pieces. Sparring was a key part of training. Advanced blocking techniques were added, as well as evasive maneuvers that were designed to redirect blows from your opponent, and set up counter-strikes. Katas, or rigorous long and short forms of sequenced karate moves were learned, demonstrated, improved, and mastered. The core conditioning and flexibility work continued, but we also added in specific targeted exercises to improve our strikes, hits, and kicks.

At the highest belt levels of Kenpo, we were basically taught a much deeper level of the sport. In a sense, we moved from traditional karate into the realm of "playing the player." We learned to use our opponent’s actions against themselves, getting inside our their heads, and thereby inducing mistakes that opened them up for attack and, ultimately, defeat. The goal throughout all this training was to become better prepared, more skilled, and more physically fit than the guy we were going to face in the ring-- or on the street. We did this by moving up in levels of skills and conditioning, step-by-step, belt-by-belt, adding to and building upon what we learned in the previous levels.

In a sense, learning poker is a lot like learning karate. At the lowest level of training, we’re focused on staying out of trouble. We learn our own hand strength and how to play ABC poker. We learn how to fold. We learn how to bet and raise. We learn how to observe. As we progress up through the thought levels and stakes, we add in how to attack and counter the attacks of our opponents. We learn how to play the player, open them up for attack and, ultimately, defeat.

And this is what poker is all about: out-thinking, out-leveling, and out-playing your opponents. Maybe we should call it black belt poker...

All-in for now...
-Bug