Ket-ledgend home games, Edzwoo degeneracy , kairos pwning my old FR games; part of me wishes I could be back in the action. I could turn this laptop onto the google turpike and be in pokerstars in 2 minutes.
But I've made promises.
I'm just an automation trainee now.
Some of the greatest scientific minds have attempted to unerstand personality tendancies, Frued thought that people were best grouped by the bodily oriface from which they dervied the greatest pleasure, Jung looked at the positon of the stars at birth, and Victorian maverick scientist John Galton looked at the shape of the skull.
Other scientist pursued different approach: to look at the words people use to describe others, and to find basic groupings from that. It began in the 1930s, by going through the unabridged dictionary, making a list of 18000 words. From amusing to abhorrent, benign to belligerent. The list was narrowed as best they could, later early computer analysis were applied, narrowing the list to 200 key words. Thousands of people were surveyed to rate themselves and others on sub-sets of these adjectives, and increasingly advanced statistical analysis was applied to the information. I the 1990's several independant large-scale studies, some in Chinese and Spanish, showed results, and found that they were identifying the same 5 core dimensions of personality. The Big Five
The groupings are commonly labelled 'Openness' 'Conscientiousness' 'Extroversion' 'Agreeableness' and 'Neuroticism' together they are the holy grail of personality profiling, easily remembered by O.C.E.A.N.
The attributes tend to remain unchanged over a persons life, and have been shown to influence consumer choice, performance in the work place, success in relationships and choice of hobbies.
But, what I am interested in is how it effects their decisions at the poker table. Aiming to get to that key of knowing what they are thinking, which will tell you how they will react if you do a certain action, like overbet bluff when their hand is likely a bluff catcher.
Factors In Terms of Poker
These are my guesses as to how this could be useful at the poker table. Your ideas would be most welcome, dear reader.
Openness- (inventive / curious vs. cautious / conservative). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.
I have a rich vocabulary.
I have a vivid imagination.
I have excellent ideas.
I spend time reflecting on things.
I am not interested in abstractions. (reversed)
I do not have a good imagination. (reversed)
I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed)
Identifying this factor in a player could tell us about and how straightforwardly they will play their hand. And how adaptable they will be if we put them in tough spots, or how much metagame will effect them. E.g. If they can't even imagine that someone could be 4bet bluffing them, then we might be able to get away with it several hands in a row.
Conscientiousness- (efficient / organized vs. easy-going / careless). A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. Inquisitiveness.
I am always prepared.
I am exacting in my work.
I get chores done right away.
I like order.
I pay attention to details.
I leave my belongings around. (reversed)
I make a mess of things. (reversed)
I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed)
I shirk my duties. (reversed)[30]
If we could identify a high level of conscientiousness in a player It could tell us if he will be likely to make big folds? or at least that he will be able to stick to a plan, if we can figure out the plan he has we can know how to play against him.
Low conscientiousness would lead them to not being careful, and I think would make them much more likely to call down to see the cards, because they don't care.
Extraversion- (outgoing / energetic vs. shy / withdrawn). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others.
I don't mind being the center of attention.
I feel comfortable around people.
I start conversations.
I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
I am quiet around strangers. (reversed)
I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed)
I don't talk a lot. (reversed)
I have little to say. (reversed)
This doesn't seem revelvant to how a person will play a hand of poker?
Agreeableness- (friendly / compassionate vs. competitive / outspoken). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
I am interested in people.
I feel others’ emotions.
I have a soft heart.
I make people feel at ease.
I sympathize with others’ feelings.
I take time out for others.
I am not interested in other people’s problems. (reversed)
I am not really interested in others. (reversed)
I feel little concern for others. (reversed)
I insult people. (reversed)
I like being isolated. (reversed)
This might influence how they play a hand: those with alot of agreeableness might be more like to be socially pressure, could be asked to check it down in chat for sick angle shooting?
Those who are on the competitive end might be ones to have ego issues, or get blinked by thinking they are 'right'.
Neuroticism- (sensitive / nervous vs. secure / confident). A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability. Emotional stability.
I am easily disturbed.
I change my mood a lot.
I get irritated easily.
I get stressed out easily.
I get upset easily.
I have frequent mood swings.
I often feel blue.
I worry about things.
I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed)
I seldom feel blue. (reversed)
Those with a high neuroticism score would be easily tiltable. Could make a special effort to make plays with implied tilt-odds. Or tilting comments.
Determining Someones' Types
The usual way is to take a personality test like this one: http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
but asking people 30 questions at the poker table might be a bit awkward. What you can do is observe them carefully, and after gathering a how they speak and act, run though the attributes O.C.E.A.N. and see if any stand out as high/low.
It may be that poker players are all fairly uniform personality type. At least the huge tilters probably go bust pretty quickly!
Anyway, This is just a brief overview and seed of ideas, if anyone wan't to discuss how this could be used, or why its totally inapplicable I'd be keen to hear it.
Next week, I might expand on this with a tendencies blog post of the categories I use when thinking about opponents
I intended to learn something things about playing the deep tables on PS from this vid: http://www.leggopoker.com/videos/training/724/stream/flv/
but turns out to have much more value for it's humor content and all round cockyness.
Quality bullshitting.
e.g.
he has , having flatted turn on river comes and villian check to jones
“At first I am cuuursing my horrrrible luck. Oh woe is me, this is the most unlucky situation any person has ever been in in their entire life, beating my chest crying like a little girl. But then..”
(analysis about villians range, things he doesn't have, and aejones percived range)
“So I did all the unbelievable mindwork in my head and figured out, pad ping pada pow hes going to fold. And behold the power of position is a great great power”
Stuff he does:
-using voice modulation
-play acting: taking a theme and running with it to the extreme – in this case like someone being upset
-physical theme: noises, actions.
-rythum noise words, like pad ping. Repeating words.
Oh yeah, Learned a little about playing deep I guess
-have to defend a lot wider
-open a little wider with bluffs because of antes
-have to play flops, play the board more than at 100bb
-keep the foot on the gas till they give you a reasons not to
Reasons Analysis
What is the most EV+ way to think at the poker table?
Running though a hand; instead of listing ranges on each street like in previous blog, listing specific reasons for acting on each street:
The decision to sit in the game should be weighted several times more heavily than any other decision. The Cardrunners motto: what's your edge? the thought about this is where the professional makes money.
This game is NL200 deep. reasons for playing:
-I have a good understanding of how to use position and suited cards deep
-I can read hands better than they can
-I'm not afraid to run big bluffs
-It's shorthanded with FR nits: they will be out of their comfort zone while I am in my speciality
-Want to challenge myself to work out some complex spots
-Pressure to play in any game cause of my goal
Going Further
Once we have reasons pinned down like this we can look at them and see if they are any good. Its time consuming, but picking one or 2 reasons to look at more in depth could lead to a new insights, or at least, a more concrete feel for the game. If I take the turn "should hit my percived range" then I can work out what that range is, something like [flushdraws: 9Tcc, AQcc, sets: JJ, 77, 22, airball: AKo, QThh, maybe a pair turned into a bluff, 55 ] and also look at what I know about him to confirm if he even thinks about ranges.
Of the reasons we list, we could also give them weight: say how important they are in terms of what made us make the decision. This has a couple of nice effects: it forces the brain to look at which reasons it is actually using, not allowing weak but pretty looking reasons to dominate the thought process. We can stick to core reasons like EV+, pot odds, hand ranges, balanced strategy.
Another way to go further is to try to extend this to guessing why HE is doing the action he is doing. Why did he 3bet pre. Why did he flat call on the flop. What was his dominant thought? This will be more complicated becasue there will be many possible actions that could be going on. he could be bluffing, or valuebetting, or protecting. unlike looking at our hand where we know what we are doing. We have to weight all the reasons that he could have and put them together into a best overall play for us - thus his reasons become a reason for us to do an action
Mental real estate
Some of these reasons for acting are terrible. And there are others that are even worse, such as
"He raised, DAMM IT. No one, anywhere, ever is an unlucky as me" - whining
"this guy won that last 2 pots off me and now he's going for it again? rghgghh fuck him" - revenge
Alot of them constitute mental clutter. Thoughts should be precious, afterall the quality of thinking is connected to how much money we win. so every time we let in a thought that isn't going to positively effect the EV of the play we are thinking about, we lose a little. It's a waste of good thought-space.
In a way we have to thought-police ourselves: there's only space for a certain number of types of reasons - and often even they have to folded into even more efficient framework, only to be unfolded when a complicated decision needs to me made. Point is, if thoughts about runbad, or revenge are entering your mind during a hand, they are killing your winrate.
Reasons
There is always reason for whatever you do. sometimes, the true reason for your action will elude even you, the person doing it. The turkey in the farmyard doesn't know why it scratches around, when it's being fed every day in a metal trough (at least until thanksgiving). To a turkey, its reason is something like *impression of dirt* *feel good to scratch*. In this day and age we would say 'the turkey is performing it's evolutionary food finding instinct'. (In another time the reason might have been said 'god makes the animals behave in mysterious ways').
We are Turkeys
We often don't know our reasons. and when we do talk about them, it's after the fact, and fabricated to whatever saves face. Backwards rationalizing. If the turkey could talk he would be indignant at the suggestion that he's just acting on bird instinct, and with his beak in the air, inform us that he scratches to keep his claws looking good. Backwards rationalization. We pick the reasons that suits us best after the event. Just look at any financial reporting to see this effect in action from turkeys-in-suits.
The Best Thing About Poker
To the poker player, reasons matter. Having a good thought process is connected to winning monies. It great training for thinking realistically - and feedback comes quickly; in as little as a few weeks of playing we can be fairly sure if a persons reasoning is effective.
I wanted to go thought a Hand History here, and instead of putting ranges for each street like I did in a previous blog post, I want to list reasons. Bullet point list of reasons why I bet. BUT, I don't really trust myself to not instinctively save face and cherry pick the reasons that look best in light of the result So I will make a short video and do it live, next blag.
Thoughts
What is the most used concept in the thought of a winning poker playing? Ranges – this concept gets used whenever a good player thinks about a hand. But trouble is, thinking in ranges is not intuitive to the human mind: When sitting at the tables, around the button clicking and metagame and goofy avatars, its easy to just make blanket statements “he bet the river, I guess he has a good hand”
or worse to put the enemy on a single hand “re-raised and cbet the 338 flop.. I put him on AK, call. He bet the turn... I think he has AK, call. He shoved the river, well I guess he has AK, I call"
I 'knew' he was bluffing
What about an approach of actively thinking about specific hands that they could have.
Doesn't have to be complete, just keeping a decent number of possible card combinations in mind at the same time: train the mind to deal with uncertainty, and not to fixate on one thing. Specific Uncertainty!
Even better is to know “how big” each combo of hands is: getting even more specific, and looking at the colour of the suits! This tells you how many cards there are for that hand.
Opposites day
Another thing that is very enlightening is to take the negative view: to look at some combos he can't have. Such as, a TAG player who flats the turn on a draw heavy board can't have the 2pair or set combos. The narrower his range can be made the more money your decisions will make.
Hard Wok Cafe
Practice away from the table: a high level of combo counting isn't usually possible in the heat of playing. By going through a few hands per day, physically writing out the combos to make it solid, we get used to thinking in this way, and can think in terms of a wider range of combos while at the table.
Blinds are now $1/$2
Button is at seat 2
Seat 1: AR - $297.38
Seat 2: mattspelman - $160.32___not playing fullstacked is a leading indicator of fishiness!
Moving Button to seat 1
AR posts small blind ($1)
mattspelman posts big blind ($2)
Shuffling Deck
Dealing Cards
Dealing to AR
AR raises to $6
mattspelman calls $6___________being a fish, he will have a wide calling range: and it can even include big pairs Dealing Flop
mattspelman bets $8___________his leading range will be fairly specific to him as a player. Leaving it wide for now:
AR raises to $32______________ [3A, 34, 3Qs,, 56,57s,95, A5,53s,, 98, 9T, 9J, 9K, 96s,, JJ, 88, 33,, 46, 47s, 68, K7d]
mattspelman calls $32__________that he called takes out some hands, like the -[95, 33, JJ] leave in 53 to leand some weight to the fishy slowplay possiblity Dealing Turn
mattspelman checks
AR bets $64
mattspelman calls $64______________[3A, 34,, 56,57s, A5,53s,, 98, 9T, 9J, 9K, 96s,, 88,, 46, 47s, 68, K7d] very little folds to this bet Dealing River
mattspelman checks_______________decidiing to valuebet or not, so try spliting is range into 2:
AR bets $195.38 (all-in)___________that which calls which is better, that which calls that is worse. that which folds just let drop away.
mattspelman calls $58.32 (all-in)____[ 56,57s,, 98, 9T, 9J, 96s,, 88,,]worse vs [3A, 34,, A5,53s,, 9K,, 46, 47s]better
Returning $137.06 to AR uncalled
AR shows
mattspelman shows
Gangster flow
We still need to keep our thoughts efficient. Too many combos and we will waste our timebank and block other possible EV+ thoughts. An extreme example is PLO: there are far too many combos to ever get specific here: we have to make groupings of combos. Yet some grouping systems are better than others: those that have specifically looked at the combinations that make up a range are more realistic, and hence lead to better decisions. As in Hold Them, we are going to have to group hands together somewhat at the table, but every bit of specificity can help us work out situations. E.g. if we have the Ace of the flush on the board, we can reduce a lot of combos out of their range. These situations don't come up every hand, but they are a legitimate way to improve edge. Doing combo counting drills can help shape your groupings to be more useful than just: nuts, bluff, medium.
Science suggests that telling people about your goals increases your chance of success.*
So:
In June I'll be on the grind. Shooting for a monetary goal:+ Show Spoiler +
$10k
Its concrete, and it incentivies me correctly: I must play Tip-top poker AND high volume to win this much in the month.
Variance is going to make it unachievable in some 30% of possible month-outcomes. So I expect to fail about 30% of the time just based on randomness. But its still the best type of goal I can imagine; for example, with a number-of-hands goal it's easy to autopilot and play pretty bad. Winrate over a certain sample goal is also apt to be abused. Are there any other kind of goals are there that are measurable; time dependant?
Anyway, obviously I'm wanting to sling mad volume and fat stack benjies, for this I need to whip up incredible focus: focus that will keep me keen to play, and focus that will keep me always thinking of how to make the most EV+ play.
I like to make concrete plans, and avoid anything with the wishy-washy weakness of “just trying harder” The plan for now: 1
Record in google calendar what I have done during the day. A kind of brief diary, this will be in the back of my mind when I am procrastinating by refresting LP and checking the ROFL thread for updates only to find another text post. If I waste half an hour pissing around, then I'm going to have to write that down: this does have a real damping effect on procrastiniation - I've done it before when studying. Also, by avoiding planning out my day in unreasonable detail, I avoid stressing myself when things don't go to plan, and I keep the power of freedom, which leads to efficiency.
It's easy to see if I have been keeping to this: a quick look through google calender will let me know if I am achieving laying this foundation subgoal. 2
Another key to my person getting as much cash out of the virtual felt as possible is an NLP concept: Frame control. This isn't some wishful thinking 'the secret' self-deception (thats been secentifically proven counter-effective). Its just means that I will be using whatever phrases on post-it notes, durrr challenge videos, aejones podcasts, neitzsche chapters, or nolan-blog-archive fire jams that will boost me up into that gritty prize-fighting state. When I sit down at the table, I want to be there to crush that specific guy sitting across from me, using all the information flowing from the table and the best concepts I have to maximise my winning.
An example frame is something like "I just bench pressed the world". I'll keep it flexible so it doesn't stale out on me. This is not a great subgoal because its not measurable, it's just something I will have to record how well I feel I am doing in G-calender: at least there will be a little specifying there. 3
Another prong is to have some social pressure to motivate me, and also to keep my ideas from flying off into la-la land. For the first week: posting articles, cardrunner-video-notes, concepts, session reviews and whatever else will improve my skill and schema. First week shapening the saw, then reduce to a post per week. Total ten posts over the month.
This is a specific subgoal, only trouble is that it's hard to pin down a measure for quality, number of words just leads to waffle. I guess something that takes about 3 minutes for the reader to get through.
OK, enough waffle. I Promise shorter and sweeter next time LP.
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle! I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. may your work be a battle! may your peace be a victory!"
* "Self-Reinfoircement effects: an artifact of social setting?" journal of applied behaviour analysis, vol 18, 1985
You are sitting at the virtual felt of HIGH STAKES online poker vs some nits. So, with duct tape over our hole cards, you bet into a pot of money to try to win it. If the bet is half of the pot size, then the % of the time it at least has to work is the bet/ bet+pot: 33% of the time for a half pot bet: that's gosu. If they fold half the time you're rolling in cash.
And if its not on the river, then will have equity to suckout with the half pot bluff, would mean it needs to work even less often, 9% equity often meaning he has to fold only something like 25% of the time to a pot size bet.
Exercising the math-mind; Yea a bit simplified for starters, some hands I played:
Villian is a tight reg
Dealing to AR
Gummzo folds
Jozef folds
jandro11 folds
AR raises to $16
0800CASH folds
RayBan23 folds
AlanPartidge calls $16
Shergarr007 calls $16
nikola3 folds *** Dealing Flop ***
Shergarr007 checks
AR bets $32____________________- This bluff is 32 into 48 = 32/(48+32) = 40% of pot. Each needs to fold about 60%
AlanPartidge calls $32____________of the time to make a direct profit, however I have some backup equity. At least 9%
Shergarr007 folds _______________of the money that goes in: 9% of 144 = $12 BUT if he raises my bet this doesn't play *** Dealing Turn ***
AR bets $75_____________________-I see that the pot is $144, I choose to bluff $75 into it. 75/(144+75)= 34% of the
AlanPartidge calls $75____________time has to get a fold. If I had bet $100 would have been 40%. $50, only 25% *** Dealing River ***
AR checks______________________-Now on the river: could I bluff here? Pot is $296. Jam would be $277, needs about
AlanPartidge checks______________48%. betting smaller could fold out nearly as much of his range though: a bet of
Taking Rake of $3 from pot 1_______$75 would need to work 20% of the time – if he is a nit at heart, this could be EV+
AR shows
AR has Two Pairs: Queens, 10s
AlanPartidge shows
AlanPartidge has Two Pairs: Aces, Queens
AlanPartidge wins $263 with: Two Pairs: Aces, Queens
Will think combos in another post, here just calibrating my feel for pot odds.
This hand has a raise in it, which is slightly different to calculate the % needed to fold.
Villian is a reg who doesn't like to give up. FastE is spewy.
Dealing to AR
FastEddieTwo calls $4
Jozef folds
jandro11 calls $4
AR raises to $20
Gangstreet folds
AlanPartidge folds
Shergarr007 folds
nikola3 folds
hengkalousai folds
FastEddieTwo calls $20
jandro11 calls $20 *** Dealing Flop ***
FastEddieTwo bets $32
jandro11 calls $32_______________-Pot is $124, I risk $128 so fold freq $128/($124+$128) = 51% if jandro
AR raises to $128________________shoves I lose $96 more than in the case I call, but the times that they call here
jandro11 calls $128______________(often w these types of player) my bluff will only need to work *** Dealing Turn ***_($128 - ($340*18%)) / ($124+$128) = 26% - still alot for a 3way pot
jandro11 checks
AR bets $791.40 (all-in)_________-Shoving it in here he needs to fold 47% of his range. Is this the case? Would have to
jandro11 calls $311 (all-in)_______look at his turn peeling range and his getting-it-in range. OESD, other flushdraws,
____________________________perhaps marginals pairs might peel-fold. A calc for another time.
So these were very quick and simple, but just to give a grasp of fold freq %'s needed for different bluff sizes.
Wrote an article. 10 points to whoever can guess what kind of drugs I am on!
In a foggy situation, it seems to me there are three guiding lights, each a different hue, they mix together and resonate to a spotlight that cuts through the fog where you shine it.
The first thought-lamp is about the past, its information gathering. A great wave, teeming with information-fish washes over us, that there is so much going on yet we understand so little, its passes quickly, qucik now! Grab instances of concepts!
Stack sizes and out position at the table, hey! these little fish will be useful, snatch them out of the wave, and stash them happily in your trousers. The action-up-to-now, small preflop rasie, a re-raise, flop check - whoa thats a big, easy fish, docily he goes into your shirt. take care to remember you have him there. That puffer fish! He looks bigger than he is but you need him. He is the players' tendancies, deflate him down to size, put him in your shirt. If he blows himself up again just deflate him again. There goes bet-sizing, he is good to have, a humble fish that serves well.
Crazy cloured fish, they are metagame and timing. Yes of course catch them, but don't take too much notice of their lively wriggling. They want to distract you from the big fish who will give you the most: that action-up-to-now fish in your shirt.
All of these really filter in the net to the 2: hand action, and tendancies, and they equal what he is representing, and that is a specific range of hands.
The kaedoscopic light that shows paths: creativity. Rasie call or fold. These are first and biggest branches of the tree. This thought wants to be in you, but it speaks softly, stop and listen.
Raise call or fold. Every branch is worthy of your looking along it... perhaps a golden treasure of EV glows out there on a higher branch?
Not all these branches are equal, fold is the last resort, it is a dead branch, it drops off the tree.
Raise is great. So much happens up the raise-branch. Branches of sizing, the smashing overbet, the impassive standard, the annoying mini-bet. Then spring more green shoots, chances to represent the tree-nuts, and win the hand. Every tree gives its everything for its nuts. So go up the branches where the nuts would most likely be. A call might lead to more nuts. It depends where you are on the tree. What am I representing?
The third is the light that binds, the seed of the star, I speak of the ONE GOAL. It is EV+ .
What good is your idle curiosity-goal, what good is your moments-pride goal. Don't let that super-lively fish metagame have much of your attention. Let all petty arrogances fall! Do not hold up the wrong light.
And who can forgive that you dull your star with your emotions? If it will not shine its brightest, then do not decend into the fog.
Stop, pause a moment. Blow on it, give it fuel, let this goal burn bright in your mind! POSITIVE MONETARY RETURNS. Give away nothing, let your star drive you. Though your sea of information gathering, through the kaliedoscope of branches, let only the best and most relevant resonate with this star! This one pluse! This focused beam builds and burns! EV+. ROI. POSITIVE NUMBERS.
That you must weigh and measure is the heaviest thing, but should you honestly evaluate it, should you realisitcly, specifically evaluate it, your one light will then: blaze. A Dazzling white light shall peirce the fog, and you will know where to step.
Then just summon the boldness to shove that hobgoblin blinking in your lightbeam
Three thoughts:
-Gather all the information fish that jump out of the table as the hand plays
-Starting from raise, call, fold; how can the branches of this hand play out.
-Pause; go over everything you just thought and filter it to a pure realisitc EV.
Boldly make that move
Contact Users: 1213 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 13:41
, having flatted turn on 
river comes 
and villian check to jones
So I will make a short video and do it live, next blag.
to AR
to AR
***
***
***
to AR
***
***_($128 - ($340*18%)) / ($124+$128) = 26% - still alot for a 3way pot
