My God there are a lot of Bad Poker Players

November 07, 2005

They probably won't hear the message, and frequently choose to ignore it even if they do. Just play straightforward poker and assume you'll probably have to showdown the best hand to win. You'll beat these guys by winning more money with your good Fulltiltpoker hands and losing far less than they would on bad ones. It's boring poker, to be sure just keep your bag of tricks locked securely in the closet but you can contemplate your angst and ennui all the way to the bank.

If you ask yourself questions based on a paradigm acknowledging your locus of control, your mind automatically directs itself toward positive suggestions. Because you have told your mind that you do exercise control over your actions, it will suggest strategies to you based on this assumption. Learning will begin to take place implicitly, often without your even being aware that some degree of learning is taking place.

Because it's more difficult to beat two Fulltiltpoker opponents than just one, folding is a good option too. "I'm in a limit hold'em tournament with 20-minute rounds and blinds that double each round. We're five-handed at the final table, and I have the second highest stack, when I'm dealt Ah-Qh under the gun. I raise, and everyone but the small blind, who is the chip leader - though not by much - calls. The flop contains a Jack and two small hearts.

Katie Lederer

The truth of the matter is that most Fulltiltpoker players are average. Some are a little better, others a little worse. But the vast majority of poker players are right there in that great, gray middle ground. And you know what? When you are playing in a casino, where the pot is raked or time is charged to sit in the game, there's always a bit less money coming out than going in.

But players who have the ability to discern what kind of hand you're holding even if they don't have the advantage of seeing exposed cards will reduce your pot odds as long as they have the discipline to release their hand once they know they are beaten. Acting first doesn't help your implied odds either. Whenever you act first it's a guessing game of sorts. You never really know whether a wager will cause opponents to fold or if they'll play back at you by raising.

If you need a metric to guide you, the breakage point is usually two or three. Two or fewer Fulltiltpoker opponents and you stand a decent chance of winning even when big cards like A-K don't improve. Against three opponents or more, your chances will decrease progressively - from slim to none - based on the number of opponents contesting the pot. The more opponents, the less bluffing you can do. It's nearly impossible to bluff seven players, and foolish to even try.

Negranu - Done?

In a sense, a hand like top-pair in a low limit game is like a drawing hand of sorts - it's a strong drawing Fulltiltpoker hand, to be sure - but one that frequently needs to improve to provide some assurance that it's the best one. I thought I had the best hand all the way, and felt certain about it on the river, when I made the top two pair. Of course I was wrong, but that's to be expected when an opponent with best possible hand never raises, not even after all the cards are out.

Because you have told your mind that you do exercise control over your actions, it will suggest strategies to you based on this assumption. Learning will begin to take place implicitly, often without your even being aware that some degree of learning is taking place. Contrast this with the "Why can't I win?" question, where's there's nowhere for your mind to go, and nowhere to find a positive answer when you're operating on the assumption that you have no control over the results you achieve.