Posted by Dr Fro 8:47 AM
In one of Mike Caro's books (Fundamental Secrets, I believe), he starts out with the notion that:

"In the beginning, everything is even money."

In other words, if you are about to cross a street, and you have never crossed a street before, then you have absolutely no ability to assess the probability of being run over by a car. Absent any helpful information, you assess the risk at 50/50 - aka "even money." However, in time you gain experience and learn that the odds are less than even. You also learn that the odds are higher at rush hour than at midnight. By being observant, you learn more that you can apply to future street walking so that you can be more successful.

Mike Caro does not make many points regarding crossing the street, so as you have probably guessed - this relates to poker.

Absent any information to the contrary, you looking at an open ended straight would be even money. But you have done your homework, and you know that you have 8 outs out of 44. So you think you have an 18% or 4.5:1 chance of winning and so you don't want to play. But then you learn about pot odds and realize that the pot pays 4.6:1, so you decide to play. But at some point in your life, you will hit a straight and bet it only to learn that your opponent hit a flush (BOOM! Run over by a car!). So you don't have 8 outs after all. You have 6 or 6.3:1, which is not justified by pot odds. So you don't call. But, you remember that this guy bets with rags 1/2 the time, so you are actually getting pot odds when you incorporate your game theory knowledge of how his betting improves your odds to 3.2:1. Ok, you call.

It is an interesting way of viewing things. That is the reason I love Mike's writing - he sees things from a different angle. Well his point is simple and it is made, but there is a tangent (or perhaps an extention) to his point that I would like to make:

"Right now, there is something you don't know. There is information you will learn later in your career that will improve your game. Right now, your game is sub-optimal." If we improve with time based on lessons learned, then you should be able to work backwards to today to come to this conclusion.

It seems rhetorical an not insightful if you just read it without thought. But if you think about it, you probably spend a lot of time at the poker table assuming you are better than everyone else. You chalk up losses to bad cards. I have a 3 or 4 year head start on a lot of people playing "real" poker, and I can tell you that after about a year, I was certain that I knew it all. I know 10 times now what I knew then. I have learned from a variety of sources (including Mr Caro's excellent books) but there is one source in particular that is the biggest contributor: winners. I observe winners.

In Aberdeen and London, it was always the same guys at the clubs. The chairs were perfectly contoured to the shapes of their respective arses they spent so much time there. I noticed who won and who didn't. I began to emulate the winners and became one myself. Often, I imitated them not knowing why it was profitable, but just knowing that it was. In time, I would learn why raising from the button or slow playing into the maniac was profitable.

So there is something you still have to learn. And there is plenty I still have to learn. The day you look back over a year and can't name one lesson learned, you are either the best poker player in the world, or you have been a stubborn fool. I'll let you pick.

0 Comment(s):

Post a Comment