Saturday, January 10, 2004
Phil Ivey blog repost
"One of the healthiest ways to gamble is with a spade and a package of garden seeds."
Thanks to a link and cool poker thread at Metafilter, I received some serious traffic. It's been odd, writing this out into the BlogSpace, or perhaps only to myself. Getting my first serious inbound link was kinda cool.
I'm still killing the games at Party Poker. Night after night, I'm amazed at the terrible players.
To me, the poker student, it's fascinating that one of the online pro's I know in real-life (as in: 100% of his income comes from playing online poker) has NEVER read a poker book. To be fair, he was coached on starting hands and pot odds by an experienced player many years ago, but still...it's surprising to me. I'm not saying you can't be a successful poker player without reading poker books, but I can't help but wonder how much he would improve if he immersed himself in conceptual/strategic thinking ala Sklansky, Carson or Caro.
David Sklansky estimates that of those players who try without studying to become solid winners (making good money in middle limit games, for example), no more than one percent succeed. Of those who do study diligently, he believes about ten percent succeed. If we accept Sklansky's numbers, which seem reasonable, books make a big relative difference. Still, they clearly don't guarantee success, by any stretch.
I found this snippet by pro Ray Zee on said topic:
Many new players start getting into these games and some actually play quite well. You see, after studying the best books, you can become fairly accomplished with just a small amount of real experience. (At least a lot less experience than it use to take.) So those players that improve themselves move up and take advantage of their new skills and keep pace with the world. This group improves their win rate due to the new faces and wider choice of games. Those that stay stagnant and don't study, fall back in the pack and either go broke or just slow down their winning ways. The players trying to make a living in this group really need to work on keeping their game in top shape.
Ray also lamented that literature and books may have made the games more difficult for him. Well, before the World Poker Tour, anyway. :)
On that note, many losing (and loose players) don't realize that money you don't lose is exactly the same as money you win. Poker truism.
The most important book for me pertaining to Party Poker has been Gary Carson's "The Complete Book of Hold Em Poker." He writes much more for the loose, aggressive games that make up the pokerscape at Party Poker rather than Sklansky's writings on the tight games in Vegas. Carson tends to ask you to "think" about the game. He doesn't group starting hands and may help your thinking on how to play drawing hands.
from nl tourney
Dealer: Game #239387990: NutNoPair wins pot (5625) with a flush, Ace high
fivesn6s: u ****
Old Sklansky post above about Izmet and Mason. Oh the humanity.
Yet another message board post. I admit to being curious about what words are filtered. Excuse the coarseness . . .
Here are some issues I've noticed in the PartyPoker filter over the
last few days -
You can have a username of "bitchfoo" but you can't say "bitch" in
chat. So you can't refer to someone by name, instead you get XXXfoo
Yes, some people use "Jew" as an insult or slur. However this is the
proper name of one of the world's largest religions, and "Christian",
"Muslim", "Buddhist" are left unfiltered.
3) Words that aren't filtered
Cover your eyes if any of these are about to offend you
Chink, Spick, Jap, Honky, and Whore are all left untouched by the
filter. Since the filter seems to use partial-word matches, Jap should
definitely be left OK rather than filtered out.
4) Other inconsistencies
Penis? OK. Vagina or cock? No. Coochie or snatch? OK.
I'm sure there are others
I for one was very offended that Jew was filtered out. I have many
good friends that are Jewish and declaring their religion a swear word
Loose, low limit games are very beatable, unless the rake is proportionally astronomic. My live play experience and computer (Turbo) research show they can be very profitable.
As fish make a lot of mistakes, it is only logical that a good player must have the best of it. There is no doubt about it. The only issues are can he beat the rake, can he withstand the variance and can he pinpoint the correct strategy. I'll try to address them separately.
To look from the other perspective - I have stated elsewhere
in my post that I'd rather call two cold with a hand like 98s
than QJ. Do you feel I have to reconsider?
Yes you would rather call with 98s. My only point was in multiway pots where a hand like AQ needs to pair to win it should feel no particular need to knock out 87.
David Sklansky replying:
Once AQ gives up on winning without a pair it really doesn't want to get
others out, at least up to a point. And if it was all in, it definitely
should raise. On the other hand, with even semi rational opponents, that
raise for value doesn't gain too much and may be overshadowed by the fact
that keeping the pot smaller not only avoids drawouts by players less willing to accept lesser pot odds, but makes it more likely that you can get a raise in later to shorten the field. Again these concepts do not apply against
total live ones so you and Gary Carson are right there. On the other hand,
even in games like that, using these ideas will certainly make you a winning
Link of the Day:
Now That's a Waist Line
With dedication, a corset, and the appetite of a hummingbird, any woman can achieve an hourglass figure. "Sometime people come up to me and ask me about my corset and tiny waist," says Spook, a Tampa college student seeking the world's most two-dimensional midsection. "By far the most common question is, 'Doesn't that hurt?'"
All Content Copyright Iggy 2003-2007
Information on this site is intended for news and entertainment purposes only.
100% Signup Bonus at PokerStars.com up to $50