Good blog post that got my thinking

[2Tone]

I was feeling all proud of cashing out another $100 from Party last night after a good 2/4 session, and then I read this ...



-- START QUOTE --

"The question "Am I a good poker player" seems, for the moment, to be superceded by the question "Am I a poker player, period?". Does playing tighter than lousy players make me a better player or just a tighter one? The skills that good poker players possess--discipline, patience, aggression, cleverness, and heart--can I claim any of those for myself, or do I simply have a higher negative score than the people I play with?

If you play poker seriously, you play to win money, and therefore the rational player prefers to play with people who stink opposed to people will skill. But playing the low-limits at Party, be the game Omaha or Hold'Em, at times I don't feel like I'm playing poker. I feel like I'm gambling--and I'm the House. Oh, you'll bad beat me here and there, but in the long run I'm going to get the money, because the odds are in my favor. Because I don't play Q-10 out of position in a raised pot, and you do, and in the end I'm gonna outkick you right in the balls.

If I don't have ambitions to be a great poker player, I do want to be a very good one. I just don't know how good you can get playing ABC poker night after night with people whose alphabet starts with Q and jumpcuts to Z."

-- END QUOTE--

As a self-proclaimed grinder, I should have no problem with any of this. But it did resonate. I play only ABC poker, because when I deviate from that, I make less money. But I haven't varied or incorporated any real new thinking into my play in a long time -- I haven't had to. And that's fine for the bankroll, but not for any of the other motivations for playing. Winning should never get old ... should it?

Thoughts?

[Aequitas58]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but are you asking: Will winning get old?

I think it's true for most of us that we play poker to win money. As long as we meet this objective, then we should remain satisfied w/ the game, and continue to play. But, I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that winning could possibly become boring.

Take me for example. I've been on a very hot streak for the last 3 weeks - maybe even the last month. I haven't seen a cold run of cards in one session... sure, a few minor lost pots, but nothing that wasn't made up at the end of the night. I can sit at the computer, play 4 NL tables, and completely multitask. Last night I was watching the Maverick DVD, posting on the forum, talking on the instant messenger, and playing 4 tables. Even still, I ended the night a winner.

You could say I have a system for play NL cash games. In that respect, playing poker ... even winning ... is sometimes just boring. Like you, I don't change things up too much.

Anyone else?

[eddo31]

i really like the casino analogy he uses here. it really seems to be the case in many of the low limit games that the other players are lucky when they beat you because you have such a significant edge.

i dont necessarily agree with him about hi sconclusions though. i know he may feel that his play has stagnated, or that it has never really gotten off the ground, but that is pretty muchirrelevant to me. do I win money? that is the only question that i really worry about.

of course, this isnt completely the case. when i win a huge pot with a suckout, i generally dont feel so good about my play, and i try to make changes accordingly. but maybe his is what makes me better than my opponents. i, along with most of the other players on this board, consciously think about my play and make efforts to improve it.

grinding away at low limits isnt exactly exciting, but that isnt he reason i play the game. i play to make money, and right now the low limits are the best place for me to do that. i dont want to let my game stagnate at all, but it would be much worse if my bankroll was stagnating instead.

[junYUN]

i definatly play like a robot when i play cash games, and that in itself makes you a better player. having the discipline to not play the crappy cards means in the long run you will be a winning player, and the guy playing QT out of position in a raised pot will not be.

[Gordogg]

Every player plays for different reasons. Most players play to make money. If that is your goal it shouldn't bother you that you are playing ABC, you are achieving your goal. If it bothers you that you aren't improving your overall poker skills when grinding it out with the fish (even though you are winning) then maybe you play poker for other reasons as well.

Some tournament players play soley for the challenge. Paul Phillips, Barry Greenstein, Ben Afleck etcc... the money doesn't necesarrily matter to them, they are rich bastards (heh). They play for brain stimulation and the feeling of satisfaction that comes along with beating any game you competivley play with another person. Especially if the competition is the best in the world. When they first started they enjoyed improving their skills and eventually became World Class players (I know Ben isn't there yet). The money is a nice bonus but not their motivation. They want to improve their game and win tourneys, become the best players they possibly can.

I personally play to make the most money possible. But I do enjoy reading about poker, thinking about poker, and improving my game as much as possible.
I think you can find a happy medium between the two by setting bankroll goals and when you reach that goal move up limits. Eventually you will be playing with better players and therefore will improve your game even more. And hopefully you improve enough at each level to make money too.

My two cents.
ChiefBigtoke

[Aequitas58]

ChiefBigToke like marijuana smoke?