Alan Goerhing

[Alan Goehring]

Wow, too much to comment on in this thread.

1. "Is it an effective strategy or just a method for exploiting weaker players?"

It is an effective strategy. The toughest field (100+) per capita in my opinion was the 2003 WPT $25k Championship, an event I won (runner up was Monte Carlo Millions 2005).

2. Quality of players in $10k vs $1k.

Easy answer, $10k tougher on average. Almost all people in $1k and $2k are locals. The $10k's comprise winners of live satellites, online satellites, and direct buy-ins (generally the best players nationally along with the better local players that didn't satellite in). All three sub-groups are better than the $1k and $2k players, on average. In exceptional circumstances a lower buy-in event can have a tougher field (e.g. WSOP $5k NL clearly tougher than WSOP $10k NL per capita, and the $5k Bellagio might be tougher than the $25k starting in 2006).

3. Unorthodox style & getting hated --- I certainly don't feel hated. There is a VERY SMALL group of players that think they are the best & are all knowing, and therefore it must be either "their way or the wrong way". I am certainly not going to criticize Dan Harrington because he plays different than me. As Howard Lederer pointed out, there can be different winning styles. I have noted on this forum that criticizing individual hands in a vacuum often leads to the wrong conclusion. I make more than my share of -EV plays by design for a VARIETY of reasons---- I would call myself an "ultra tricky" player, it doesn't mean I misplayed the hand. BTW, I don't care if people criticize my play (and it is perfectly OK if they think I am a terrible player), that is part of what discussion forums are about. I never said I was a great player or even a good player, I have only claimed that I have won money in the past.

4. My style being compared to Phil Hellmuth --- we have somewhat similar bet sizes, but that's about the only thing that is similar. We play very different hands from various positions, and play the hands quite differently after the flop. He puts a big emphasis on making great laydowns, I do not. Saying I play the same as Hellmuth makes me want to puke (no offense Phil), I would consider my game much more complex and myself a significantly better deep chip player. My style is closer to Carlos Mortensen or Daniel Negraneu.

5. Playing internet/live cash games --- simply not going to happen (Not trying to be a snob, just too much like "work", I would work on Wall Street if I wanted a job). BTW, I believe I would do quite well as I love to play at over 100x BB, and cash games are similar to the early stages of a $10k event. I think cash games require far more skill than smaller buy-in tourneys as well as the later stages of big buy-in events.

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.

7. On having experienced extreme positive variance --- thanks for making assumptions, only time will tell. I don't think anyone in the world can maintain on a sustainable basis the 800%+ return ($4.6mm gross winnings) I have experienced in $10k & up events. My goal, after having fun, is to maintain the same top 10%/5%/1% finish/(cash) rates on $10k+ events I have experienced to date (14/9/3 based on 46-48 "attempts"), (second goal is to win $1mm in a single event----over/under is the end of 2009).

The end!

[dumbndumb]

[ QUOTE ]

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alan,

While I am sure the answer to this may be complicated, do you think you could briefly given an indication of the types of quality the 1% of players need to make this style effective?

[cbloom]

Alan, I doubt your style would work as well in cash games, because a lot of your power comes from people being scared to put in their stack. I think there's a pretty easy counter to your min opens, which is just reraising you strong preflop with anything decent. Most tournament donks don't want to do this because they're committing a lot of their stack, but in cash games you can risk your stack and rebuy if necessary. Anyway, it would be fun to see, you should drop by a High Stakes Poker session some time!

[ QUOTE ]

4. My style being compared to Phil Hellmuth --- we have somewhat similar bet sizes, but that's about the only thing that is similar. ...


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, indeed. Phil seems to try to risk the minimum, probing at the pot to get people to define their hands, then only putting a lot of chips at risk when he's very sure he's way ahead. You on the other hand disguise your hand and try to catch people and you're perfectly willing to risk your whole stack if you think you have an edge. I think you float OOP with something like AQ because you know if you hit an A or Q they won't expect it and you'll risk a ton of chips there.

Seems like you have some of the "Gigabet" concepts at work, taking -EV risks in some hands to try to get a big stack, because your overall equity if you can get a big stack is better than just the chip count would indicate.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alan,

While I am sure the answer to this may be complicated, do you think you could briefly given an indication of the types of quality the 1% of players need to make this style effective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Gus you would need all the normal things (extremely smart, quick mind, great hand reading, etc.).

The two most difficult things would be,
1. Complete fearlessness plus more---not caring at all about the money (no matter how big the pot), while at the same time caring passionately about playing your best and winning is extremely difficult (after all, why care if no money is involved, isn't money the reason most people play?). I call it "controlled recklessness"---two contradictory qualities needed at the same time (most people are either too controlled or too reckless).

2. Natural Intangible --- can't be acquired. It is the way your mind works & how you think (partly it is having a "knack" for doing the right thing at the right time). Don't laugh, but being left handed would help.

Just my 2cents

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone in the world can maintain on a sustainable basis the 800%+ return ($4.6mm gross winnings) I have experienced in $10k & up events.

[/ QUOTE ]
gross winnings why the heck would use this? how about your net winnings? net of all buy-ins,travel,lodging etc.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone in the world can maintain on a sustainable basis the 800%+ return ($4.6mm gross winnings) I have experienced in $10k & up events.

[/ QUOTE ]
gross winnings why the heck would use this? how about your net winnings? net of all buy-ins,travel,lodging etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you are not a mathematician. If you divide $4.6mm by 8, it implies buy-ins under $575k. Since I was talking about variance and comparing future results in $10k+ events to the past, it was the 800%+ figure that was important.

Secondly, if you are analyzing how well you are "playing poker", you want to look solely at various win rates, travel expenses are irrelevant.

But since you bring it up, most of the $10k events I played were in Vegas, were I live. I would estimate my LIFETIME "incremental" travel expenses around $10k (e.g., I played WPT Paris twice as a prelude to a European vacation (otherwise I wouldn't have played), I visit/stay with family in NYC, close to Foxwoods/Borgata), or about $20k using irrelevant "full costing". I don't see myself dedicating more than 16-22 days per year playing poker on the road.

Frankly, providing you with my exact net win is very low on my priority list---lets just say I am ahead right now.

[Patrick Bateman]

[ QUOTE ]
[Don't laugh, but being left handed would help.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not laughing but please explain.

[two0crew]

I did silently..

[kurosh]

To be honest, he sounds like another person who has convinced themselves they can beat roulette with their amazing system and now he is trying to keep it secret. Is it possible that he has a lot of underlying super poker theory that makes it correct to minraise AA in EP and bet tiny the entire way? Sure, but it's much more likely he's another tournament donk riding the positive side of variance. Notice he doesn't play in cash games and I believe he said he has only played in around 50 tournaments.

[dumbndumb]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, he sounds like another person who has convinced themselves they can beat roulette with their amazing system and now he is trying to keep it secret. Is it possible that he has a lot of underlying super poker theory that makes it correct to minraise AA in EP and bet tiny the entire way? Sure, but it's much more likely he's another tournament donk riding the positive side of variance. Notice he doesn't play in cash games and I believe he said he has only played in around 50 tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first glance I can see how his post can seem like he is winning via a secret potion or something. However, I think it is more a matter that Alan is attributing his abilities more to "personality" (or an inherent aspect of his character) rather than something that can be taught. I don't think he is saying he has a supersystem, but is instead saying something along the lines of his winning is related to something inherent that he cannot explain. And while he has only played in 50 tourney's the fact that he has very good results. Variance doesn't make people win several major event (although it can boost one's results).