The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)

[registrar]

I've refrained from involvement in this post, which I have enjoyed immensely, perhaps because I'm a little ashamed of the man-love thing I seem have going on for Nath, who is by far my favourite poster on this site.

But now I want to say two things.

Firstly, Nath, there's really no need to get itchy. Discourse with learned sceptics will temper the truth you are forging.

Secondly, the instinct thing is crucial. Posting on this site has helped me analyse my play and I play a lot better now against thinking players. However, I used to win a lot more money before I started posting here, though that could have been simply beginner's rush.

I am not in any way joking when I say that all of my seven tournie cashes over $2k have been under the influence of magic mushrooms. Sadly, it's months until Autumn and I have no more left. So now I'm trying to learn how to play poker.

Magic mushrooms can, under the right conditions, bestow superhuman powers of concentration and, dare I say it (well, Doyle did), extra-sensory perception.

The best part of my play is final table. My recollection of these final tables is hazy at best and, when subsequently considered, not a lot of the play makes a lot of sense. However, and I don't think this is just luck, it is amazingly effective. Random, overarching agression does turn even the best poker players into gibbering idiots when a lot of money is at stake.

So, I like the fact that Nath has taken the time to post this hand and generate this discussion and I am happy to at least consider the possibility that the correct application of a sequence of bizarre, -EV plays is, or can be, cumulatively +$EV and that, furthermore, study of the phenomena may yield a pattern, a fundamental law of poker, if you will.