Step into the tee box

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a reall great post, and a well thought out analogy. I only disagree with one thing.

[ QUOTE ]
You don’t want to be a $5, $10, $200 player forever. You don’t want to be just a tournament player forever. You don’t just want to understand NL holdem forever. You want to be the best at everything. That should be your goal, at least

[/ QUOTE ]

People play poker for all sorts of reasons. Some people just want to be winners at the 5 dollar level, and have no desire to move up and I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Obviously he is aiming his post at those for whom that statement is true. I know that this is my approach (and many people's here). There are people who just want some extra pocket change at low risk and want to beat up on the low limit games. Or people who just want to screw around and break even. For me, the money and fun of playing is nice, but poker is much more an outlet for competitive drive. For anyone who puts a high value on learning to beat the game as a pure goal, this is a very good post.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

[ QUOTE ]
People play poker for all sorts of reasons. Some people just want to be winners at the 5 dollar level, and have no desire to move up and I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I'm ok with this, it's just not the way I think.

[nfpceo]

Very good post...I got a lot out of it. Thanks.

[El Diablo]

By no means am I telling people to stop talking about adjusting to poor players. I’m just telling you to open up your damn eyes to the bigger picture. It’s gotten to the point now where when I play any online tournament (with a few exceptions) the competition is just terrible compared to my usual 10-20 NL game. It is not hard transitioning down this ladder. When people say that tournament players are good at exploiting bad players, they are right. But give me a break, I’d take any top overall poker player over any ‘tourney expert’ in a tourney. For those WPT freaks out there, I’d put my money on a Chau Giang, Eli Erezra, Chip Reese, etc. type player over anyone you’re seeing on TV. The skill of beating bad players that tournament experts have is common sense for anyone good at poker.

A long time ago I mentioned to Strassa that imo the best way to become a better NL tourney player is to become an excellent NL cash game player. I have yet to find a solid cash game player who does not find tourneys to be relatively easy and post good tourney results.

Overall, excellent post, Jason.

Edited to add: See JV's recent tourney performance results for example of how excellent poker players fare against "tourney specialists."

[Cactus Jack]

Jason, great post, and I thank you very much.

May I ask you a couple of questions to follow up?

In the latest issue of Card Player, Matt Matros wrote a column about poker strategists and game theorists. I'm paraphrasing here, but what I got out of it was strategists ae thinking how can I best play this hand, while game theorists are thinking how can I play the best poker. Is this sort of what you're also saying?

My purpose at this point is to learn to play the best poker I can play. While I like to win, and of course the money is nice, but my goal is to be the best I can be. If I lose a hand or tournament when I'm playing the best poker I can, I'm not as concerned as I would be if I were trying to win this particular hand or tournament. As my bankroll--and experience and emotional level--only allows me to play at the lower limits, I don't think in terms of beating these guys, but beating poker players. Is this wrong?

I started online playing a year ago at Party's play money tables. I spent an entire month doing it. I felt I was learning the basics of the game for free. I still think that an "expert" player can beat the play money tables, regardless of the play of the players. My sig line on BTP--my home forum--is Greg Raymer's line, "Play the situation not the hand." Am I wrong in thinking that the best players can win playing the best poker at any stakes?

I have never wanted to go down the trail of learning pushbotting solely to beat the SNGs at Party, because I have always felt that to do so would retard my growth as a complete player. (Not that there is anything wrong with those who do, as there are always horses for courses. I just choose not to stress this part of my poker education over other parts.) Is this kind of specialization also a danger much like you speak of when you talk about learning to beat the $5 MTTs by focusing on how to specifically beat them?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm always checking to make sure my thinking is correct, my understand is clear, and I'm on the right road to my goal.

Thanks,

CJ

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]

By no means am I telling people to stop talking about adjusting to poor players. I’m just telling you to open up your damn eyes to the bigger picture. It’s gotten to the point now where when I play any online tournament (with a few exceptions) the competition is just terrible compared to my usual 10-20 NL game. It is not hard transitioning down this ladder. When people say that tournament players are good at exploiting bad players, they are right. But give me a break, I’d take any top overall poker player over any ‘tourney expert’ in a tourney. For those WPT freaks out there, I’d put my money on a Chau Giang, Eli Erezra, Chip Reese, etc. type player over anyone you’re seeing on TV. The skill of beating bad players that tournament experts have is common sense for anyone good at poker.

A long time ago I mentioned to Strassa that imo the best way to become a better NL tourney player is to become an excellent NL cash game player. I have yet to find a solid cash game player who does not find tourneys to be relatively easy and post good tourney results.

Overall, excellent post, Jason.

Edited to add: See JV's recent tourney performance results for example of how excellent poker players fare against "tourney specialists."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that anyone who is a great winning cash game player will almost automatically be a good tournament player. Their results won't seem as good because in general they will enter less tournaments (and thus be seen in the spotlight less often) because they are too busy playing cash games.

The problem with this approach for many people is that they find cash games much less exciting than tourneys. I also think that it's possible to be a great tournament player WITHOUT playing cash games.

I guess I'd say the main difference is that if you are a great cash game player you are very likely to be a great tournament player, whereas if you are a great tournament player you are only somewhat likely to be a great cash game player, and will often be downright terrible.

[unlucky513]

great post... ever thought of writing for sports illustrated?

[jtomon]

Nice post Jason. I think overall 2+2'ers are the people who want to improve, not the people who thinks it's "cool" to play because they watch it on TV. I've seen my game get progressively better over the year and some change I've been on 2+2 and know that its not just playing time alone.

[BigPoppa]

Almost all my cash game experience is playing limit.

Do I need to play NL cash games to grow as a NL Tourney player?

[bruce]

How true you are!

Here's a little anecdotal story from 20 years ago. I used
to play in a home game and pretty much destroy it. I'd on
occasion go to LA and play at the Bike or Commerce and my
results were much worse. I would get frustrated and quit
playing in LA, why play in a game and lose when I can beat
the shitt out of my home game. I finally figured out if I were ever to improve I have to play with better
competition. That didn't mean I quit my home game, but my
main emphasis became the casino games. And 20 years later
I can say I'm one of the better cash game players.

Bruce