Poker is built on deception. If you want to extract the most money possible from opponents, sometimes you need to temporarily switch your strategy. This is known as shifting gears.
But wait! The problem with shifting gears is that most players do it at the wrong times or for the wrong reasons. They would be better off not shifting at all. In this self-interview, I’ll show you how to shift correctly.
Question 1: So, why do you need to shift gears?
Ideally, you shouldn’t shift. You should have one single most-profitable gear. But in practice, you can earn more money sometimes by shifting in order to appear less predictable. You shift because there’s always a lag between when you do it and when astute opponents realize it. They’ll be responding to your previous gear, and that gives you time to profit. But confusing your opponents isn’t the only reason to shift. Sometimes you do it to adjust to game conditions. Remember, if your opponents play way too many hands, you can stray from the standards that are profitable on paper and play more often. That’s because the average opposing hands will be weaker than usual, leaving you the opportunity to liberalize and still make more money.
So the two main reasons to shift gears are to confuse and to adapt.
Question 2: What methods of shifting do you recommend?
In poker, position is profit. Today’s self-interview explains what you need to know to get the most from where you’re seated, relative to your opponents. First question, please…
Question 1: How much does position really matter in poker?
Well, how about this: The majority of the best poker players in the world–and possibly all of them–lose money for their lifetimes to opponents on their left. There! I said it, and I’m proud.
That’s a statement of fact that will probably shock most readers. Almost all the profit you’ll ever make playing poker will come from players to your right–players who usually act before you do. I said usually, not always, because sometimes players to your right act after you.
That happens on the first betting round when you enter a pot from an early seat and the opponents to your right are in the blinds. However, you regain positional advantage on all subsequent betting rounds, when they’ll act first. You also temporarily lose your positional advantage of acting last when you’re “under the gun”–meaning first to act–in a non-blind, ante-only game. But you’ll regain the advantage quickly on future deals.
Overall, you’ll be acting after players to your right most of the time. And, in poker, getting to see what opponents do before you act is a huge advantage. In fact, you can’t overcome the positional advantage of an opponent sitting immediately to your left in a full-handed game–unless your level of skill is monumentally better. The best you can do is play good enough that you diminish your disadvantage.
And, in fact, averaged over years of play, you’ll lose money to players on your left and make money from players on your right. This effect is so powerful that if you looked down at a poker table from a weather satellite in space, you’d see a phenomenal and continuous poker storm. The money would be swirling around the table in a clockwise direction, because that’s the way the action flows. Money would blow from players acting earlier to players acting later.
Of course, there would be some cross currents, too–currents that went against the direction of the storm. That’s because short-term luck would cause gusty distortions in the dominant direction. But, averaged over time, the money flows clockwise.
So, your mission in poker is to win as much money as you can from players on your right and lose as little as you can to players on your left. Your goal is just that simple.
Question 2: So, how do you go about maximizing profit from players on your right and decreasing your losses to the left?
To succeed at poker, you need to survive. Today’s self-interview deals with bankroll survival, with tournament survival, and with the powerful truth that survival isn’t a factor at all when making decisions in regular non-tournament games.
I’ll explain it all. So, let’s get started.
Question 1: What does survival have to do with making poker decisions?
In everyday poker games, outside the tournament arena, you should never be thinking about survival when you make decisions. If you’re playing for uncomfortably high-stakes and worried about surviving a large pot, then you’re competing in a game too large for your bankroll. You shouldn’t be there. You see, the nature of a winning poker strategy dictates that you must invite risk, not avoid it. If your personality is such that you crave reduced risk, poker probably isn’t the right game for you.
A primary goal of poker should be to put your money at risk. You should be eager to do that, as long as that risk offers a long-term advantage. You could play more safely by declining to exploit small advantages and waiting for really big edges before risking your money. But, then you’d be surrendering the sum of the profit from all those small edges. And those small edges added together often comprise the largest portion of your profit.
So, you should want to take risks. You should be looking for opportunities to put your chips in jeopardy. I know that sounds strange, but that’s really what successful poker strategy is about – finding ways to increase risk at an advantage.
Question 2: Can you give an example of how poker players make a mistake when playing to survive?
Over decades, I’ve identified one of the main reasons that the majority of skillful poker players fail to win. It’s surprising, and it isn’t what you think.
It has to do with their inability to “stabilize.” And in today’s self-interview, I’ll explain what I mean.
Question 1: What does the word “stabilize” have to do with poker?
A lot. Like I said, it describes one of the primary reasons that poker players lose.
Question 2: Before we get to that, you said it was “one of the primary reasons” for failure to win. What are some of the other reasons?
Besides an inability to stabilize, which I’ll discuss shortly, presuming that you ask relevant questions, there are several reasons for failure.
Going on tilt is one. Competing against too strong a group of opponents is another. Being cheated is one, also. Not treating poker as a business, playing too large for their bankrolls, playing too creatively, entering too many pots, not choosing the right seats, and poor game selection are others.
Question 3: Wow! Interesting list. Is going on tilt really that common a reason for losing money at poker?
Time to go public. My behind the- scenes campaign to protect Internet poker has failed.
Timing is crucial to maximizing poker profit – but probably not in ways that come immediately to mind. Let’s discuss that in today’s selfinterview.
Question 1: What does timing have to do with poker?
When players say, “Bad timing,” or “Your timing was off,” they’re often responding politely to an opponent’s failed bluff, after calling with strong hands. They either mean to make that opponent feel better or they’re using a psychological ploy. It’s one intended to suggest that they wouldn’t have called, had their hand not been so powerful, thus inviting the foe to bluff again in the future. When you hear similar words when you’re caught bluffing, you should back away from bluffing that opponent.
You also hear someone talk about their own bad timing – or yours – in the context of having a strong second-best hand or having made a flush on the river that loses. And there are other ways that the word “timing” is commonly used in poker.
However, I’m not talking about that today. Let’s explore what I am talking about. Next question.
Question 2: I get it, you’re talking about the flow of the game, getting in sync with the action. You need timing there, right?
In order to make quality decisions in poker and in life, you need to understand the word “important.” And I’m not talking about its definition.
You already know that. Exactly what am I talking about, then? Well, that’s the topic of today’s selfinterview.
Question 1: So, what is it about the word “important” that you think I don’t understand?
Let me answer by throwing a couple of questions right back at you. Let’s say I told you to walk to the end of a hallway. Then you must turn either left and enter a room or right and exit to the patio. Waiting for you – in the room and on the patio – will be a poker hand. If you choose the higher-ranking hand, you win a billion dollars. If you choose the lower ranking one, you win nothing.
So, your questions are: If I give you 10 hours to make a decision, how much time will you spend deciding; and how important is this decision?
Question 2: Clearly you’re giving me an extreme example of decision making. Let’s see. Well, I’d probably take the whole 10 hours. And, obviously, the decision would be incredibly important – the most important one of my life. So, how did I do?
I want you to think about poker in an all-new way. Imagine a world where poker isn’t about calling and betting. Instead, it’s about buying and selling. If you image that world, then you’ll understand poker as it really is. And you’ll probably make a lot more money at the tables. I’ll try to explain that in todays self-interview.
Question 1: Why does it matter how you define poker? It’s still the same game, right?
Right. It’s the same game.
Whenever you see a description of anything, you can say, “why does it matter? It is what it is.” Often it does matter, though. That’s because how you imagine something determines how you use or react to it. Take a television, for instance. It could be described as a container surrounding a window that glows. In that context, it would become a great nightlight or decoration. If you define a TV that way, its purpose is to destroy the darkness. But if you define it as the receiver of transmitted information and entertainment, it has a more valuable purpose.
What’s all this talk about “missing a bet” in poker? You hear it often, but is it real science, just jabber, or both?
That’s the topic for today’s self-interview.
Question 1: What does missing a bet mean?
It means that a player declined the opportunity to make a bet when it would have been profitable to do so.
Question 2: So, missing a bet sounds like a bad thing. Do you agree?
In theory, missing bets can cost money. Just like any other judgment mistakes, betting is often a close decision. And the answer to whether a bet has been missed or not isn’t always obvious.
What is obvious is that many poker players are so worried about missing a bet that the entire concept is damaging their bankrolls. I was there when this craze started. It was back in the 1980s when I first heard the term, I think.
It began as an infrequent way for players who envisioned themselves as superior at poker to point out mistakes others were making: “You missed that bet!” This prodding quickly became a plague that remains with us today – embedded deeply in our consciousness.
Sometimes the scolding was done in a friendly way and sometimes it was done to embarrass. It became so common that players would immediately point out their own missed bets, before they could be criticized by anyone else: “I missed a bet. I’m so sorry. I know better, really. Now I’m going to cash out, go home, and ponder my wasted life, because I’m an unworthy player.” Well, maybe not, but almost.
Question 3: So, wasn’t that a good thing – being conscious of missing bets?
In today’s self-interview, I invite questions on anything.
Question 1: Have any of your opinions about poker changed over the decades that you have been researching and analyzing the game?
Not many. And here’s the deal with that: poker theory is timeless.
It puzzles me to read so many comments from young players proclaiming that poker advice is outdated. Actually, there was a time when this was true. That was before I and others began to treat our game scientifically in the 1970s.
Back then, much of the advice was based on homespun wisdom, on what appeared to work or not work, on empirical data. The word “empirical” mean that conclusions are based on observation or personal experience, rather than analysis, logic, and research.