Who Am Us, Anyway?

To continue (for one more post, anyway) this discussion of “Poker and Nothingness” . . . . Okay, then. For those of us who keep playing, poker means something. But what?

This week’s episode of Ante Up! did a nifty job of presenting and examining several of the reasons why people play poker. If you haven’t heard the show this week (#67), check it out. And if you don’t know about Ante Up!, well, get off yr keyster and start listenin’. With the retirement of Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio, Ante Up! is probably the poker podcast I enjoy and look forward to the most (closely followed by PokerDiagram and Rounders).

The main subject of this here episode -- “Psychology and Poker” -- was inspired by Cosenza’s recent announcement that he was through with online poker, a decision specifically prompted by a brutal bad beat -- losing a $430 pot to a rivered one-outer -- that punctuated an especially miserable weekend of online NL hold ’em. Cosenza wrote about his decision on the Ante Up! blog, prompting numerous comments, a thread over on the Card Clubs Network forums, and responses from both Long and occasional co-host Mike Fasso.

The hosts’ conversation was sincere and genuinely insightful (in my opinion). Although regular listeners already had a pretty good idea of the respective “player profiles” of both Cosenza and Long, the episode distinctly spelled out their many differences.

Cosenza specializes in no limit hold ’em, routinely playing games (both live and online) that feature $200 maximum buy-ins (e.g., the $1/$2 game at Full Tilt Poker). While not a professional, Cosenza is a consistently winning player who keeps careful records of his earnings and also cashes out frequently (i.e., he doesn’t play with his entire bankroll, and has in fact used his winnings to pay part of the mortgage on his house). He’s endured downswings and bad beats before. He’s also frequently skeptical of the “random number generators” used by online sites (one aspect of which I discussed a bit in a couple of earlier posts).

Conversely, Long does not specialize in any game in particular, although he does prefer limit games to no limit. He typically does not play for the stakes Cosenza does, and (as he admitted during this episode) is a losing player overall, although he isn’t terribly affected by that fact. (He likens the cost of poker to “tuition” -- i.e., he’s willing to pay to learn.) He’s spoken on the show before about losing swings and having had to reload his online accounts. He sympathizes with Cosenza’s skepticism regarding the "randomness" of shuffling programs online, but doesn’t seem to feel as adamant about the issue as does his co-host.

I’m not going to rehearse every detail of their conversation here, but I will make a couple of observations. The first is how in the course of describing their own motives the pair managed to identify a remarkable number of reasons why people play poker. Of these, the five they discussed most were (1) to make money; (2) to satisfy a desire to compete; (3) to experience an intellectual challenge; (4) to have fun/obtain pleasure; and (5) to experience the thrill of risk (i.e., to gamble).

For example, Long explained that having fun was for him a primary goal, and he suggested that Cosenza was more motivated by other motives -- namely, the first three (to make some scratch, to compete, and to be challenged) -- than by a desire to have fun. And Cosenza agreed Long was likely correct in his assessment. (Long also suggested Cosenza didn’t enjoy risk or “gambling” . . . a characterization which Cosenza only partially accepted.)

Note how all of these reasons are different “meaning-making” strategies employed by poker players. Or (to return the rarified air of the last post) different ways of combating “nothingness.” And they are all related, really. Notice how it is practically impossible to talk about one of these five motives without touching upon one or more of the others. Despite what some players might say, none actually play poker solely to make money and for no other reason. There are other ways of making money, most of them much easier than via poker. Poker “means” something else to these players, whether they realize it or not.

The second observation I’ll make is how both Cosenza and Long appear to contradict accepted stereotypes about limit and no limit players. Somewhat, anyway. I say that because Long loves to have fun, to be challenged, and doesn’t mind losing money -- three characteristics that seem to go against how limit players are typically characterized. Long hardly sounds like the image of limit “grinders” presented in Al Alvarez’s The Biggest Game in Town -- i.e., unimaginative “technicians” for whom “poker playing is strictly a business.” Nor does Cosenza sound like Alvarez’s no limit player attracted by “the romance of gambling,” somehow spellbound by the pleasure of risk-taking.

Proving (yet again) that poker can mean all sorts of things to different people. And . . . when you’re sitting there wondering if your pocket queens are any good against that check-raise all-in . . . for that guy sitting across the table, poker probably means something else to him than it does to you.

(Firesign Theatre fans recognize that post title as a line from their 1969 comedy LP How Can You Be in Two Places At Once, If You're Not Anywhere at All? Others, go get on the funway!)

Image: Ante Up! (adapted).

You Have Options at Gamefisher Table!

Been kind of a manic couple of weeks here. Looking back, I’m actually up about 40 BB total over the last fourteen days, although it doesn’t feel like such a triumph. The swings over that period have been dizzy enough to make a small-timer’s head swim (as much as 100 BB down & 80 BB up from where I presently sit). Normally don’t experience quite so much variance. Don’t like it too well . . . prefer to keep the heart pumping at its usual below-average rate.

Why all the riot? I might plead extenuating circumstances. Was dealt aces no less than five times in a single (admittedly lengthy) session last weekend and had ’em cracked all five times. I knew it was happening, but had to check Poker Tracker later to confirm. In four of the five I was heads-up before the flop, including one where I lost to on a board of . . . . Dropped over 30 BB in those hands alone, plus probably suffered some tilty carry-over, I imagine. So maybe it was the cards. Another factor could well be fatigue -- I’ve been playing more (and longer) than usual lately while working off some of these summer bonuses, so perhaps the concentration is coming and going, thus increasing the likelihood of swings.

Multitabling more often than usual may also be something to consider here. Being of limited intellectual powers, I generally can manage two tables, but tend to break down at three or more. There are several pros and cons to multitabling, and I’m not going to reiterate them all. I will mention one potential con, though, that occurred to me yesterday as I was sitting at one table debating whether to limp with A8-off from middle position (in a $1.00/$2.00 limit game) when I was simultaneously dealt AK-off in the big blind of the other (also $1/$2 limit). I was playing on Party Poker, where the countdown clocks, flashing screens, and “You Have Options . . . ” messages can scramble one’s thoughts when needing to make two decisions at once. I did what on the surface seems reasonable, folding the A8 and raising the AK, thinking at the time that I’d rather devote all my wits to the big slick hand than have to worry about other things while I did.

I realized a hand or two later that it could well have been a mistake not to have played the A8 given the current table situation there (lots of tight players who did little preraising, who tended not to chase, and who would readily fold hands on the flop or turn). The AK hand had not been raised when it got to me in the big blind, but there were five limpers, all of whom called the raise. A flop of baby cards brought a raise and reraise that forced me to let the hand go. As it turned out, it was actually a simple hand to play, requiring very little brain power. Meanwhile I may have missed an opportunity on the other table (although I cannot recall how that particular hand played out without me).

Even the Einsteins who can run over several tables at once will admit that multitabling invariably lessens one’s ability to gather information and make correct decisions. Doing so also subtly affects the criteria by which you select starting hands, even if you don’t necessarily realize it’s happening. A lot of young gunners talk about being on “autopilot” when playing on several tables online. Indeed, during today’s installment of CardPlayer’s The Circuit, online-poker phenom Shane Schleger used the term to describe his online play (while contrasting it with his approach to brick-and-mortar poker).

“Autopilot” surely works well for some, perhaps including the capacity to vary one’s decisions according to situational differences. Not so much for the feeble-minded like yours truly, though. Too many miles on this old jalopy. As the Firesign Theatre once famously asked, how can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?