\u201cBut this teacher says I should do this\nplay in that situation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhy did he say that?\u201d I ask. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Crickets)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The above exchange is worrying to me. When I am talking to aspiring poker players<\/a>, I am struck with an impression: They want firm answers. They want a poker trainer who they can trust 100%. They want to take his words as gospel, but if his strategies do not work, they want to assail him for their lack of success. Blaming any poker coach for your own failings is misguided, unless you can prove the error of his ways. Remember, no poker coach can control conception to execution. You\u2019re the one who has to go onto the field and play ball. You cannot execute correctly either if you\u2019re relying on simple maxims. There are no panaceas in Texas Hold’em<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No-Limit Hold\u2019em is a remarkably nuanced game, that is what is so lovely about it. I started playing the game 16 years ago, in the halls of my high school. I still love the game today, precisely because its mysteries take so long to unravel. It\u2019s also just a blast to play No-Limit Hold\u2019em. The game is so beautiful precisely because it takes so long to understand. Much like chess, No-Limit Hold\u2019em is a game that can absorb a man for his entire life. While a gentleman might not be able to play pick-up basketball in his 80’s, he will be able to sit down at the felt. There\u2019s something gorgeous about that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this in mind, I want you to read this\nexchange again:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut this teacher says I should do this\nplay in that situation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhy did he say that?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Crickets)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo, tell me,\u201d I say, leaning into the\nlesson. \u201cYou don\u2019t have to use the Solvers or anything. Just give me the\nremedial algebra. Or even the basic reasoning. Give me the bullet points. Break\nit down for me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I always feel like an ass when I have to do this, but it\u2019s for the student\u2019s good. If I don\u2019t demonstrate they don\u2019t understand the structure of the play, they\u2019ll kid themselves that they do understand it. I have to put them on the spot to expose this is not true, this is a huge, huge problem, because in No-Limit Hold\u2019em there is a large difference between remembering and knowing. In 2007 there was a famous poker book written by a high stakes poker player revealing basic combinatorics, which is a big word for combination counting<\/a>. It sent shockwaves throughout the poker world. I was taught a variation of the combinatoric math in that book by multiple players in my circle at the time. It was fairly simple. In the book, the author demonstrated how if a player opened more than 15% of hands<\/a> from a certain position, flatted with most of those combinations when three-bet, and then saw a normal flop\u2026the player was screwed. Unless he was check-raising high cards or donk leading, then he was check\/folding high cards too often. He was being exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been 12 years since that book came out. I was 19 when the Euros taught me that math. I\u2019m in my 30\u2019s now, and I still get paid to teach that math. Why? Because people want shortcuts. If you really want to learn about three-betting wide ranges and exploiting players post-flop, you should run drills in your free time. We used to have to do all of this by pen-and-paper in 2007. Now, you can buy a $30.00 copy of Flopzilla and have the program do everything for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n I feel comfortable in most poker situations because I\u2019ve spent countless nights plugging in different opening ranges and then seeing how different flops effect the situation. With repeated exposure, I\u2019ve become better and better at identifying good flops and bad flops. By thinking through the same situations with different players, I\u2019ve been able to create play changes that fit the situations. It\u2019s all been remarkably fun, learning all of this. I genuinely enjoy coaching because it\u2019s entertaining to share this process with other players. Yet, sadly, when you try to share the joy of discovery with many players, you get a statement like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSo if a guy opens lojack or later, three-bet him always? Then continuation-bet 2\/3rds pot?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, okay, sure, often that will work. Lojack players open too much, 2\/3rds pot is a good c-bet. I\u2019ve recommended that play before, but you need to know WHY I recommend that play. During my training videos<\/a>, when I bust out the calculators that show how to do remedial combination counting, I\u2019m not doing that for my health. I\u2019m not doing that to prove one play. I want YOU to learn how to work on your own game on your own! I want you to know why a certain play in a certain situation will work. This is a far superior way of playing then desperately trying to remember inflexible rules at every turn. To actually know something in poker you need to get in there and get dirty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My true belief is most \u201ctilt\u201d actually comes from insecurity. I used to tilt a great deal when I was playing aggressive poker but not knowing why I did my plays. Once I began breaking down each play with at least Flopzilla and a calculator, I began feeling much better about how I played. My tilt withered away. Truthfully, the real salary in poker is working on your game, gradually getting better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I was a kid, nothing held my interest.\nI loved poker when I found it, because there was always something new to learn,\nthere was always another way to get better. If you had a $100, you could\nsatellite into a $1,000 tournament. If you were in a $1,000 tournament, you\ncould win hundreds of thousands of dollars. You always had a shot. As long as\nyou held a job and gambled responsibly, the game never ended. You never reached\nyour athletic peak. You could get better every single day. There\u2019s something\nremarkable about that.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Love Of The Game<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Finding The Fun In Fundamentals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Becoming Tilt Proof<\/h3>\n\n\n\n