Pokerwiner.com → Within poker principles
The other part of my approach to learning cheaply was to ration my poker money over periods of time with playing sessions interspersed with reading and study of the game. That way I could keep playing with some regularity without worrying about losses. Losses served as motivators to study more, learn general poker theory, familiarize myself with the specifics of holdem, and analyze my own play.
My study materials at that time centered on the works then available by Sklansky, Malmuth, Caro,Brunson, and anything else I could find, such as columns in Poker Player, then the main poker periodical. For me it was rather slow going. The logic of poker did not come particularly easily to me, and I did not bring much natural “card sense” to the game. I had to struggle first to understand a piece of poker theory, and then to take the step of applying it in practice. The latter was made more difficult by the anxiety I experienced when I played in a cardroom. I typically felt quite nervous as I played. It was, I suppose, a kind of performances anxiety. After all, poker players must play hands in front of “spectators” their opponents in the hand and the other players at the table. The anxiety of course interfered with the clarity and efficiency of my thinking.
With much experience, however, I became accustomed to cardroom play and able to think calmly about the application of theory to the realities of the game around me. In that early period I sought out the smallest holdem games I could find. It was only sensible, I figured, to play as small as possible until I knew I was beating the game. (Today the rakes in small games are often too high, and this approach may not be as advisable. Even then, I was fighting a sizable rake in proportion to the limit ). Three times I even took this to the extreme by flying to Las Vegas to play in the tiniest casino holdem game I had been able to locate, a $1-$2 game at the Four Queens. (To me it somehow spoiled the whole idea to factor in silly things like airfare ).
It was spread as a beginners’ game. A dealer would explain the game to a group of first time players, let them practice a bit, then turn it into a live game. Having already developed an appreciation for the importance of game selection, I saw this as quite the “juicy” opportunity. Here I was, the “aspiring to aspire to be a pro” player sitting down among the neophytes who had no idea what a poker force they were dealing with. I lost $13 over those three sessions. Poker is hard. Years later I learned that one of the best players I had come to know in San Diego had also made trips to that game in the early stages of his learning. I think we simply shared a sensible desire to take the risk out of the game to whatever extent we could while we learned.
Going Beyond the Books
Because I was busy with school, my poker play was sporadic for the first couple of years, involving only about 60 hours of casino play spread over 22 sessions, mostly in $2-$4 games. I had spent more time studying the game than playing it. Once I finished my graduate work, I decided it was time to put in more hours at the tables and see how I fared. I played about 140 more hours over the next four months. Despite noticeable progress, my result for those 200 hours of play suggested to me that I might not yet be playing at a winning level. It was not enough time to be at all certain, but my losses had outnumbered my wins, and my results in $2-$4 and $3-$6 poker games were still negative. (* I should note, though, that ultimately one should not let such a desire get in the way of willingness to make risky plays when they are warranted ).
In fact, that friend I mentioned now plays holdem in a style characterized in large part by a willingness to push very small edges. Though my own play pushes the limits a bit less, I too am quite willing to take risks with marginal edges when I believe the situation merits it. Not satisfied, I resolved to take my poker education beyond the books. While I knew I had not fully absorbed the concepts I had read about, I believed I could accelerate my education through private instruction. I had always learned best when I had the chance to ask a lot of questions. I did some checking and found that David Sklansky was a available for private consultations. I knew his credentials were the best, but his time was not cheap. I worried that I might have to spend thousands of dollars over some extended period to see real results.
In truth, I was prepared to do that. Having spent most of my life up to then in school, I saw it simply as the tuition I should expect. But when I contacted David, described my background, and asked how many hours of instruction it might take to see real benefits, I was surprised and pleased that he answered, “Maybe three.” So I organized a list of my most pressing poker questions and problems and, by telephone, did my first hour with Sklansky. Most of the consultation centered on two areas I had found particularly vexing: How to play in loose games and how to play against maniacs. David clarified things I had read, but also provided much that went beyond the books. This filled in the gaps in my understanding to the point that I was able after just that first hour to play with much more confidence in loose games and wild games.
In fact, it turned out David had overestimated in guessing it would take three hours to see results. The effect of just that first session on my poker cash flow was most impressive. Though I couldn’t be positive because of a small sample size, from what I could see, my results changed immediately. My frequency of winning sessions went up dramatically and, with a couple more consultations along the way, I gradually earned back what I had lost – and continued winning. A graph would show an abrupt leveling out followed by a clear reversal of the losing trend I had experienced before that time. Of course it wasn’t quite that simple. Certainly there were fluctuations. They are a part of poker. In fact, I did have my share of disheartening losses, and suffered some setbacks when I tried to move up in limits.
But in time I always overcame those. Overall, my results since that early period have been steady and positive. In retrospect, initiating those consultations with Sklansky may have been the single most important step I ever took in structuring my learning process. I consulted with David off and on in subsequent years as I developed my play and worked my way into the middle limits. Through my own thinking about the game, I was able to magnify the gains of the consultations. Often something David would explain would lead me to new insights in other areas as I began to see conceptual connections and to gain the groundwork necessary to arrive at valid ideas on my own. Though I play successfully at higher limits now, I fully intend to consult further with David as I continue with poker. His depth of knowledge is unmatched. So like the golf pro going back to his teacher for a tune up, I will continue from time to time to hone my game with his “coaching.
"The Best Player I' ve Ever Seen " / The Hit and Run Follies / An Illusory Winner /
On Randomness, Rushes, Hot Seats, and Bad Luck Dealers / Bad Beat? Think Again
Why Learn to Beat Tougher Games? / Practicing Game Preservation
Short-Handed Play: Don’t Miss out / How I Learned Poker: Part I
How I Learned Poker : Part II