A hallmark of the fish's mindset is the belief that everyone is terrible and the only reason they are losing money is because no one except them knows how to play poker. The most vocal complaints usually come after losing a hand in which their opponent either A) called preflop with a weak hand that then outdrew them or B) called a bet on the river with a weaker hand than they "should" have. The irony of accusing players of being "too bad to beat" is usually lost on these types. Rather than simplifying their game against a player that "can't fold" and taking most bluffs off the table, they instead insist on playing a tone deaf game that doesn't take into account differing circumstances, such as calling station opponents or the implausibility of the "story" they're telling with their bet(s). I love seeing players freak out in such a way, both because it's amusing and because it reveals them for the inferior players that they are. These players are determined to make sure you know that they know how to play, it's everyone else's fault for being too stupid to know what they're supposed to do.
Watch the best players in the world--guys like Ivey, Galfond, Dwan--and you'll notice that they never complain about the way their opponent plays a hand. When they lose, if they say anything at all it's usually "nice hand" and then they move on. I can think of three reasons that all aspiring poker players should emulate that approach:
1) You won't look like a whiny asshole and will demonstrate that you have the confidence to allow your play to speak for itself.
2) The act of getting upset about a hand is by definition an aggravation of one's emotions, so the more one allows oneself to get upset or vocal or complain, the more likely it is to put you in a tilted or sub-optimal state of mind for playing.
3) If a player is insistent that the fault lies with the other player for how they played the hand, then that player is depriving him/herself of the chance to learn something. Rather than saying to oneself, "could I have played that hand differently?" the player is too absorbed with preserving their ego to use the experience as an opportunity to get better.
To illustrate reason #3, let's look at a hand I played last week (my explanation of how I played the hand will be brief):
Seat 1: Small Blind ($60.81 in chips)
Seat 2: Donzo ($53.30 in chips)
Seat 3: UTG ($61.60 in chips)
Seat 5: UTGplus1 ($63.86 in chips)
Seat 6: Dealer ($32.43 in chips)
Small Blind: posts small blind $0.25
Donzo: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Donzo [2d 5h]
UTG: folds
UTGplus1: calls $0.50
Dealer: calls $0.50
Small Blind: folds
Donzo: checks
*** FLOP *** [3c 7h 3h]
Donzo: checks
UTGplus1: checks
Dealer: checks
*** TURN *** [3c 7h 3h] [5c]
Donzo: checks
UTGplus1: bets $1.50
Dealer: folds
Donzo: calls $1.50
*** RIVER *** [3c 7h 3h 5c] [Kh]
Donzo: checks
UTGplus1: bets $4.75
Donzo: calls $4.75
*** SHOW DOWN ***
UTGplus1: shows [4c Qc] (a pair of Threes)
Donzo: shows [2d 5h] (two pair, Fives and Threes)
Donzo collected $13.55 from pot
We're dealt 52 in the big blind and we see a free flop 3-handed. The 373 flop is dry and everyone checks. The turn gives us a 5 and also puts a club flush draw out there. We check again and the villain bets the size of the pot. The other player folds and we call. Although it's possible that the villain was slow-playing trip 3s or has a better 5, they're most likely betting either a club flush draw or air. The river brings the K and a third heart. We check and the villain again bets the size of the pot. While it's a scary card, it's important to remember that the villain didn't bet on the flop, which, if he/she were holding two hearts, is almost a mandatory bet on such an otherwise dry board. Consequently, a flush is extremely unlikely. It's possible that the K hit a part of the villain's bluffing range, but it still missed most of his air hands. We make the call and the villain shows Q4 of clubs for a missed flush.
After I called, the villain and I had a brief chat...
Villain: Really?
Me: Yes, really.
Villain: When I die, I'm going to ask God if people cheated at online poker, or if they were really just that bad.
Me: Then you're asking the wrong question.
My meaning was probably lost on the player, but what he should be asking God (or himself) is, "Why didn't I try to figure out what I did wrong in poker, rather than blaming anyone but myself?" Instead, the villain's thought process amounted to, "He only had a pair of fives, how the hell could he call me with a K and three hearts out there?!?!?!"
Don't play the blame game and don't be a whiny player. Always, always, always try to learn something.
No comments:
Post a Comment