Monday, October 30, 2006
Re-lighting the fire - non poker
So I got a surprise call on Friday Evening. I’m in the den, feet up, game 5 of the World Series (featuring the Detroit Tigers) on the teley (that’s a British term I picked up while living in England that means “TV”), a $1/$2 limit H.O.R.S.E. game on PokerStars that I’m killing for about $20 profit, kids in bed,…. It was shaping up to be a good evening.
My old high school buddy called me. We both went to school in Roseland Nebraska, population 512, and have sporadically kept in touch throughout the years as both he and I have moved around a bit.
We have attempted to keep alive a tradition of calling each other on our birthdays. Mine was Friday. His was Saturday. It’s the one day of the year that I’m older than him (as he often reminds me). To be honest, we have not been real successful at our attempted birthday call tradition (I’m guessing that we are a combined 10 for 24 in the years since we graduated high school). That’s right, it’s been 24 years since high school which puts me at 42. Side note: I’m now eligible to play in the senior’s bracket at Hoop-it-up. I just need to find 3 other 40+ers that can play worth a damn.
Anyway, what was interesting is that both Bill and I have cycled through various intense, passionate hobbies, one after the other, starting almost directly out of high school. In high school, I took up somewhat passive hobbies of sports, chasing girls, and drinking bear. Nothing serious. Then, after HS, I picked up a hobby (body-building) that I completely immersed myself in. This was followed, in order, by college, golf, career, basketball, and now Poker. I think Bill’s interests included body-building, powerlifting, 4 wheeling, entrepreneurship, and now motocross (I’ve probably missed a few).
During each of these phases, I can distinctly remember how captivated I’ve been by the hobby. I tend to think obsessively about it – in the shower, on the drive to work, in church (not that I’m going anymore), at the dinner table, etc… I read all that I could about the subject. I tried to associate with others who share my interests. I even entertain fantasy ideas that some day, I might just be able to make a business out of this particular hobby.
The one hobby that has actually paid pretty good dividends was my intense, nothing-elsed-mattered, focus on my career in the early 90s. I was able to string together a pretty good run of promotions, pay increase, etc… even if there were some negative consequences resulting from the neglect of my personal life. I can relate this single mindedness I now have related to poker back to those days and focusing on my career. The difference being that I have been able to strike a little better balance with the family these days.
The lesson: I need to find a way to “light that fire” again with respect to my career. I think I’m coasting a bit right now. The key to all of this is the big “C” – COMPETITION. I think the underlying motivation that turned all of these hobbies into full-blown, bona fide passions of mine was the presence of competition. I must have some sort of basic human need to compete and win at something. I remember when I was focused on my career, the competition element involved getting promotions faster than my peers, solving business problems that were not solved by others, etc… It always had to do with competition. So the key here, find away to interject competition back into my workplace. I’m a gonna give that a go, so LOOK OUT!
Pay the Fisherman
So I played another session at Greektown on Saturday. I have a somewhat limited bankroll for my trip to Foxwoods next weekend, so I was kind of worried that a bad session at Greektown would have me restricted to playing $3/$6 limit at the Foxwoods all weekend. Anyway, my new favorite game (NLHE) has been treating me well lately and I ended up winning $333. Whoo Hoo!
But before I could get too excited, I started calculating the cost of my last three sessions at Greektown.
I played approximately 6 hours each session. The ½ hour charge is $6. I paid about $5 per night in waitress tokes and about $25 per night in dealer tokes.
Using my handy-dandy calculator:
6 hours x 3 session x 2 half hours x $6 = $216
Plus
$5 waitress tokes plus $25 dealer tokes x 3 session = $90
equals
Grand total = $300 or $100 per night.
To most thinking players, this cost should come as no surprise. Myself, on the other hand, am a dumb-ass. I just now figured this out. I’m completely floored by how expensive it is to play poker at the casino. This $1/$2 no limit $100 max game must be the most expensive game they spread – no wonder they have 15 tables of it running.
Do you realize just how much you need to win to overcome the charges/tokes? This is incredible. I’m totally pissed. I know I’m a small stakes player. Winning $100 in a session is a nice win. To net a $100 win at the casino, I would actually need to win $200 and then deduct $100 in charges/tokes. This equates to a charge/toke ratio of 50%. Incredible! I suppose if I was paying the $2/$5 NL game, the ratio would go down a little. This ratio would probably continue to go down as you move higher and higher in stakes. Note to self: I need to find a casino poker game where the charge/toke rate is around 10%-15%. Who can afford a 50% charge/toke rate?
But now, as Paul Harvey used to say, …is the rest of the story. Greektown is able to deliver the fish in sufficient quantities to make playing there a profitable venture. I sat at a table that, I’m not kidding, featured 3 solid players (I’ll include myself – I know, a stretch) and a rotation of 7 spots for the contributors. We had young guys, old guys, white guys, black guys, nicely dressed, poorly dressed, everything. They just kept coming in, dropping $100 and then leaving…only to be replaced.
I’m still pissed about the amount of money I paid to Greektown in charges/tokes. After all, this is my money that I won, fair and square, but I guess I need to give the casino some credit for delivering the fish. I guess I just need to shut-up and pay the fisherman.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Shangri La
So, I think I may have found the Shangri La of low stakes poker. What elements would be necessary to create such a poker paradise? First, the games would need to be in a comfortable setting – plenty of space, comfortable chairs, nice food/drink, etc… Check! Second, the game would need to be close. Who wants to drive for 45 minutes to play poker? Check! Third, the players would need to be very friendly, most of them drunk, and most of them with very little ability. Check! Fourth, the games spread should be at stakes I can afford. Check! Fifth, the other players would need to have seemingly endless sources of cash and a blatant disregard for it’s value. Double Check!
I played an 8 hour session in this private event on Saturday and ended up winning $36. It feels just about as bad winning only $36 bucks from this veritable ATM as it would loosing a couple hundred at the Casino or the other home games I play. I was sick.
First, I had a real bad beat put on me earlier in the day when my beloved Cornhuskers were about to shock the world with a win over the Texas Longhorns. With 2 minutes left, a 2 point lead and the ball, a short pass was caught for an apparent first down. The receiver fumbles the ball. Yada Yada Yada, were now 5 and 2 and right back in the hunt for mediocrity.
But, things started looking better at the poker tables. I bought in for $100 which was the limit at the NLHE table. With $1/$2 blinds. I soon discovered that almost everyone played any suited cards, any Ace and any connected cards from any position. I figured I could just play solid, tight poker and win some moderate sized pots when these people did not hit their draw.
About 30 minutes in, I hold A 10 in middle position. I raise to $12. 2 limpers and the big blind call. $48 in the pot and I have the button. Flop comes A, 7, 4 with 2 hearts. It goes check check check to me. This hand is dangerous because I know people here will play any Ace from any position and I could be up against 2 pair; however, the players in this pot did not strike me as tricky and would not be inclined to set a trap, especially risking a free card with a 2 flush on the board. Anyone holding a better A would lead out as well. I’m pretty sure. I just know my hand is good now, and I know I’ll get called by anyone holding a smaller pair (i.e., 6s) or anyone holding a flush draw. So I bet $50 into this $48 pot and get called in one spot. Oh Shit! Turn is a heart. It goes check check. River is a 10. I now have top 2 pair on a flush board that went check check on the turn. I have $30 left and I’m staring at a $150 pot. Now, it goes bad. EP player puts me all in. I know I’m beat and I call off my last $30, he shows a made flush. Damn! $100 down.
I think I played the hand mostly correct. I gave him a price of 2:1 with my pot sized bet while he chased a flush on the turn where he was a 4:1 dog against catching one of 9 outs. Even if he connects, he can only win another $30 from me, so his implied odds were only ($48 in the pot + $50 flop bet + $30 left or $128 total). He would end up paying $80 to win $128 (1.5:1 ouch!). If, however, he planned to go to the river no matter what. He probably made a marginally correct play. Hey, he was gambling – exactly what I want. I’m sure he really didn’t think through his flop call decision, but as it turns out, with 2 cards to come he is a 2:1 dog against hitting and if he was sure he could get my last $30 if he connected, then he was getting a price of 1.5 to 1 on his call – not that horrible of a decision…I guess. Bad outcome for me though. Anyway, I guess I could have overbet the pot on the flop – bet $80 into a $50 pot and gave him even a worse price. I just can’t see any sense in making a stupid sized bet on the flop. The problem with overbetting the pot on the flop is that it never (or rarely) changes the outcome. In this situation, if I would have led out with any amount between $30 - $80, the outcome would have been the same. The same players who folded would have still folded. The player who called would have still called. I think this is usually the situation. Lesson here - no sense in overbetting the pot on the flop. It changes nothing and could actually leave you with less options on the turn and river.
Déjà vu. About 30 minutes later, I turn 2 pair – again with A 10 in a raised, multi-way pot pre-flop. This time the board is A, 10, 8, 6. I bet $60 into a $50 pot on the flop and leave myself with $30 in front of me. I go all in on the turn and get called. Jackass shows 7 9 suited for the straight. I think I did everything correct except drag the pot. Damn! $200 down.
Tables break. Now I’m at the party table. A couple hands later I’m reaching in my pocket again - $300 down. So, I keep over-betting in situations where I have the lead. Now I’m $400 in to it. Finally the poker gods start giving me a bit of a break and I start my comeback. One key hand - I flopped the nut flush with a Kc 10c and got my money all in with someone holding the Jc Qc. Oh well – bad beat for him.
Then, someone suggested we play NL Omaha High. I just creamed a little. We were playing 8 handed and 4 of the 8 players asked for clarification on the “must use 2 cards from your hand rule”. This is a good sign. The first pot was $450. I folded pre-flop. Long story short, I’m now up $350 making a spectacular $750 turnaround.
That’s when I start making dumb, “I’ve got chips to burn” type decisions. One such horrible decision was calling a $100 bet on the river made by the table maniac (and drunk) when I held K 10 on a board of K 3 8 7 8. The pot had about $45 in it. Jackass held 33 for the boat. He had the lead all the way and trapped me good with a drunk like overbet bluff looking bet on the river – which was completely consistent with the way he had been playing. Good one! He trapped me good.
Anyway, the main observation of the night – I see myself make really weak and bad decisions once I start building a good sized chip lead. These weak decisions are usually calling off chips in bad situations. I think it would be somewhat more excusable if I was exerting pressure on the table with aggressive bets & raises, but just calling off chips like a meek, girly-man is a huge mistake. Henceforth, I vow to never play weak, dumb, girly-man poker again just because I have some extra chips to burn.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Stereotyping - Good or Bad?
So I went to Greektown on Sunday afternoon. I had some free time and some built up “goodwill” with the wife as a result of painting the kids bedroom and letting her travel out of town last weekend by herself. Good session – won $331. Whooo Hooo!
I was hoping to find a table full of Lions fans drinking it up and paying more attention to the football game that was just concluding than on poker. I took a seat in the non-smoking area – I highly recommend this for the non-smokers. My table looked tough. Several people had $200 or more. The max buy-in at the table was $100. And no one was watching the game. Dammit!
As I looked around the table I immediately began a ritual that I perform at the start of every session – I started stereotyping.
First, there was a young, straggly looking kid, 26ish, gote, backward hat, etc… with about $400 in front of him. In an instant, I typed him as a very aggressive, solid player, really likes to raise and exert pressure. I’ll call this guy “shaggy” (from Scooby Doo).
2 seats to the right was a good-ole boy, big handle bar mustache, 240, 40ish, lions Jersey, about $100 in front. I typed him as a fish. He wished he could play better. He was not going to be bluffed by any wised-assed punk kid. Fish. I’ll call this guy “Boss Hog” (from Dukes of Hazard)
2 seats to his right was new guy to the table. He fumbled his $100 initial buy in. He had a chew in his lower lip. Hasn’t shaved for 3 days. Wasn’t sure how much he needed to call on a straddled pot. He overcalled raises 3 times on his first 3 hands. On the third hand, he got bailed out when the river card made a straight on the board and he took the split. I figured this guy brought his entire bankroll and next month’s rent to the casino today. I typed this guy as a total donkey. He’d be lucky to last more than 30 minutes. I’ll call this guy “Jefro”
Then, next to him was an older gentleman. Well dressed. White beard. Very Jolly. He had a few hundred in front. This guy was typed as a rock. Weak/solid. He’d wait for a hand and then call all the way down. Do not bluff this guy and fold to his raises. I’ll call this “Rock of Ages”.
The observation: This got me to thinking. How useful is this stereotyping behavior? In business, they constantly drill into us how inappropriate it is to stereotype – react to people based on their looks or mannerisms in relation to our own experience with others in our past that looked and acted the same way. We take corporate training on how to avoid stereotyping/discriminating. They attempt to convince us how unreliable these mental models can be in predicting how another person will act/respond.
In business, I agree. Stereotyping is sufficiently unreliable enough to discard it as an ineffective means of predicting how one will act/perform. After all, we have other sources for this type of info (we can talk to colleagues, engage in direct communication, take our time, learn from observation, etc….)
But at the poker table, what else do you have? You don’t have 2 months to figure someone out. You need to make decisions almost from the first hand on how you’ll play your cards. These decisions are based on a rich mix of variables (stack size, position, player tendencies, previous action, mood, etc…). When you have no playing experience with a particular player, how do you assess the meaning of their actions (call, raise, etc…)? The only thing left is the ‘stereotype’.
So if you start to incorporate stereotypes into your decisions, how valuable (or reliable) is this information? In my opinion, the value of the stereotype is often under-estimated. I think, maybe to a fault, that stereotyping at the table can be surprisingly accurate. Maybe I’m kidding myself, but it seems like more often than not, my stereotypes are dead on. Today at Greektown, this opinion was reinforced!
First, Shaggy, straddled a pot, got 5 limpers (including me on the small blind – I was getting 9:1 on my call), he raised to $50, and collected a nice $28 pot when everyone folded. 10 hands later, he straddled again, got 3 limpers (not me), he raised his straddle to $40, and got reraised by a short stack (~$70). He reluctantly called with 6 3 offsuit and doubled up Boss Hog who showed pocked 8s. He continued to play/raise about 1 out of every 3 hands and bluff off ½ of his stack and then build it back up when someone would take a stand at the wrong time. Anyway, score 1 for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (score 1 for 1).
Second, Boss Hog, got involved with a young Phil Ivey type seated to my right. The pot was small. Boss Hog opens the pot after the flop and is raised by Phil Ivey. After Boss Hog thinks for a while, he mucks and begins to verbally chastise Phil for potentially bluffing him. He challenges Phil “try that again. Please, just try that one more time”. Boss Hog proceeded to play good cards for the rest of the session, but he was a calling station. I saw him payoff some guy with 3rd pair (jacks), when the board had 2 Aces. Anyway, score another for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (now 2 for 2).
Jefro lost his initial buy in about 15 minutes into the session. He lost his second buy in about 40 minutes into the session. He lost his last short buy in ($50) about 1 hour into the session. After staring in dis-belief at the felt where his chips were once stacked for about 2 minutes, he solemnly got up and left – much to the displeasure of everyone at the table. He gave most of his money to Shaggy. Anyway, score another for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (score 3 for 3).
As for “rock of ages”, I was mostly right. I saw him re-raise and blow Shaggy off of his hand after he flopped the nut straight. A thoughtful player would have let shaggy bluff off a lot of chips with his weak hand, but “rock” didn’t want to risk Shaggy catching running full house cards on the turn and the river so he quadrupled Shaggy’s opening bet. Weak! However, Rock also called a $20 bet into a $20 pot with an A on the board when he held pocket queens. A queen fell on the turn and the Rock took a nice pot from Jefro. So I guess he wasn’t a totally weak/passive player. Maybe I got this one a little wrong. Score 3.5 out of 4. Not too bad!
Anyway, one hand to recap. On about the 5th hand of the session, I’m in middle position with AQo. One limper. I raise to $12. It’s folded to the blinds who both call as well as the limper. Pot has $48. Flop come Q 7 4 rainbow. Small blind (Jefro), bets out $20, BB folds, Limper raises all in $88. Now I have really been thinking about finding good spots to laydown Top Pair Top Kicker. This hand is only one pair. Why go broke with one pair? But I got suspicious. Why did he bet so much? If he hit a set why not smooth call? I can’t give him credit for 2 pair. No straights/flushes possible. I have no respect for Jefro’s opening bet. My concern is with the limper. I called my entire $88 remaining. I was getting 88:156 or about 2:1 on the call. I really did not figure him for a set of 7s or 4s. He had to be holding AQ just like me. Or maybe something stupid like 99. Cards were flipped. Limper held KQ for top pair second kicker. My hand held up. I more than doubled up. Off to a good session. Question, do you call an all in bet with Top Top in this situation? I only had $12 personally invested in the pot. I was not locked in. I'd welcom comments.
I was hoping to find a table full of Lions fans drinking it up and paying more attention to the football game that was just concluding than on poker. I took a seat in the non-smoking area – I highly recommend this for the non-smokers. My table looked tough. Several people had $200 or more. The max buy-in at the table was $100. And no one was watching the game. Dammit!
As I looked around the table I immediately began a ritual that I perform at the start of every session – I started stereotyping.
First, there was a young, straggly looking kid, 26ish, gote, backward hat, etc… with about $400 in front of him. In an instant, I typed him as a very aggressive, solid player, really likes to raise and exert pressure. I’ll call this guy “shaggy” (from Scooby Doo).
2 seats to the right was a good-ole boy, big handle bar mustache, 240, 40ish, lions Jersey, about $100 in front. I typed him as a fish. He wished he could play better. He was not going to be bluffed by any wised-assed punk kid. Fish. I’ll call this guy “Boss Hog” (from Dukes of Hazard)
2 seats to his right was new guy to the table. He fumbled his $100 initial buy in. He had a chew in his lower lip. Hasn’t shaved for 3 days. Wasn’t sure how much he needed to call on a straddled pot. He overcalled raises 3 times on his first 3 hands. On the third hand, he got bailed out when the river card made a straight on the board and he took the split. I figured this guy brought his entire bankroll and next month’s rent to the casino today. I typed this guy as a total donkey. He’d be lucky to last more than 30 minutes. I’ll call this guy “Jefro”
Then, next to him was an older gentleman. Well dressed. White beard. Very Jolly. He had a few hundred in front. This guy was typed as a rock. Weak/solid. He’d wait for a hand and then call all the way down. Do not bluff this guy and fold to his raises. I’ll call this “Rock of Ages”.
The observation: This got me to thinking. How useful is this stereotyping behavior? In business, they constantly drill into us how inappropriate it is to stereotype – react to people based on their looks or mannerisms in relation to our own experience with others in our past that looked and acted the same way. We take corporate training on how to avoid stereotyping/discriminating. They attempt to convince us how unreliable these mental models can be in predicting how another person will act/respond.
In business, I agree. Stereotyping is sufficiently unreliable enough to discard it as an ineffective means of predicting how one will act/perform. After all, we have other sources for this type of info (we can talk to colleagues, engage in direct communication, take our time, learn from observation, etc….)
But at the poker table, what else do you have? You don’t have 2 months to figure someone out. You need to make decisions almost from the first hand on how you’ll play your cards. These decisions are based on a rich mix of variables (stack size, position, player tendencies, previous action, mood, etc…). When you have no playing experience with a particular player, how do you assess the meaning of their actions (call, raise, etc…)? The only thing left is the ‘stereotype’.
So if you start to incorporate stereotypes into your decisions, how valuable (or reliable) is this information? In my opinion, the value of the stereotype is often under-estimated. I think, maybe to a fault, that stereotyping at the table can be surprisingly accurate. Maybe I’m kidding myself, but it seems like more often than not, my stereotypes are dead on. Today at Greektown, this opinion was reinforced!
First, Shaggy, straddled a pot, got 5 limpers (including me on the small blind – I was getting 9:1 on my call), he raised to $50, and collected a nice $28 pot when everyone folded. 10 hands later, he straddled again, got 3 limpers (not me), he raised his straddle to $40, and got reraised by a short stack (~$70). He reluctantly called with 6 3 offsuit and doubled up Boss Hog who showed pocked 8s. He continued to play/raise about 1 out of every 3 hands and bluff off ½ of his stack and then build it back up when someone would take a stand at the wrong time. Anyway, score 1 for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (score 1 for 1).
Second, Boss Hog, got involved with a young Phil Ivey type seated to my right. The pot was small. Boss Hog opens the pot after the flop and is raised by Phil Ivey. After Boss Hog thinks for a while, he mucks and begins to verbally chastise Phil for potentially bluffing him. He challenges Phil “try that again. Please, just try that one more time”. Boss Hog proceeded to play good cards for the rest of the session, but he was a calling station. I saw him payoff some guy with 3rd pair (jacks), when the board had 2 Aces. Anyway, score another for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (now 2 for 2).
Jefro lost his initial buy in about 15 minutes into the session. He lost his second buy in about 40 minutes into the session. He lost his last short buy in ($50) about 1 hour into the session. After staring in dis-belief at the felt where his chips were once stacked for about 2 minutes, he solemnly got up and left – much to the displeasure of everyone at the table. He gave most of his money to Shaggy. Anyway, score another for Jon on Stereotyping accuracy (score 3 for 3).
As for “rock of ages”, I was mostly right. I saw him re-raise and blow Shaggy off of his hand after he flopped the nut straight. A thoughtful player would have let shaggy bluff off a lot of chips with his weak hand, but “rock” didn’t want to risk Shaggy catching running full house cards on the turn and the river so he quadrupled Shaggy’s opening bet. Weak! However, Rock also called a $20 bet into a $20 pot with an A on the board when he held pocket queens. A queen fell on the turn and the Rock took a nice pot from Jefro. So I guess he wasn’t a totally weak/passive player. Maybe I got this one a little wrong. Score 3.5 out of 4. Not too bad!
Anyway, one hand to recap. On about the 5th hand of the session, I’m in middle position with AQo. One limper. I raise to $12. It’s folded to the blinds who both call as well as the limper. Pot has $48. Flop come Q 7 4 rainbow. Small blind (Jefro), bets out $20, BB folds, Limper raises all in $88. Now I have really been thinking about finding good spots to laydown Top Pair Top Kicker. This hand is only one pair. Why go broke with one pair? But I got suspicious. Why did he bet so much? If he hit a set why not smooth call? I can’t give him credit for 2 pair. No straights/flushes possible. I have no respect for Jefro’s opening bet. My concern is with the limper. I called my entire $88 remaining. I was getting 88:156 or about 2:1 on the call. I really did not figure him for a set of 7s or 4s. He had to be holding AQ just like me. Or maybe something stupid like 99. Cards were flipped. Limper held KQ for top pair second kicker. My hand held up. I more than doubled up. Off to a good session. Question, do you call an all in bet with Top Top in this situation? I only had $12 personally invested in the pot. I was not locked in. I'd welcom comments.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Scared Money is Dead Money
I think I may have pilfered this next quote from someone, but my latest observation is that “scared money is dead money”.
I went to Greektown casino this past Saturday night and had a pretty good run on the $1/$2 NL Hold’Em $100 max table. This is the 2nd time I’ve played NL at the casino and my first win (I usually play limit). I won $571. Whoo Hoo!
I drew a pretty good table. First, about ½ of the table were weak players (unlike the first time I played NL at Greektown – all sharks). Second, I was seated right in front of one of their plasma TVs that was showing the Cornhuskers play (they won an overtime thriller). There was only one large stack (about $400) in front of an older lady that looked a little “grizzled”. I lost $30 to her on the first hand that I played, then she went on to loose almost all of that stack ($80 of it back to me), so there was no real large stack players at the table most of the night – with the exception of your’s truly.
It also helped that I was dealt some good hands that I played very straight forwardly and got paid off by people who were terrified that they might be being bluffed…so they paid off. One guy called my $70 bet (into a $70 pot) on the turn when a 2 fell and paired his J 2 offsuit hand. He announced, “I’m probably beat here, but what the hell”. My pocket 9s held up on a board of all under cards as we checked down the river. He was concerned I was on a completely naked bluff and he wanted to “punish” me.
Anyway, I digress. My observation is that it is so easy to pick on small stacks of scared money when playing NL. I could easily spot the people who were on scared money. They would come to the table with a short buy in (i.e., $60). They would enter pots cautiously and muck to any real pressure. They were just waiting to pick up that magical double up hand and then they would go all in with so much confidence and so little hesitation that you could read it a mile away. They were really unable to mount any real pressure on anyone. I actually loved being in a hand with them and I got the sense they dreaded being in a hand with me.
I’ve seen this same pattern repeated numerous times in the home games. Some people will get busted out of their initial $100 buy-in, leave the table for a while, and then return with $40 (borrowed most likely). It seems like that approach is just a formula for loosing yet another $40. Conversely, I’ve seen ordinarily weak players become very difficult when they start to accumulate a lot of chips. They call more often, they push edges a little harder, and they play a wider range of hands – making them more difficult to read and manipulate.
Ya see, there are 2 ways to win in NLHE. One, you can play good cards that have a good chance of winning, unimproved at showdown. Two, you can outplay your opponents by betting/bluffing when your cards may or may not win at showdown.
Imagine a professional football team that comes to a NFL game with only one offensive option (the run). With only one option, the opponent can simply adjust and will eventually dominate the game. It’s the same thing with scared money. Playing with scared money is like coming to the game with only one option. All of your opponents have 2 options. You’re at a real disadvantage if you’re playing with one way to win but everyone else has 2 ways to win. Scared money is dead money.
On the other hand, I’m really impressed by people who can play short stack poker without playing ‘scared’ money. As an example, a friend of mine came to the $100 buy in NL home game table with $40 a few weeks back. This is a short stack. On one particular hand, I raised the pot to $12 preflop, and he smooth called in position. This is an example of playing short stack poker but not playing ‘scared’ money. In this situation, a ‘scared’ money player would have folded or raised all in. This guy was willing to take a flop and outplay me. He could fold, he could check, he could raise any amount. He had all of his options available because he was not scared to play with (and possibly loose) his buy-in. He was a much more difficult player than others who would only use 2 options (fold or “all in”). Plus, I could get the sense that he was not playing with scared money. I got the sense that he was intending to play some very solid poker and turn his $40 into $200 before the night was over.
