Two points on poker from the mile high perspective.

1. I'm not beating 25NL with my C-game.
2. Forum Fails and Forum Wins.

I'm not beating 25NL with my C-game.
I swap sweats with two players, both of whom are very good for their limits.  I feel like I can keep up my side of the conversation fairly well about ideas and mistakes.  But I can't put in the hours or pull of the results that they do.  The reason why is C-game.

I can commit some fairly trivial errors if I am not paying attention.  This is something that is hard  for me to surmount for several reasons.  For one, I like to solve difficult puzzles.  So I enjoy playing in marginal spots, to the point that I unconsciously let myself play a -EV to find myself in tricky spots.  Second, I level myself.  I give my opponents too many opportunities to play straightforwardly without and benefit.  Thirdly, I play my C-game far, far too much.  I have to correct these if I want to play NL at higher stakes (where I will undoubtedly have more fun).

Forum Fails and Forum Wins. 

Nick "Stoxtrader" Grudzien, one of perhaps a half-dozen people who has had the greatest indirect impact* on my poker game has admitted to multiaccounting and resigned from his coaching position at a site he was instrumental in founding.  Moreover, allegations of collusion (at least softplaying collusion) linger in one of the accounts he has confessed to using.  Obviously this sucks, but the aftermath was equally frustrating.

On the subject of Stoxtrader's actions, I'd like to make it clear that what he did was wrong and deserves punishment, the same way multiaccounting by Brian Townsend and Justin Bonomo did were wrong and deserved punishment.  But, I don't think the scandal fell out in such a way that Nick got exactly what he deserved.  I think what he has confessed to is worthy of a ban from poker for a little while, but certainly not the loss of his position at a website that shares his name.

A great deal of contemptuous talk has been bandied about on the subject.  I think the allegations need to be fully investigated (Personally I hope Nick can be completely cleared and return to playing cards and being a decent guy).  I am dismayed by how efforts to advocate for neutrality (I wish I could claim this), or even an alternate view (I am definitely a pro-stoxtrader and pro-run the numbers right then make the call guy) are treated on the forums.  That's a big forum fail. 

A few assertions.  Forums are an easy place to be a douchebag.  In forums and in the world at large, decent people fuck up and do stupid, reckless, and arrogant things without thinking them through.  Most harmful actions deserve some reprimand, as Nick''s multiaccounting definitely does.

But that does not mean you should be a douchebag or that you should appease or side entirely with the victims in a terrible spot.  As a community member, look at what the implications are for the long hall.  Also, it most certainly does not mean you should destroy a person for their moment of weakness, even if you dislike them.  I learned this the hard way when I realized my reaction to the Justin Bonomo scandal and the Brian Townsend scandal were totally different.  The difference was in my very high prior opinion of Townsend.  Lately, I just proceed as if I did hold that person in high regard, even if I don't.  It just works better in the long run.  My low opinion of Jason Ho did not keep me from asking for objectivity on his behalf.  He was still punished to the fullest extent that he could be.  I'm not saying that's "forum win", it's just a means to avoid fails.

Another example of thinking one thing and doing something better: anytime I read the phrase "lol" in a forum discussion involving critical thinking, I immediately imagine the most terrible things happening to the person who said it (friend or no friend) and their mother.  But that's not the way I respond.  I try to be critical, direct and open in what arguments I offer back.  And if I think there is a crossed wire, I'll often PM the party who I am debating and try to make it clear what my position is and that I have nothing personal against them.  Again "fail avoidance"

On the subject of "forum win", I have to give credit to the collective PR savvy and dominance of the debate exhibited by the HSNL forum on 2+2.  I'll just quote my thoughts on it from a previous forum post.

If you read between the lines in the thread, a few of the more prominent members were basically (and $EV-optimally) angling very hard to keep on three things:

1) Nick had multiple accounts.
2) Nick changed accounts and wouldn't say why.
3) One of Nick's previous accounts had been accused of collusion in the past...

...[M]y father was involved in corporate litigation. He once told me the worst thing you could face in a courthouse was a "professional expert witness" who could not be moved off the coached statements. In a way, that's how tenaciously the HSNL guys kept on the topic. Any effort to disagree or establish a different majority consensus was effectively and rapidly shut down and they were back on target. This isn't to say they were coached (far from it), rather that they took hold the high ground and obstinantly stuck to it. They just never let it go.

"Kirk Sr." also said the crowning moment of his career was cross examining an executive with a need to feel like a benevolent authoritarian. Over the course of an afternoon, he basically ground this guy's testimony into the dirt by constantly pressing him to account for actions (which were reprehensible) in front of the jury. He could not manage to stick to the story, because of his desire to be admired. By the end of it, he came off looking like he was not entirely on the up and up and/or unable to make tough decisions that most leaders are required to face, effectively demolishing his credibility and thus his arguments for the breach of contract being entirely on the other party.

In a way, this is what I feel happened to Nick and some community leaders (paid or otherwise) in 2+2. Rather than saying nothing until the right thing could be said (and by the right thing I mean the truth if you are an optimist, or the +$EV thing if you are a pessimist), they offered up weak half-responses bidding folks to continue to bide their time on the matter. These were torn to shreds and thrown back in their faces effortlessly by the regs at HSNL. In the end, I think the some of the leadership here and there backed themselves into a corner and paid for it.

And in the aftermath, I have some free advice from Kirk Sr, that colorful old polar bear.

"When you've been accused of something serious, shut the f*ck up and call your lawyer, whether it's true or not."

*Ed Miller, David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Dan Harrington, Collin Moshman, in case you were wondering.

My C-game.

I played a 90 minute session of 25 and 50 NL yesterday. During which, my girlfriend called and seemed stressed out that I wasn't able to accomodate her change of plans. This of course made me upset and my game went off kilter right away. I tried to straighten it out, but I did not succeed. As an exercise, I am making a list of attributes for my C-game. The poker game I play when I should really think more seriously about ending my session early.

1. I lose my "intuitive" grasp of marginal hand values. Really, I do not recognize things that I should be processing. The cutoff doesn't fold to c-bets often enough, the UTG player has a VPIP of 16, etc, etc.
2. I pay off obvious value bets. I let bad players take my money. I let good players take my money when they shouldn't.
3. I fail to recognize good semibluffing situations. Example: a villain led into my set on a threeflush turn. Obviously I am never folding and the villain will not fold his flushes. But, I am thinking about that instead of the likelihood that I can get the villain to commit to a worse hand with a raise or fold something with nine outs to beat me.
4. My game selection goes out the window.
   
5. I play fancy poker instead of ruthless poker.
6. I abandon core strategy ideas. I will make thin, slightly minus-EV plays without considering them and neglect really solid decision making like: 3betting a folder or flatting a strightforward player to peel one street, no more.
7. I stop recognizing my table image.
   

Every day is like Sunday

Today I played a little bit of poker. In the morning, I signed up for several KO tourneys. Tournament poker sucks for one reason above all: when you lose to a terrible player, you cannot buy-in and take a shot at them. By and large, it is a frustrating experience until the day is over and the money is counted. I was also playing sit n gos. There is no game more easily multitabled than tournament poker. My results were solid and I felt productive.

After football, I played some limit hold 'em. I started off ok, but could not settle into a groove. I suspect I was playing bored- exactly what I have been afraid of. This was classic C-game. Not tilt, but still not tightly resolved decision making. Blargh. So, I took a break from the grind to play up a level. It was satisfying and refocused my energy. Focus is not my strong suit.

I need to figure out how to limit this liability as I move up.

Nonetheless, a winning day with more challenges ahead!


Other interesting poker gems.

-I watched a video from "code7654321" about hand ranges. Not the best I've ever seen, but his description of hands as notes- some hard to hit, some easy- was clever. His description of CTS as "The Mariah Carey" of poker is what sealed the deal. Charming simile.

-I watched a second video from pokey about blind defense. I liked its simplicity, but I disagree fundamentally with the notion that three betting simplifies pots. What needed to be said and wasn't is this: "Only sophisticated play can overcome the difficulty of playing out of position. That is not something you develop overnight. Here are some techniques to use." I recall the first moment I realized that TAG blind stealing was impossible to get the best of. The only reassuring fact is that you can stop calling tight raisers with ace eight offsuit.