daven rant

The obsession with loose and tight and aggressive and passive and 3-betting more or a (wtf!?) polarised 4-betting range or whatever is flavour of the day isn't what winning at poker is about, not in isolation.

Nor target stats that suddenly become sub-par when game conditions change or you don't know how or when to play the ranges these numbers suggest.

Poker is a series of situations with huge areas of common ground and subtle differences that are of incredible importance. Any situation is modified by a range of variables.AKs on the button facing a limp, a raise and a 3-bet before it gets to you. What to do? Options are call, fold, or 4-bet. All are correct - depending on the modifying factors.

And this is what becomes ever more difficult, identifying the table conditions and how they affect optimal decision-making.

There are standard or default actions. 3-bet AA from the SB vs UTG+1 open and two callers. These need to become obvious, instinct. But not simply by rote learning, instead by investigating and understanding why. Why is it bad to be out of position 5-way to a flop with aces? Why don't you want to be on the cutoff with 77 and calling an MP open and HJ call with three aggro shortstacks left to act. So what is better here? Fold? 3-bet? The more situations you have given in depth thought and analysis to, the more that the influence of modifying factors on any given situation will become clear.

I have spent loads of hours/hands grinding out huge volumes of low winrate sessions.
Then tilting and having losing sessions smash that win-rate. And, finally and thankfully, a period of variance in the "wrong" direction that has finally provided another poker a-ha moment.
Behind 15 buyins on All In Expected Value over 20k hands and tilting and moaning I read a post from Jyms about the why of decisions. And at the same time realised that being 15buyins behind AIEV over 20k hands should still leave me in the black at the stakes where it occurred - if I was playing well.

So, about ten days ago, I got to work.
Assessing default plays and realising the numerous positions/situations where these "standard" default plays were at best far from MaxEV, and at worst uber-spew.
And studying the why. Especially the why of calling. Realising that you need a damn good why to be calling anytime in poker. That anytime you call you need a why that explains it being better than folding or raising. And to this, you need to answer what - what is the situation, including the relevant modifying factors. Or, better, the modifying factors are in fact part of the situation.

And, from there, the journey continues.

You play chess Nish? if so are you on FICS or have a grading?

Great post. Definitely the right track, not sure BC is where it belongs for discussion worthy of OP's post, but BC may get something from it.

Dude... 1) VNH, 2) I've read rants, and you sir, did not just post a rant...

A related exercise for sh!ts and giggles that I've found very helpful to break the tendency to focus on actions in isolate...

1) Go through HEM/PT and pick a hand that went to SD and had a > 20-30bb pot. Doesn't have to be yours. And shouldn't be all the time. Pick hands from people who represent all kinds of playing styles.
2) Start w/ pre-flop, bullet out every factor that would affect heroes decision -- stats, reads, position, blah blah. This obv includes thinking through ranges and the math involved. Then do the same for his actual PF decision - including what it means for his plan for the rest of the hand.
3) For the PF decision made, flip the script and take a moment to sit in vils seat. Bullet out a) how he could react and why and b) what the implications are of his actual reaction
4) Repeat all of this for every street
5) Assess the final outcome and decide whether you believe the actions were optimal, and most importantly...... why.

Rinse, repeat and above all, avoid shortcutting or skipping steps, for many hands.

I don't know If Jyms is likely to agree with me after his experience this spring, but I find that I seem to do the most analysis on my own game when I'm in a losing streak. WHen I'm running hot I tend to try out new stuff ,rather than analysing why I'm running hot and probably is a massive flaw in my own game and instead of being a newbie circle of death is probably more a complacent circle of arrogance. Until the downswing comes , and I have to go back and work out what I've lapsed into doing wrong again.

Originally Posted by Keith_MM

I don't know If Jyms is likely to agree with me after his experience this spring, but I find that I seem to do the most analysis on my own game when I'm in a losing streak. WHen I'm running hot I tend to try out new stuff ,rather than analysing why I'm running hot and probably is a massive flaw in my own game and instead of being a newbie circle of death is probably more a complacent circle of arrogance. Until the downswing comes , and I have to go back and work out what I've lapsed into doing wrong again.

i like ur metaphor, i have experienced the boom/bust of this cycle 3 times. imo it's kind of like the second circle, because this is the trap of the mediocre/unmotivated players, rather than "newbs".

This is basically talking about the difference between learning by rote, and learning poker. Very important stuff.

Very good post imo, worth the read.