Are you an analytical or instinctual poker player?

See subject for question. I have noticed lately that my profitability in online poker has gone way up (I was always profitable in home games), despite the fact that I haven't done any of the stuff you're supposed to do - i.e. get Poker Tracker, request hand histories, make lists of your opponents, etc. My play is pretty much instinctual. I go to a table, sit and play very tight for 20 minutes to get the lay of the land, and then open up with a tight/highly aggressive style. Basically I look for dangerous players (maniacs or loose aggressives) and avoid playing with them unless I have the nuts, and pick on everyone else at the table. It's worked to the tune of $180 in profits over the last 4 days, playing not all that much (4-5 hours a day max) and at lower price tables (.25/.50 NL, $25 max buy-in).

So in short, I feel pretty comfortable with the kind of player I am. I just wanted to check and see if others are the same or very different, and also I'd like to hear the argument in favor of me becoming more analytical. Will it really improve my profitability? (I feel like right now I am hardly ever getting burned by not knowing my opponents beforehand. It's getting very easy to lump players into categories just by watching just one or two rounds at the table.)

I clicked between, because what I am is an an analytical player who is not that fast when it comes to lighning calculations. BUT I have a good intuitiion for the math involved.

Ferinstance, I will count outs and pot odds, but I will just guess at implied odds. Also, my memory, while good for an average person, is nothing like a seasoned poker pro. This is why I track the game with a program, so I don't have to concentrate on what the players are doing, I can just took them up.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Good for you.

That's a pretty terse response... care to expand on it?

If you're happy with your game, at comfortable stakes, play for fun and happen to make some money along the way, then good for you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

If you're happy with your game, at comfortable stakes, play for fun and happen to make some money along the way, then good for you.

I am on board this train.

Originally Posted by Fnord

If you're happy with your game, at comfortable stakes, play for fun and happen to make some money along the way, then good for you.

That definitely describes me up to this point. But I don't want to limit myself either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that everybody should give up on Poker Tracker and etc. I don't even know if I should try it out. The only reason I haven't is, essentially, laziness... and when I first tried online poker I threw away a couple hundred bucks, and was convinced that my laziness was going to prevent me from ever making money at this.

So, honest questions:

1. Do you think Poker Tracker and a "buddy list" is helpful to every player? to me? Is it worth my time to get into all that? I will probably never be a pro player or anything like it. I do devote a lot of time to reading poker books though, and discussing it on this site. So it's not like I'm completely dog-lazy about my game.

2. Do you think it's necessary to do the above to move up to bigger stakes? I have been mulling it over lately and decided if I keep consistently winning at the $25 buy-in tables, I am going to move up when my bankroll covers it. I'm also curious, on that note, what you guys feel is a good level to move up at. If the table buy-in is $50, what should my bankroll be? Right now it's about $300.

The main indicator that I think shows the improvements in my poker game has been an ability to read the other players very well. If I am in a pot to the river with a big money showdown, I win 8 times out of 10. If I fold, I expect to see the winning hand be better than mine, and it usually is. But again, I'm playing the low stakes - I can only assume players aren't as obvious when bigger money is involved.

I think if you are playing limit, you must be more analytical than instinctual.

NL is all about instincts and that's why I don't play it anymore. I think I could learn to be an instinctual player IRL, but am clueless online.

Limit is a science. NL is an art. That's what I always say.

pokertracker is so not worth it

pokertracker is so not worth it

If you don't bother to take the time to learn too use it, I agree. If you are serious about your game, you'd better use it.

Originally Posted by lhoney2

pokertracker is so not worth it

If you don't bother to take the time to learn too use it, I agree. If you are serious about your game, you'd better use it.

I have barely read up on this. Does it just track your profitability with various hands, or does it track opponents' betting styles, or both? What else does it do?

I have barely read up on this. Does it just track your profitability with various hands, or does it track opponents' betting styles, or both? What else does it do?

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=238

If you don't bother to take the time to learn too use it, I agree

As with most tools, the more you know about it's abilities, the more useful it will be to you. I have found it to bevery useful and I am still in the process of learning how to use it. I have about 5000 hands in it now, and have found specific leaks in my game...particularly regarding to playing out of position. It is a tool the benefits analytical players (which I am) but it could be useful to the instinctual player, if for no other reason than to keep track of what your apponents are doing. Anyway, I still have quite a bit to learn when it comes to Poker Tracker - the sheer volume of data it gives you is a little overwhelming, and then trying to use that data to benefit your game....it just takes time - just like learning and getting good at poker itself.
dalecooper I would suggest downloading the trial verson and taking a look at it - if you don't like it don't buy it.

Originally Posted by lhoney2

Limit is a science. NL is an art. That's what I always say.

Nice quote, get a copyright on that , sounds ok dont know if agree yet, i've never played limit, ill start playing it soon though


-anto

{This post has been removed}

I believe in a lot of that, Rippy, which is why I play 6 max NL tables primarily. Those places are great hunting grounds for predators, and I know I make a lot of my money from buying pots. Hammering away, like Brunson would say. It's not just position - if I see a pair on the board and only 1 or 2 other players in, I'll bet at the pot from any seat and see if it sticks. If I get called or raised I back right off, but overall it makes me more money than it loses. Sometimes I'll bet huge with just outs - middle or lower pair, a draw to something good like a flush or gutshot straight - and make people fold better hands than mine. I do get burned but when I do, I only lose the one bet usually. Two times out of three or better, I take down the pot. And since I like pre-flop raising, it's usually a decent pot.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

know the odds



ex: you hold J/9os and call a moderate raise with 3 in the hand

flop is A/A/2.....2 check before you

SLAM a pot sized bet and take that mutha down

Yeah, but what i your opp wwas slowplaying trips, then he would re-raise you and you would have to fold..right??


-anto

Originally Posted by elanto

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

know the odds



ex: you hold J/9os and call a moderate raise with 3 in the hand

flop is A/A/2.....2 check before you

SLAM a pot sized bet and take that mutha down

Yeah, but what i your opp wwas slowplaying trips, then he would re-raise you and you would have to fold..right??


-anto

And you only lose 1 pot sized bet. You will win far more than you lose doing this, just remember to back off to any nuclear re-raises, and be cautious of callers.

I guess in between, after reading more of this. I don't use Poker Tracker and definitely don't think its a neccessity. Most of the great players in the game learned the game in live games and they certainly didn't have Poker Tracker to analyze their "leaks", but rather they learned by experience, but that's not to say that it can't help some people, particularly while playing limit.

Even still, I consider myself an analytical player because I consider odds and position and stack sizes etc., talk about plays and hands here, read poker articles and books, etc. Instinctual, when I first read the topic, sounded more like "I got a good feeling about my hand so I'll make a play that my mind knows is a bad one", and I never do that consciously(although I do at times have brainfarts that convince me to make a play that I should've known were bad - like calling an all in preflop with AJs). But it sounds more like you're talking about poker instinct based on reads and experience and all that, and using this on top of a solid foundation of a analytical game. I'm all for that.

I do think you need to have a good understanding of the analytical game to really play outside of the box effectively, though. I think some people kind of skip over that and play a game purely based on aggression, which will work at times (and lose a lot at other times), but I think its best for a beginning player to first develop a really good game while playing straight and tight before moving outside of the box, as you have to learn when to pick your spots.

So yeah ... somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by michael1123

I do think you need to have a good understanding of the analytical game to really play outside of the box effectively, though. I think some people kind of skip over that and play a game purely based on aggression, which will work at times (and lose a lot at other times), but I think its best for a beginning player to first develop a really good game while playing straight and tight before moving outside of the box, as you have to learn when to pick your spots.

Well said. Learning how to be analytical and analyze the odds on every street is how you build the foundation of a good poker game. The instinct stuff then becomes the icing on the cake, the zig to go with your zag. I'm a bit biased, I suppose....I absolutely loved Theory of Poker and the way Slansky approaches the game. Aggression and making plays without a hand is all good, but even then I'm calculating the odds of a bluff working based on previous observations of my opponents behaviour. It's all math, baby! (Well, almost all.)

Fnord's and Rippy's lovechild would be the perfect no-limit hold'em player.


I voted for "somewhere in between."

Originally Posted by Xianti

Fnord's and Rippy's lovechild would be the perfect no-limit hold'em player.


I voted for "somewhere in between."

ha-ha my thoughts exactly... anyways I’m in-between, the "science" of limit is not truly science in my opinion, it's know odds and percentages "mathematical" seems to be more the word but "science" I guess could be used for tells in a live limit game (or online if you have one). No Limit is a game of "science" and "art" I’d say for the in-betweeners like me pick one that you enjoy the most and stick to it, or if your good enough to play both well (not many people can, some pros even can't play both well) then by all means go for it. I personally play No Limit more then limit but if it's online other then SnG or MTT I play limit, live I play no limit. This is due to my NL game is highly fluid and based on tells with math, my limit game is more outs, odds, est.

it's know odds and percentages "mythical" seems to be more the word but "science" I guess could be used for tells in a live limit game (or online if you have one).

Mythical??? Not sure I follow.

The reason Limit IS a science - In most situations there is a cut and dried correct play. Small variations may be made based on the playing style of your opps, but overall you can play cookie-cutter poker in limit, and be assured of winning at the low limits.

opps typo... Mathematical