Question for the PROS

[MANTIS01]

Ok

Next time you watch Match of the Day look at the crowd when an easy chance is put over the bar. Every supporter instinctively puts their hands to their heads as the scream of "ooooooooooooo" rings around the stadium.

People INSTINCTIVELY cover their heads to protect the brain from danger in risky or scary situations. It is natural. You can't control it.

There are many other examples of this automatic and protective behaviour, e.g. closing your eyes when you sneeze.

The brain is inherently designed to protect you.

Trying to over-ride these natural reactions is a very tall order.

Remember the last time you got knocked out of a big tournament when you were really enjoying it. I think the word "GUTTED" is an appropriate one to describe how you probably felt.

You don't want to feel like that. It's no fun. So your brain does what it can to protect you from that situation.

It is why the bubble is such a profitable situation for aggressive players. And it is also why deals are often made in spite of a no guts no glory mentality. I could take $100,000 now and then I am protected from the hurt of feeling gutted if I get knocked out next....I am guaranteed the security of success.

Subsequently, the complexion of the tournament absolutely will change because player's brains are no longer in survival mode. It is now pure enjoyment. Interestingly, in El Blondie's example, he felt that HE was in charge of the game and HIS name was on that bracelet. So when the deal was done it seems that Dave was the player that still had something to loose and his shorter-stacked opponents were free-rolling and enjoying themselves. Was this a factor in the eventual result?

2006 WSOP - Steve Dannaman is the runner-up after playing for fun. He has a list of his expectations which he pulls out at the final table. Number 1 on the list is HAVE FUN. Does the freedom of fullfilling his expectations regardless of the result allow him to play better?

Maybe people who just want to cash have an advantage over those who play to win. When the goal of cashing has been achieved the shackles of expectation are removed and playing becomes pure and fearless enjoyment, something that instinctively cannot be experienced by players who only want to win.

Or maybe we should just have fun and pure enjoyment from the outset. This way we always win.

[MANTIS01]

Following on from the previous post....

I remember watching an interview with Chris Moneymaker after his WSOP Main Event win in 2003.

He stated that when they got to heads-up he offered Sammy Farha a chop of the prize money. Farha quickly declined.

The impression Moneymaker got was that Farha felt he was the better player and as such...expected to win.

Moneymaker was annoyed by the arrogance of his opponent and was determined to play Farha off the table because of it.

We all know that heads-up play is a psychological battle and the two players had very different mentalities as play commenced. Moneymaker was an internet qualifier who had already gone much further than he could ever have expected. The second place prize money was plenty enough to be satisfied with and now all he wanted to do was steam-roll his arrogant opponent to the rail. Farha on the other hand still had the weight of his own expectations on his shoulders. He was playing to win and only first place, the bracelet and the title were going to fulfill his own particular goal.

Although Sammy Farha is world class and probably a much better player than Chris Moneymaker I think his mindset of first or nothing actually handicaps him here. His brain is still sub-consciously protecting him from the "gutted" feeling of not winning.

Moneymaker couldn't care less either way....he's just annoyed now.

Example hand to demonstrate the difference in mentality.....

Moneymaker      

Farha       

Moneymaker raises to $100k and Sammy calls

Flop comes         

Both check

Turn comes     

Sammy now bets $300k into a $210k pot....Hmmm

Moneymaker re-raises to $500k and Sammy calls

River comes     

Sammy checks and Moneymaker moves all-in.

Farha actually says...."you must have missed your flush eh?" before eventually passing.

Sammy Farha, a notoriously aggressive poker player played this hand like he was scared to loose. He checked top pair on the flop, over-bet the pot on the turn, weakly called the re-raise when he could have pushed himself and then check-folded the best hand on the river even though he put Moneymaker on a missed draw. Moneymaker on the other hand just hammered his opponent into the ground.

I think a good theory to explain why Farha lost this battle was because he played to win. This created a scenario where sub-consciously he wanted to withdraw from dangerous situations to protect himself from loosing.

So can we say that playing to win may be a handicap?

Just a theory....but then again work is really boring today.

[Royal Flush]

Sounds like a load of tosh to me.


He checked top pair on the flop, (probably looking to CR)

over-bet the pot on the turn, (how does that show he was afraid to lose?)

weakly called the re-raise when he could have pushed himself (obviously recognised a re-raise held little value, he fancied he was massively infront or drawing thin)

and then check-folded the best hand on the river even though he put Moneymaker on a missed draw. (if your silly enough to believe players actually tell you what they think you have then gl to you!)

[RED-DOG]

Following on from the previous post....

I remember watching an interview with Chris Moneymaker after his WSOP Main Event win in 2003.

He stated that when they got to heads-up he offered Sammy Farha a chop of the prize money. Farha quickly declined.

The impression Moneymaker got was that Farha felt he was the better player and as such...expected to win.

Moneymaker was annoyed by the arrogance of his opponent and was determined to play Farha off the table because of it.

We all know that heads-up play is a psychological battle and the two players had very different mentalities as play commenced. Moneymaker was an internet qualifier who had already gone much further than he could ever have expected. The second place prize money was plenty enough to be satisfied with and now all he wanted to do was steam-roll his arrogant opponent to the rail. Farha on the other hand still had the weight of his own expectations on his shoulders. He was playing to win and only first place, the bracelet and the title were going to fulfill his own particular goal.

Although Sammy Farha is world class and probably a much better player than Chris Moneymaker I think his mindset of first or nothing actually handicaps him here. His brain is still sub-consciously protecting him from the "gutted" feeling of not winning.

Moneymaker couldn't care less either way....he's just annoyed now.

Example hand to demonstrate the difference in mentality.....

Moneymaker      

Farha       

Moneymaker raises to $100k and Sammy calls

Flop comes         

Both check

Turn comes     

Sammy now bets $300k into a $210k pot....Hmmm

Moneymaker re-raises to $500k and Sammy calls

River comes     

Sammy checks and Moneymaker moves all-in.

Farha actually says...."you must have missed your flush eh?" before eventually passing.

Sammy Farha, a notoriously aggressive poker player played this hand like he was scared to loose. He checked top pair on the flop, over-bet the pot on the turn, weakly called the re-raise when he could have pushed himself and then check-folded the best hand on the river even though he put Moneymaker on a missed draw. Moneymaker on the other hand just hammered his opponent into the ground.

I think a good theory to explain why Farha lost this battle was because he played to win. This created a scenario where sub-consciously he wanted to withdraw from dangerous situations to protect himself from loosing.

So can we say that playing to win may be a handicap?

Just a theory....but then again work is really boring today.

 

[MANTIS01]

OK

Sounds like a load of tosh to me.

This could certainly be true.

But look at what El Blondie says here about his WSOP tournament.

I was a chip leader and had been dominating the table, and was a clear winner in the tournament, but when we had chopped all the money, the pressure was off. My opponents played differently throwing their chips around and I eventually finished 2nd.

I think it would be worthwhile if we learnt something from his experience.

Before the deal is done El Blondie has a seriously powerful weapon in his favour. His two opponents hope the other one goes out next. They don't want to loose. The fact that their brains are putting them in survival mode means that Dave can exploit this for all it's worth and kill the tournament off right here and now.

After the business has been done his opponents become more care-free. The only factor that has changed is the mentality of the other players. They are not prepared to let Dave push them around anymore. And this changes the complexion of the tournament altogether. The main reason his opponents are care-free is because they are satisfied, the pressure is off and they are free from danger.

El Blondie on the other hand can only loose a tournament he was expecting to win. So that additional pressure of now not wanting to loose will now probably effect how he plays the game.

I think in the 2003 example, Chris Moneymaker played heads-up with this care-free attitude because he was already satisfied with his achievement. Sammy Farha wasn't satisfied with second and so had the additional pressure of playing for the win. If you want to win at all costs surely there must be an instinctive desire to protect yourself from loosing.

So maybe, just not caring if you loose is a good mentality to have as a player. Playing to win puts a lot of extra pressure on your shoulders.

Incidentally, I was surprised at the way Sammy Farha played that hand though. He never imposed himself on it at all. He had the best hand throughout and just let Moneymaker brush him off it. Very unaggressive from a guy who wanted to win so bad. Moneymaker moved all-in, heads-up, in the World Series, on a stone cold bluff.

He doesn't give a toss...Call that Farha!...Bloody good poker that!

Anyway can I just confirm for the record that this could be a load of tosh.

[elblondie]

Good post 

[MANTIS01]

Actually, I have now decided that this is not a load of tosh after all.

Studying and understanding the instinctive behaviour of players in certain situations is no different from looking for tells.

Instinctive behaviour Vs an instinctive reaction

If your mentality is only that don't care about loosing, your instinctive behaviour will remain constant throughout a competition.

An increased desire to WIN will simultaneously create a situation where you will instinctively protect yourself from losing.

Thus you will not be able to play as purely as you could.

The hotter it gets means that it is getting less and less cold.

So the more you want to win instinctively means the more and more you don't want to loose. I think this could definitely affect your behaviour at the table.

So for the record then. This is not the load of tosh I considered it might be. It is now an insightful gem of poker wisdom.

[Tragic]

Quality stuff sir

[Wardonkey]

Actually, I have now decided that this is not a load of tosh after all.

Studying and understanding the instinctive behaviour of players in certain situations is no different from looking for tells.

Instinctive behaviour Vs an instinctive reaction

If your mentality is only that don't care about loosing, your instinctive behaviour will remain constant throughout a competition.

An increased desire to WIN will simultaneously create a situation where you will instinctively protect yourself from losing.

Thus you will not be able to play as purely as you could.

The hotter it gets means that it is getting less and less cold.

So the more you want to win instinctively means the more and more you don't want to loose. I think this could definitely affect your behaviour at the table.

So for the record then. This is not the load of tosh I considered it might be. It is now an insightful gem of poker wisdom.

You should have quit while you were ahead...

[Royal Flush]

Still looks like tosh to me.

I have never heard anyone say at a poker table that they lost because they were going for the win so badly that they played to protective incase they lost.

[TightEnd]

Haven't heard it but I recognise it

I think they are an excellent thought provoking set of posts. Challenges conventional wisdom, I like it

[MANTIS01]

You should have quit while you were ahead...

Agreed

But now I am mentally conditioned not to think about the win.

Instead I have a fearless approach to loosing.

Therefore I was unable to instinctively protect myself from this eventually.

[Senor Nick]

just like the thread

bump