Harringtons Arch Nemesis?

[jjandellis]

Hello everyone. I posted a remarkably similar post (good ole cut copy paste!) to the one below in the DTD ask a pro section. It is addressed to Henning Granstad. I've had a reply stating that he may not browse this board anymore. I would be interested to know of British players views of this (edited) post:

I, most probably like a lot of players, started my poker learning by reading the Harrington series of books. I have also started looking to add a few other things to my armoury; one of the most important things I am looking to adapt is my ability to change gear.

When I watched Henning I was very impressed with his gear changes. I have also been looking on (and playing at times) at Scandinavian players, who seem to be dominating the European (and increasingly the US) scene.

I remember a Yank telling me that he felt Harrington was too tight. As I have played more and more I have found this statement to hold some amount of truth - hence my desire to learn a looser style of play for when I need to change gears.

What has impressed me about the Scandinavians is their (apparent?) loose style of play. Is their current domination down to the fact that many players follow the Harrington text and that the Scandinavian style is its direct opposite. Has somebody somewhere in Scandinavia systematically analysed and taken apart Harringtons tactics??? Are there any Nordic texts on poker play??? Or is the style just plain random?

Is there a specific school of thought within Scandinavian poker at the moment? If so, where is the best place to tap into it to get some form of insight?

At the end of the day, the Scandies are doing something right - and it would be nice to learn something from their style (as at the moment the only texts out there are really from the american schools of play)

Do you have any advice on how to play certain holdings...or...how to play players u perceive to play under the Harrington Modus Operandi?

Or is the Scandies success down to the fat that so many of them enter these big tourneys? I very much doubt it, but what are your views?

[TightEnd]

bump, interesting post I think

Some of it has to do with the enormous experience some of the Scandies have gained playing online, and the bankrolls generated.

Even tikay plays like a Scandie now.

[AndrewT]

I think it's to do with the widespread availability of big money poker now.

The young Scandies are simply used to being able to throw money around in big games - money which is nothing more that numbers on a screen to them. If they spend hours every day online playing poker, then their huge bankroll is only ever 'poker chips'. They have no mortgages, kids, responsibilities, things which traditionally played on the minds of the old school live players. Many of them never really get the chance to spend any big money - being quite clean-cut geeks. They don't have the reckless gambling streak which traditionally went hand-in-hand with big money poker.

As a result, there's no fear of losing. It's money they won't miss and money they can easily win back by firing up their laptops and hitting the tables.

*Warning - heavy-handed analogy alert*

Scandianvian poker players are the suicide plane hijackers of our age. In the 'good old days' of plane hijacks, hijackers would not perform acts which would put their own lives in danger. Killing all the passengers would be one such act. Therefore the passengers knew their best chance of survival was simply to sit there and be quiet - they didn't need to risk their own lives, as the hijackers wouldn't be risking theirs.

With suicide hijackers this is not the case - the hijackers place no value on their lives and so are willing to sacrifice them to achieve their goals. In order to save their own lives, the passengers know they will have to risk dying in order to overcome the hijackers (the United 93 scenario).

OK, so if poker players = hijackers and passengers,  and chips = the players' lives, then you can see where I'm going with this. Old school players put a high value on their chips and so are less likely to risk them to win pots. Scandies care less and so will happily risk them. If the Scandie is always risking his chips, then he's continually asking you to risk yours to stop him. If the money means more to you than him, you're going to fold as you don't want to risk going out.

On September 11th the hijackers went all-in. The passengers on the planes which hit the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon folded as they didn't realise the texture of the game had changed. The passengers on United 93 were able to identify the change in strategy and made the correct adjustment to their play. They called the all-in. Sadly for them their hands didn't stand up.

[maxward]

.....a bizarre reply!!

[kinboshi]

Love that analogy.  So Scandies are Fundamentalist poker players - genius!

[AdamM]

personally I believe that 'Tight is right'. I think it's better to approach poker as a tight player and change UP gears when necessary, rather than the other way round. Aggressive players with a gambling nature rarely change down. they can make themselves.

I didn't start playing poker with Harrington, infact it came along 5 years into my playing. With the obvious exception of Super System, most good books I've read advocate Tight Aggresive. Patience and discipline are tools I've practiced hard.

It's surely about changing gears at the right times and for the right reasons. ie not getting too short, recognising when the table is slowing down and most importantly, not changing up gears because some mainiac is taking the piss for you being a rock.

As I say, for me personally, Tight Is Right.

Psychology of Poker by Alan N. Schoonmaker is a cracking read, not for poker thgeory but to help get to grips with playing styles and understanding why people play the weay you do and it certainly helped me learn to beat different types of players

[AdamM]

I think it's to do with the widespread availability of big money poker now.

The young Scandies are simply used to being able to throw money around in big games - money which is nothing more that numbers on a screen to them. If they spend hours every day online playing poker, then their huge bankroll is only ever 'poker chips'. They have no mortgages, kids, responsibilities, things which traditionally played on the minds of the old school live players. Many of them never really get the chance to spend any big money - being quite clean-cut geeks. They don't have the reckless gambling streak which traditionally went hand-in-hand with big money poker.

As a result, there's no fear of losing. It's money they won't miss and money they can easily win back by firing up their laptops and hitting the tables.

*Warning - heavy-handed analogy alert*

Scandianvian poker players are the suicide plane hijackers of our age. In the 'good old days' of plane hijacks, hijackers would not perform acts which would put their own lives in danger. Killing all the passengers would be one such act. Therefore the passengers knew their best chance of survival was simply to sit there and be quiet - they didn't need to risk their own lives, as the hijackers wouldn't be risking theirs.

With suicide hijackers this is not the case - the hijackers place no value on their lives and so are willing to sacrifice them to achieve their goals. In order to save their own lives, the passengers know they will have to risk dying in order to overcome the hijackers (the United 93 scenario).

OK, so if poker players = hijackers and passengers,  and chips = the players' lives, then you can see where I'm going with this. Old school players put a high value on their chips and so are less likely to risk them to win pots. Scandies care less and so will happily risk them. If the Scandie is always risking his chips, then he's continually asking you to risk yours to stop him. If the money means more to you than him, you're going to fold as you don't want to risk going out.

On September 11th the hijackers went all-in. The passengers on the planes which hit the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon folded as they didn't realise the texture of the game had changed. The passengers on United 93 were able to identify the change in strategy and made the correct adjustment to their play. They called the all-in. Sadly for them their hands didn't stand up.

Im not sure that's particularly necessary Andrew. we're all capable of understanding your point (a perfectly good one)without the analogy in questionable taste

[MANTIS01]

OK

Re: Harringtons Arch Nemesis?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 01:43:29 pm »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's to do with the widespread availability of big money poker now.

The young Scandies are simply used to being able to throw money around in big games - money which is nothing more that numbers on a screen to them. If they spend hours every day online playing poker, then their huge bankroll is only ever 'poker chips'. They have no mortgages, kids, responsibilities, things which traditionally played on the minds of the old school live players. Many of them never really get the chance to spend any big money - being quite clean-cut geeks. They don't have the reckless gambling streak which traditionally went hand-in-hand with big money poker.

As a result, there's no fear of losing. It's money they won't miss and money they can easily win back by firing up their laptops and hitting the tables.

*Warning - heavy-handed analogy alert*

Scandianvian poker players are the suicide plane hijackers of our age. In the 'good old days' of plane hijacks, hijackers would not perform acts which would put their own lives in danger. Killing all the passengers would be one such act. Therefore the passengers knew their best chance of survival was simply to sit there and be quiet - they didn't need to risk their own lives, as the hijackers wouldn't be risking theirs.

With suicide hijackers this is not the case - the hijackers place no value on their lives and so are willing to sacrifice them to achieve their goals. In order to save their own lives, the passengers know they will have to risk dying in order to overcome the hijackers (the United 93 scenario).

OK, so if poker players = hijackers and passengers,  and chips = the players' lives, then you can see where I'm going with this. Old school players put a high value on their chips and so are less likely to risk them to win pots. Scandies care less and so will happily risk them. If the Scandie is always risking his chips, then he's continually asking you to risk yours to stop him. If the money means more to you than him, you're going to fold as you don't want to risk going out.

On September 11th the hijackers went all-in. The passengers on the planes which hit the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon folded as they didn't realise the texture of the game had changed. The passengers on United 93 were able to identify the change in strategy and made the correct adjustment to their play. They called the all-in. Sadly for them their hands didn't stand up.

Yeah Baby. Excellent post that man!!

I think you have your answer in a nutshell right there jjandellis

If you take a look at the post...."Question for the PROS", I talk about Moneymaker Vs Farha 2003 and how the difference in mentality can be the difference between winning and loosing.

Scandies tend to be young and play super aggressively. This is true.

Like a game of 3 card brag they will just ship chips around and see if you have the balls to call regardless of their holding. If things don't work out then hey they're just 14 and so don't have a care in the world. Don't forget the role-models in this part of the world are the likes of Gus Hansen so no surprise their mentality is not too tight.

More and more players are adopting this attitude.

I love Dan Harrington and his strategy of play.

The foundation of good poker is to play the opposite of your opponents.

So persisting with Dan Harrington's tight aggressive formula as more and more scandies invade the tables with their reckless attitude is actually a rather smart move I think.

[I KNOW IT]

I think it's to do with the widespread availability of big money poker now.

The young Scandies are simply used to being able to throw money around in big games - money which is nothing more that numbers on a screen to them. If they spend hours every day online playing poker, then their huge bankroll is only ever 'poker chips'. They have no mortgages, kids, responsibilities, things which traditionally played on the minds of the old school live players. Many of them never really get the chance to spend any big money - being quite clean-cut geeks. They don't have the reckless gambling streak which traditionally went hand-in-hand with big money poker.

As a result, there's no fear of losing. It's money they won't miss and money they can easily win back by firing up their laptops and hitting the tables.

*Warning - heavy-handed analogy alert*

Scandianvian poker players are the suicide plane hijackers of our age. In the 'good old days' of plane hijacks, hijackers would not perform acts which would put their own lives in danger. Killing all the passengers would be one such act. Therefore the passengers knew their best chance of survival was simply to sit there and be quiet - they didn't need to risk their own lives, as the hijackers wouldn't be risking theirs.

With suicide hijackers this is not the case - the hijackers place no value on their lives and so are willing to sacrifice them to achieve their goals. In order to save their own lives, the passengers know they will have to risk dying in order to overcome the hijackers (the United 93 scenario).

OK, so if poker players = hijackers and passengers,  and chips = the players' lives, then you can see where I'm going with this. Old school players put a high value on their chips and so are less likely to risk them to win pots. Scandies care less and so will happily risk them. If the Scandie is always risking his chips, then he's continually asking you to risk yours to stop him. If the money means more to you than him, you're going to fold as you don't want to risk going out.

On September 11th the hijackers went all-in. The passengers on the planes which hit the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon folded as they didn't realise the texture of the game had changed. The passengers on United 93 were able to identify the change in strategy and made the correct adjustment to their play. They called the all-in. Sadly for them their hands didn't stand up.

Sick analogy

[BigTomatoes]

 you have a warped mind andrew.

[AdamM]

I think it's in bad taste to draw comparison between the loss of hundreds of lives in a specific terrorist attack with something as trivial as Scandinavian poker. You told me in your PM you spent an hour writing and re-writing this to get your point across. Perhaps that hour could have been better spend clearly explaining your point rather than crafting an unnecessary and, frankly silly analogy.

[Colchester Kev]

chill out .... jeeeeesssss.

[AdamM]

not a sensitive or serious issue Kev?

[Colchester Kev]

It has been discussed on the mods board and a decision has been made to let it stay, it was borderline but the concensus was to allow it.

[MANTIS01]

I don't think that we should take ourselves too seriously here

I think we are all aware that hijacking a plane is a bad thing

We are here to improve our poker.

The message is that "suicidal maniacs" at the poker table do not give tuppence about their "poker lives" and we should therefore proceed with caution.

Hijacking a plane is not funny.

I feel sorry for people involved in such a terrifying experience. However, I am not scared to talk about it. It does happen.

I don't like taboo subjects and censorship. There is so much wrong with the world that offence can be caused so readily these days.

It is not funny that I have just ordered a set meal for four from The Golden Dragon and will probably throw half of it away when there are thousands dying of starvation in the world.

I am a pacifist. In my ideal world violence would not exist. But it does exist. How sad. I can't stop it. I don't condone it.

But if this analogy improves my poker I'm o.k. with that.

I got a text this morning and it read:

15 sailors captured for straying into Iranian waters. 14 men and 1 woman. Doesn't take a genius to work out who was reading the bloody map does it!!!

Now this is both inherently sexist and thoroughly disrespectful to our brave servicemen and women who are currently risking their lives policing international waters....


...Bloody funny though.