Is Poker being re-written before our eyes?

[TightEnd]

In this thread over on the Live poker board

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=4107.0

Dingdell poses the following question after seeing The Rookie's televised play, and witnessing a lot of creative play from Scandanavian and American players on Stars:

Since starting to play on Poker Stars this week I've noticed they (mostly Americans) play a lot of similar hands hoping to catch an unsuspecting punter - the Norwegians are already there - is poker being rewritten as we watch?
    
 
I thought it was worthy of a thread in it's own right.

What do you think?

[AndrewT]

I think it is. Yesterday I started reading Erick Lindgren's new book on tournament play and he is very critical of the 'protect your stack - survival is key' approach as espoused by the old-school authors. Harrington's books hinted at the change with their discussion of changing gears as your stack/blinds ratio dwindles, but Lindgren's message (from the first few chapters I've read so far) is more 'you must continually accumulate chips'.

Of course, this involves trying to steal pots when you read your opponent as weak and playing strange hands to crack monsters. In order to really get ahead in tournaments now, opponent profiling is a vital skill - therefore your actual hands have lesser importance. If you're playing the man, you have to worry less about your cards, and have the knowledge that you have the chance to win big pots from 'how could you play that rubbish?' situations.

BTW, if you want me to write a review of Lindgren's book for the website, I'd be happy to do it.

[snoopy1239]

Coincidentally, I ordered this book the other day and was planning on writing a review.

However, please feel free to write your own and send it to a moderator. All contributions are much appreciated.

[TightEnd]

I think it is. Yesterday I started reading Erick Lindgren's new book on tournament play and he is very critical of the 'protect your stack - survival is key' approach as espoused by the old-school authors. Harrington's books hinted at the change with their discussion of changing gears as your stack/blinds ratio dwindles, but Lindgren's message (from the first few chapters I've read so far) is more 'you must continually accumulate chips'.

Of course, this involves trying to steal pots when you read your opponent as weak and playing strange hands to crack monsters. In order to really get ahead in tournaments now, opponent profiling is a vital skill - therefore your actual hands have lesser importance. If you're playing the man, you have to worry less about your cards, and have the knowledge that you have the chance to win big pots from 'how could you play that rubbish?' situations.

BTW, if you want me to write a review of Lindgren's book for the website, I'd be happy to do it.

as I cracked KK on Monday night by calling a raise with 45 off, this is the sort of response I was looking for

and please do the review, would love to see it

[Phil]

That sounds like a fantastic take on the current game. For months I've been struggling to accumalate chips in MTTs and always find myself in survival mode, and of course whenever I do make final table I'm always below average. I've been trying to work on this and change the way I play within recent weeks and have so far seen an amazing improvement in my results (online, played 2 - 2 final tables with 1x 2nd place / live - 1 game, 1 final table).

I have just ordered this book from amazon on the basis of your comments, so it better be good!

[TightEnd]

That sounds like a fantastic take on the current game. For months I've been struggling to accumalate chips in MTTs and always find myself in survival mode, and of course whenever I do make final table I'm always below average. I've been trying to work on this and change the way I play within recent weeks and have so far seen an amazing improvement in my results (online, played 2 - 2 final tables with 1x 2nd place / live - 1 game, 1 final table).

I have just ordered this book from amazon on the basis of your comments, so it better be good!

me too...mixing my game up more....some ugly exits, some final hitting with mega chips

[Heid]

Everything has to change.

Poker is a mass market - it's special quality being that anyone (as long as they have a bankroll) can play with the top eschelons of the game. The game is expanding, evolving, and because of this, new avenues of competitive play will come to the surface. Before the 70's no-one played poker tournaments, Harrington noticed that specific plays in what were smaller field events, garnered better results.

2005 - we are seeing huge fields of runners in tournaments - Harrington's tactics, whilst still looking good, are not going to be the be all and end all. It would make sense that you have to accumulate chips in order to rise through the field, escpecially with very large number of chips in play - how you go about doing that is debateable, and this is where evolution will come into play.

Being the   I am, I don't feel I have that much right to say what I think will happen, BUT sod it I will... The game will evolve into a game where playing the player rather than the cards will become more paramount, certainly in the earlier stages, agression will pay off, the purer game will be able to be played in the latter stages, but early on, it's every man, woman and dog for themselves. Crap shoot? No, mind game .. yes.

Everything changes - the bigger the boom, the quicker the change.

Perhaps a more pertinent questions is...when the poker contraction (the anti boom) takes place, what will happen?

Sorry if I have spoken pants

[Phil]

That sounds like a fantastic take on the current game. For months I've been struggling to accumalate chips in MTTs and always find myself in survival mode, and of course whenever I do make final table I'm always below average. I've been trying to work on this and change the way I play within recent weeks and have so far seen an amazing improvement in my results (online, played 2 - 2 final tables with 1x 2nd place / live - 1 game, 1 final table).

I have just ordered this book from amazon on the basis of your comments, so it better be good!

me too...mixing my game up more....some ugly exits, some final hitting with mega chips

Definitely, but somehow the exits don't hurt so much, and half the time what would have been exits in my previous games and now just dents in my stack as I've accumalted more chips. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from the expert here and have only really had a go at this change in the last week or so, but I feel a lot more confident this way, and I'm not relying simply on my big hands to hold up for me to have a chance to get some chips.

[Phil]

Everything has to change.

Poker is a mass market - it's special quality being that anyone (as long as they have a bankroll) can play with the top eschelons of the game. The game is expanding, evolving, and because of this, new avenues of competitive play will come to the surface. Before the 70's no-one played poker tournaments, Harrington noticed that specific plays in what were smaller field events, garnered better results.

2005 - we are seeing huge fields of runners in tournaments - Harrington's tactics, whilst still looking good, are not going to be the be all and end all. It would make sense that you have to accumulate chips in order to rise through the field, escpecially with very large number of chips in play - how you go about doing that is debateable, and this is where evolution will come into play.

Being the   I am, I don't feel I have that much right to say what I think will happen, BUT sod it I will... The game will evolve into a game where playing the player rather than the cards will become more paramount, certainly in the earlier stages, agression will pay off, the purer game will be able to be played in the latter stages, but early on, it's every man, woman and dog for themselves. Crap shoot? No, mind game .. yes.

Everything changes - the bigger the boom, the quicker the change.

Perhaps a more pertinent questions is...when the poker contraction (the anti boom) takes place, what will happen?

Sorry if I have spoken pants

 

This does just make me think that things will go full circle though. Loose aggressive play seems to be on the agenda right now, but once 7 out of the 10 players on your table are playing like this, surely the Tight approach will start to take the forefront again!

[TightEnd]

yes

at the moment though, outside the top UK festival events, ie in smaller events at UK provincial casinos, I think the majority play tight aggressive and are readable for a modest range of hands in any given situation

it was realising this that led me to start "playing the opposite of the way your table is playing"

as I collected £2.5k on friday adopting this view, I would say the plan shows promise!!

[AndrewT]

it was realising this that led me to start "playing the opposite of the way your table is playing"

Yet the ironic thing is that this is 'classic' poker theory - play the opposite to everyone else. Also, as a corollary of this, if there is a tactic du jour, you must learn how to counter it and take advantage.

For example, in last night's Blondepoker event, I had great success in exploiting the fact that the world and his dog know about continuation bets. I'd call in the blind with any old rubbish, then check/call, check/raise my opponent, who'd been doing the 'correct' play of following through with his pre-flop strength. Every time I tried this, my opponent would lay the hand down. Of course, now I've said this, I'm only ever doing this when I flop top set from now on

And I will write the review once I've finished the book - shouldn't be too long, it's under 200 pages.

[Royal Flush]

I think its all part of a cycle, the game used to be easy to beat if you played tight poker, however as people read more they all got tighter and played this way, then a few clever people switched to this creative style and it works wonders. However as more and more people do this then the tught style will become more succesfull.

Well thats my opinion anyway.

[Bongo]

I don't think the game is changing at all, just people's perceptions on what the game actually is.

[jezza777]

I have to say that the game is definately changing . I have posted on other threads about how I made a concious decision to play loose aggressive poker when my usual tight and aggressive style was getting me cashes in tournaments but not many wins. I also felt that the game was evolving and to be sucessful at it you have to be able to build a decent stack and continually accumulate chips.(not to mention the fear that I was being left behind) Unfortunately hands do not come along often enough on their own to make this happen so you have to make it happen for yourself. It is said that you dont need cards to win at poker and this is surley true, information on your opponents and the ability to exploit situations are evermore important and the cards you hold less and less so.

  Since I tested it out I have found that the style doent suit me and after a few fruitless weeks decided to come back to where I was comfortable. Now however I have found that the experiment has improved my game. I have become better at playing the flop and onwards and I am reading players and betting styles more accurately. I can now enter a pot knowing that I am behind and still be fairly confident of taking the pot wether or not i hit my hand. I can also appreciate the types of opponents I am up against and make a well timed bet to win the pot based on their actions and not so much on the board.

So if your a rock try being a LAP for a bit and it can really improve your game . You might even like it!

[lazaroonie]

Harrington talks about this - The importance to mixup your game is paramount, and most importantly, you will be rewarded far greater when you play opposite to what your table image is...

Harrington made final tables at recently as two years ago - has so much changed in that time ?