Читать книгу Poker Winners Are Different: - Alan N. Schoonmaker - Страница 10
Оглавление3. Winners Make Good Trade-Offs
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
—Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics
Professor Friedman certainly wasn’t the first person to say that, but he frequently repeated it. He knew that many people believed that they could have free lunches, such as more government benefits with lower taxes. They couldn’t accept that somebody must pay for everything.
As far as I know, he never played or wrote about poker. He concentrated on the disastrous effects that believing in free lunches had on political, social, and economic policies. But the same belief devastates many poker players. They try to get everything—profits, fun, relaxation, challenges, status, fame, and so on—because they deny the reality that winning poker demands painful trade-offs.
The actions that satisfy some motives will frustrate others. If you don’t understand, accept, and work within the limitations created by this reality, you’ll make some very bad decisions. Good trade-offs sacrifice lower priority motives to satisfy higher priority ones. To make them you must:
• Know what you want.
• Analyze the costs and benefits of each alternative.
• Select the alternative that offers the best cost/benefit ratio.
Why Do You Play Poker?
Your long-term success depends on complex trade-offs that involve at least four factors:
1. Your motives
2. Your talent
3. Your readiness to work hard
4. Your ruthlessness
Start by analyzing your motives because they affect almost everything, including your readiness to work hard and your ruthlessness. Many losers don’t analyze their own motives, nor do they think in terms of trading one satisfaction for another.
Some motives hardly affect or even reinforce each other. For example, wanting to play this hand very well increases both your short- and long-term profits. The desire to develop yourself is closely related to the desire to challenge tough players.
Many poker authors assume that players have only one motive—to win the most money, but it’s a ridiculous assumption. Since most players lose, there must be other motives; otherwise, the losers wouldn’t play. And everyone—even the most profit-hungry professional—takes many profit-reducing actions.
Even if they don’t assume that your only motive is to make money, many authorities insist that it’s the only one you should have. But their insistence ignores a psychological reality: you want what you want, not what other people say you should want.
Don’t kid yourself about why you play poker. Instead, try to assess the importance of various motives by completing a little questionnaire. 10
The procedure is quite simple: Just divide your total motivation (100%) into as many pieces as you think are correct. For example, if your only motive is to make money and you treat poker as just a job, assign 100 percentage points to “Make money.”
If your primary motive is to make money, but you also enjoy socializing and meeting people, like to test yourself against competitive challenges, get a little kick from gambling, and want to pass time, you may rate Make money 40%, Socialize 20%, Competitive challenge 20%, Excitement of gambling 10%, and Pass time 10%.
If you really don’t care about making money, if the chips are just scorekeeping tokens, you may assign all your points to other categories.
If you have motives other than the ones listed, write them in the blank spaces and assign numbers to them.
Use a pencil or a computer so that you can make changes, and make sure that your numbers add exactly to 100%.11 After completing the following questionnaire, copy your answers in the identical questionnaire on pages 259–60.
| Why Do You Play Poker? | |
| Make money | ___ % |
| Socialize, meet people | ___ % |
| Relax | ___ % |
| Get excitement of gambling | __ % |
| Test yourself against tough competition | ___ % |
| Develop your skills | __ % |
| Get sense of accomplishment from winning | __ % |
| Get status and fame | ___ % |
| Pass time | ___ % |
| Other (specify) | |
| ______________________________________________________________________ | ___ % |
| ______________________________________________________________________ | ___ % |
| ______________________________________________________________________ | ___ % |
| Total (must be 100%) | ___ % |
Note that this procedure automatically forces you to make trade-offs. To increase the points for one motive, you must reduce the points assigned to others. Note also that the higher your score for “make money,” the more likely you are to sacrifice other motives. The opposite is also true. The more important other drives are to you, the more frequently you will take profit-reducing actions. From a purely economic point of view, it pays to want nothing from poker but profits.
Specific Trade-Offs
Now that we have an overall picture of your motives, let’s look at some specific trade-offs. Each one is followed by a seven-point rating scale. Rate yourself by circling a number. Then circle the same number in the How Do You Rate? Data section starting on page 260.
Profits vs. Fun
It’s the most basic trade-off, and many losers won’t make it. They want to have fun, but still win. They just can’t accept that they have to sacrifice fun to increase profits. So they play too many hands, chase too long, and make other enjoyable, but costly mistakes.
I once wrote: “One of the most fascinating poker questions is: Why do so many people play so badly? . . . The answer is surprisingly simple: it’s more fun to play badly than well. Of course, winning is more fun than losing, but trying to maximize our profits would force us to do lots of unpleasant things. In fact, profit-maximization makes such extreme demands that only a few extraordinarily disciplined people play their best game most of the time, and nobody always plays it.”12
The biggest reason that many people lose is that they do what they enjoy, not what it takes to win. Sacrificing fun is part of the price of success, and you won’t win without paying it.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Avoiding Frustrations
Many decisions will increase both your profits and your frustrations. For example, if you increase your profits by playing against certain kinds of weak players, they will frustrate you by giving you bad beats, talking too much, not knowing what the action is, delaying the game while they order drinks, and so on.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Rewards vs. Risks
Economists have discussed this trade-off for centuries. To increase profits, you must normally take greater risks. Poker winners understand and apply that principle, even if they have never read an economics book.
The critical issue is whether the probability and personal value of greater profits compensates for the higher risks. Sometimes the risks outweigh the chances for larger profits, at least for some players. For example, they may believe that the chance to make more money in higher-stakes games does not justify the higher risks. Many good players are tempted to move up, but others play at a level they can beat consistently. They deliberately trade the chances for higher profits to get smaller, but safer ones.
One reason for caution is that many players are undercapitalized. They don’t have remotely as much as the authorities recommend. The win rate decreases (in big bets per hour [BBPH]) and the standard deviation (in BBPH) increases as games get larger because the competition gets tougher. Bigger games therefore create larger swings and a greater risk of going broke for undercapitalized players.
Winners trade the opportunity for larger immediate profits for increased chances to survive. They play at safe limits, build their bankrolls, and move upward slowly. Losers—including some excellent players—refuse to make that trade-off, move up too quickly, and go broke.
Playing above their bankroll hurts them in two ways: they do not have the capital to survive the inevitable losses, and they play poorly because they cannot afford to take necessary risks. It is called “playing with scared money.”
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number. This scale is a bit different from the preceding one. Everybody loves profits, but you may dislike risks. If you will take large risks to get large profits, circle a higher number:
Profits vs. Variance
This trade-off appears similar to the last one, but it is quite different. It is also closely related to frustration tolerance. Some people play too passively because it seems less risky than playing aggressively. They check when they should bet, or they call when they should raise, even though the aggressive actions could be more profitable and less risky. Passive play often saves a bet, but loses a pot.
Many situations and strategies increase both your profits and your variance, but some people won’t take them. For example, extremely tight-passive Rocks fold many positive EV (+EV) hands, don’t raise with good draws and many opponents, and sacrifice profits in other ways to reduce their variance.
Countless people avoid very loose games because they’re too frustrated by variance, especially bad beats. You can’t get a bad beat without having the best of it, often by five or ten to one. Whining that “these people call with anything” is obviously foolish. You should want them to call with weak hands, even though you will occasionally lose.
But the winners’ objective is long-term profits. If you really want to maximize them, you will often have to join games and make plays that increase both your variance and your frustration. You must decide whether the increased profits are more important to you than the variance and frustration.
That decision may depend on other factors. For example, if your bankroll is small or a losing streak has reduced your confidence, you may be unable to afford—financially or psychologically—a high-variance game. You may need to win more frequently, even if your wins are smaller. Your rating today could be quite different from what it would be when your bankroll or state of mind is improved.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Fame and Status
The desire for status and fame wasn’t one of the motives in The Psychology of Poker. When I wrote it, hardly any poker players were famous. Now, with poker on television so frequently, some players are celebrities, and thousands more are wannabes.
Of course, poker has always had a status hierarchy. Winners are higher status than losers. Players in larger games have higher status, even if they don’t do as well. A breakeven $30–$60 player has higher status than a winning $4–$8 player. Nobody really knows how much anyone wins, and many people lie about their results.
Until a few years ago, many pros did not want other people to know how good they were. A tough reputation would reduce their profits. Some people would not join their games, and others would not give them much action.
When televised tournaments became popular, some top cash game players who had avoided tournaments started playing in them. A few said they did it because people asked, “If you’re so good, why haven’t I seen you on television?”
Being on television is a very mixed blessing. Players don’t get much or any of the television revenue. The exposure does increase a few top pros’ incomes from endorsements, and so on. However, being on television probably reduces their playing profits. Their opponents record and study their play and then use that knowledge against them indefinitely.
So why do they do it? Because it’s a huge kick to be on television, and many pros will sacrifice substantial profits to get there. In addition, since they can’t tell how much it affects their playing profits, they may rationalize that they aren’t losing much (or anything).
Preston Oade, a good tournament player with whom I collaborate occasionally, e-mailed me about the conflicting desires for profits, fame, and status:
If profits are the only way we keep score in poker, why does everyone seem to care about WSOP bracelets? And why have a “Player of the Year” competition based on one’s overall results in designated tournaments? I suggest that the practical realities of tournament play are largely inconsistent with profit as the driving motive or as the “only” way to keep score. It is much easier to win money in cash games.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Testing Yourself Against Tough Competition
The desire to challenge tougher players has destroyed countless bankrolls. Even though they know that it’s risky, some people can’t resist the challenge. You may know players who moved too high and went bust, and you may have done it yourself. It’s a natural human desire. You want to know how good you are. But yielding to that desire can be extremely expensive.
Barry Greenstein told our discussion group that he and the other regulars in Bobby’s Room at the Bellagio love to have the winners of big tournaments join their games. They are so puffed up from winning a huge prize and being televised that they want to challenge Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Dan Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and the other great players. They usually lose heavily, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You aren’t a tournament hotshot, but—if you have an excessive need to test yourself—you could be headed for very big trouble.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Developing Your Skills
This desire relates to every game, even ones you don’t play for money. It also interacts with drives such as the one to test yourself, and we must distinguish between immediate and long-term profits.
To maximize your immediate profits, play in the softest possible games. But—if you don’t sacrifice some immediate profits—you won’t develop the skills you need to beat larger games. Matt Lessinger’s forcefully stated his readiness to make this trade-off:
There are times (and it may surprise you that I am saying this) that I play and do not expect to make a profit. I have played in games in which my EV was very clearly negative.... [They] were learning experiences, and thus well worth the sacrifice. I was willing to pay my “tuition” in order to get schooled.13
Unfortunately, you may rationalize that you’re trying to develop your skills when your primary motives are the needs to gamble and to challenge tougher players.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Affection
We all want to be liked, but some players dislike winners, even if they are pleasant people. They take other people’s money, hurting both their wallets and their egos. Winners accept being disliked as part of the price of success, but some losers deliberately trade money for affection. For example, they don’t bet when they have the nuts, or they show a winning hand without their bet being called. These actions may make them more popular, but they obviously reduce their profits.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Being Deceptive and Exploitative
This trade-off is closely related to the previous one, and it makes some people extremely uncomfortable. Winners constantly deceive opponents, and they exploit every advantage. Many winners will do whatever the rules allow, while many losers are restrained by their scruples or fear of being disliked. For example, they may be so uncomfortable that they don’t bluff often enough, or they may refuse to take advantage of a beginner, drunk, or tilted player. They’ll certainly win less than equally skilled, but more deceptive or ruthless players.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Ego Building
Winners forego ego building to increase their profits. They don’t try to prove anything, assess their strengths and weakness honestly, select soft games, attack the weakest players, and avoid the toughest ones.
Many losers do exactly the opposite. They sacrifice profits to build their egos. They may take reckless chances to prove they are macho gamblers, criticize weak players, challenge tough ones, and brag about their brilliant plays. These actions may make them feel good, but cost them lots of money.
They also refuse to assess their abilities honestly. They don’t want to know why they lose. Instead, they just complain about bad luck to protect their egos. If you doubt me, just ask yourself one question: “Why do you hear so many bad beat stories?” People tell them all the time—even though they give away valuable information—to protect their egos by blaming losses on bad luck.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Winners’ Laws
This chapter has six Winners’ Laws, and the first one is the most important and unpleasant.
1. Accept that trade-offs are unavoidable.
Professor Friedman won the Nobel Prize because he understood and accepted reality. He preached that we must realistically analyze both costs and benefits because we can’t avoid trade-offs. He insisted that refusing to make trade-offs and demanding everything is disastrous.
2. Accept that you can’t satisfy all your motives.
You must also accept this corollary, you must sacrifice some desires to satisfy others. If you don’t plan your trade-offs, they’ll be made for you, and they probably won’t fit your priorities.
3. Understand your own motives and priorities.
Since you have to pay for everything you get, you must understand the importance of various motives and the amount you will pay to satisfy each one.
4. Learn which trade-offs each game or strategy requires.
Since each game or strategy requires somewhat different trade-offs, you have to learn what they are and then relate them to your own priorities. You can win more money in a higher-stakes game, but the risks are much greater. You can make larger immediate profits by playing against only weak players, but you’ll be frustrated by bad beats and you won’t develop the skills you need to move up and increase your long-term profits.
If you play very tightly, you will have low variance, but win less money. If you become more aggressive in tournaments, you will cash less often, but have a better chance to take first place.
5. Don’t kid yourself.
Because various motives are not clearly defined and they conflict and overlap with each other, you can easily rationalize. Instead of admitting your real reasons for doing certain things, you may give good, but false, reasons.
For example, you may play above your skill level and bankroll to get the kicks of taking foolish risks and challenging tougher players, but not admit it. Instead, you may claim that you’re doing it to develop your skills so that you can increase your long-term profits. You may even be partially right. Most actions are taken for many motives, not just one. So take a hard look at your decisions and ask yourself, Why did I do that?
6. Make the trade-offs that fit your priorities.
Pick the situations and strategies that are most likely to satisfy your most important motives. These motives are closely related to your personal definition of “winning,” which I will discuss momentarily.
For example, if you’re a multimillionaire, want status and fame, and don’t really care about your profits, the tournament trail may be ideal. Conversely, if you’re supporting a family and want a normal family life, don’t even think about the tournament circuit.
Or let’s say that you have an adequate but not huge bankroll and have a strong need to maximize your current income. However, you also want to develop your game so that you can move up and make more money. If you choose larger, tougher games, the risks may be too high. If you play only in weak games, you won’t develop the skills you need to move up someday. You can balance these motives by:
• Selecting games with a mixture of weak and tough players.
• Avoiding the tough players most of the time.
• Studying the tough players.
• Challenging them only when the cards and position favor you.
This sort of complicated compromise can be made only when you thoroughly understand your own motives and objectively appraise both your own and your opponents’ abilities. If you aren’t objective, you’ll almost certainly make bad trade-offs.
How Do You Rate?
This chapter has asked many questions in unusual ways. You have rated your motives by assigning percentages to them and circling numbers. It’s time to see what all this information means.
Look at the overall pattern, especially inconsistencies between the distribution of percentage points, your trade-off ratings, and—most importantly—your actions when you play poker. For example, you may have assigned a higher percentage to “make money” than to “fame and status” but frequently pass up juicy cash games to play in tough tournaments.
If you see an inconsistency, something is wrong. A certain motive seems to be more or less important than you originally thought. So re-assess your motives.
Your Personal Definition of “Winning”
Your belief about whether you are a winner or loser depends ultimately upon your definition of winning. If you do not clearly understand that definition, you will probably do things that take you in the wrong direction. For example, if you really want to become a top player, you must challenge tough players and tough games even if you drastically reduce your immediate income. Conversely, if you care only about grinding out the maximum immediate income, you should never challenge tough players and games.
Write your answers to the critical questions:
• What is my personal definition of winning?
• What are the implications of that answer?
You may see that your definition of winning is very different from the standard one, “maximizing your long-term profits.” The closer your definition is to the standard one, the more willing you will be to sacrifice fun, and so on to increase your profits.
Conversely, if you have a nonstandard definition, you won’t make some sacrifices. For example, you may be unwilling to increase your profits in certain ways, such as by playing against only weak players.
I have asked many people, “How do you define ‘winning?’” Their answers are related to their motives on the “Why Do You Play Poker?” questionnaire. Here are just a few of their answers. They want to:
• Become recognized as a top player.
• Win a big tournament.
• Beat their current game for a certain amount.
• Beat a specific, larger game for a certain amount.
• Make enough to live on while living a balanced life.
• End the year ahead a few dollars, but have a lot of fun and never lose so much that it bothers them.
• Just have a good time, while not losing too much money.
This book defines winning in the standard way, “maximizing your long-term profits.” If your definition is different, some of its advice may conflict with what you want. When my advice conflicts with your priorities, decide whether your priorities are really right for you.
I emphasized “really” because most people don’t seriously examine their priorities. It’s a terrible mistake. As Socrates put it, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” If you don’t examine your motives, you can make extremely serious errors, not just at poker, but everywhere.
If you seriously examine your motives and decide that your personal definition of winning is different from the standard one of profit maximizing, you should ignore or modify some of my advice.
But understand why you’re doing so, and don’t pretend that you’re not losing anything. Since you can’t avoid trade-offs, make sure that you understand the costs and benefits of various alternatives and then make an informed decision. To put it bluntly, if you don’t know where you want to go, you’re probably not going to get there.
