Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
In poker, all opponents are potential financial assets. The good poker player first gets his opponents involved in the game, then he exploits them to win their money.
As players become emotionally and financially involved in a poker game, they become easier to exploit and their chances of quitting the game decrease.
Emotional involvement can result from gambling impulses . . . and most poker players are gamblers.[ 24 ] When a gambler loses, he keeps on playing in an attempt to recover his losses. When a gambler wins, he forgets his losses and concludes that he has finally learned how to win. The gambler's subconscious desire to punish or destroy himself emerges as an abiding, irrational optimism. The good player exploits that optimism in gamblers to generate a continuous income for himself.
Some players use poker as a narcotic-like diversion to escape reality. Others develop soul-mate friendships with other players. Such involvement can be emotionally soothing and pleasant--sufficiently so to compensate those losers for many large losses.
| Investment Situation | Estimated per Investment Average Return Rate,% | Time Span | Investment Intensity* |
| Good poker Player (John Finn) | +25 | 6 minutes | +2,000,000 |
| Sound poker player (Quintin Merck) | + 5 | 6 minutes | +400,000 |
| Bonds | +14 | 1 year | +14 |
| Banks | + 8 | l year | +8 |
| Stocks | +6 | 1 year | +6 |
| Business | + 6 | 1 year | +6 |
* Investment-intensity values are average-return values calculated on an annual basis.
| Gambling Situation | Estimated per Gamble Average Loss Rate, % | Time Span | Gambling Intensity* |
| Lottery | -50 | 1 week | -$2,500 |
| Numbers | -40 | 1 day | -15,000 |
| Average poker player (Scotty Nichols) | - 1 | 6 minutes | -90,000 |
| Casino poker | varies according to casino rake+ | varies according to casino rake+ | varies according to casino rake+ |
| Carp shooting | - 1 | 1 minute | -500,000 |
| Horse racing | -15 | 12 minutes | -700,000 |
| Poor poker player (Sid Bennett) | -10 | 6 minutes | -900,000 |
| Poor poker player (Ted Fehr) | -10 | 6 minutes | -900,000 |
| Roulette | - 3 | 30 seconds | -3,300,000 |
| Slot machines | -20 | 5 seconds | -130,000,000 |
* Gambling-intensity values are the average-loss values calculated on an annual basis.
+ Poker can be a gambling situation even for the good player if the pots are regularly cut or raked by the house, as they are in public casinos. A large arbitrary cut can reduce or eliminate the profitable edge odds of a good player. And while the good player can retain a great advantage over the other players in a casino poker game, he cannot stop that house cut. Also, he cannot take control of the public game and its players as he can in the private game. Still, the good player can earn a guaranteed income from public poker (Nevada-type casino poker or Gardena-type club poker) if he adjusts his game to a public-professional style of poker (see Part Six).
For a losing player, financial involvement is a form of emotional involvement. When losses force him to use his savings or to borrow money, he keeps playing in a vain attempt to recover his losses. An occasional win gives him enough encouragement to hold him in the game.
Ironically, a winning player can also get financially involved and entrapped if he becomes too dependent on his poker income. He can even turn into a chronic loser if a series of losses disrupts his income. How does that happen? If his temporary loss of poker income causes a loss of objectivity, then the quality of his play will deteriorate. If that cycle of decreased objectivity and increased deterioration continues, his future losses will be assured. Memories of past winnings will then sustain him through heavy losses.
John Finn and Quintin Merck bet only when they judge the odds to be in their favor; they are not gamblers. But the other players in the Monday night game are gamblers.... Each one is emotionally and financially involved as shown in the following chart:
| Emotional Involvement | Financial Involvement | |
| John Finn | (minimum involvement) | Receives substantial income. |
| Quintin Merck | Supports ego; finds companionship; relieves boredom. | Receives moderate income useful for boasting about his poker skill. |
| Scotty Nichols | Avoids drinking problems; escapes business disappointments. | Tries to regain his past winning form. |
| Sid Bennett | Hides insecurities; finds companionship; releases tensions. | Seeks hot streak to recover past losses. |
| Ted Fehr | Satisfies gambling compulsion to hurt himself; escapes domestic problems. | Hopes for big win to parlay on the horses. |
Once players are involved in the game, the good player can take greater advantage of them through--
Most poor poker players become hooked on or involved in games through their personal weaknesses. The good player exploits those weaknesses. He knows that almost all players have one or more of the following weaknesses:
| altruism | ignorance | nervousness |
| capriciousness | impulsiveness | parasitism |
| carelessness | inattentiveness | preoccupation |
| compulsiveness | inconsistency | self-pity |
| dishonesty | inexperience | stubbornness |
| exhibitionism | instability | subjectiveness |
| faith | irrationality | superstitiousness |
| fear | laziness | timidity |
| greed | mysticism | worry |
Each personal weakness grows out of a player's resistance to objective thinking, discipline, and rational behavior.
The good player identifies and records the personal weaknesses of each opponent in his notebook. He then uses those weaknesses to influence their playing decisions, to read their hands, and to manipulate them into faster betting paces, higher stakes, and poorer-quality poker. He regularly reviews and revises his notes on their weaknesses in order to--
John Finn identifies and lists the personal weaknesses of his poker opponents as shown in the above chart. Indeed, the following incident shows how John uses his opponents' personal weaknesses to win extra money:
Missing his flush in draw poker, John finds himself in a good position to bluff, so he bets $50. Scotty and Sid fold immediately. Ted Fehr holds two pair and thinks he should drop, but is desperate and considers calling. John must prevent him from calling.
Everyone knows that Ted is superstitious about pennies and never keeps any ... especially when gambling. So when Ted leans over and shows Sid his hand, John takes a penny from his pocket and slips the coin onto the edge of Ted's money.
"Call!" Sid bellows as he gazes blankly at Ted's two pair. "He's got nothing."
"Yeah," Ted says and then grins as he picks up his pile of money to call. "What!" His grin fades as the penny tumbles from the money. "No wonder I'm losing!" he yells while picking up the coin and throwing it across the room. As the penny bounces off the wall and rolls around the floor, Ted folds his hand and says, "At least that penny made me fold. I saved fifty bucks..." His voice fades when John shows his winning hand ... a four flush. Ted's eyes water. His superstition cost him a $200 pot.
Consider another example of John's exploitation of an opponent's weakness:
Sid Bennett injures his foot and cannot leave the house. At the last moment, John switches the game to Sid's house so the injured loser can play. Knowing Sid's house will lack a good supply of food, John stops at a delicatessen and invests in a gigantic Italian submarine sandwich nicely wrapped in cellophane.
At three in the morning, Scotty Nichols grips his stomach. He rummages through Sid's bare kitchen and finds a couple handfuls of dry cereal to eat.
The next hand is seven-card stud, high-low with two twists. John's hole cards are the ace and the joker[ 25 ]; he has another ace face-up . . . the best possible start for high-low poker. He wants the maximum number of callers. Now is the time to use his investment. He reaches under the chair and pulls the huge sandwich from a brown paper bag. All eyes turn toward the juicy submarine. Scotty moans as his tongue laps his puffy lips.
John lays the elongated sandwich across the pot. "The winners split it," he declares.... Scotty's face is sweating, and his stomach is growling.
| John Finn | Quintin Merck | Sid Bennett | Scotty Nichols | Ted Fehr |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| greed* | greed* laziness stubbornness superstitiousness | capriciousness carelessness dishonesty exhibitionism impulsiveness inattentiveness irrationality laziness stubbornness | carelessness faith fear greed (uncontrolled) inattentiveness laziness mysticism preoccupation self-pity subjectiveness timidity worry | capriciousness compulsiveness faith fear impulsiveness instability irrationality laziness preoccupation self-pity subjectiveness superstitiousness worry |
* Greed can be a personal strength if rationally controlled.
With eyes fixed on the sandwich, everyone calls the first bet. John aggressively bets his strong hand. Many players keep calling. The final bets are large. Scotty keeps calling with a poor hand. "Should fold," he says, catching his breath. "But that sub ... yum." The red-faced man spends over $100 on calls. Three other players also call as their eyes remain fixed on the sandwich. The pot is the largest of the night--over $700. John wins both high and low with an ace-high full house and a six-five low. He also wins back the sandwich, which he later used to build another pot.
With a small investment, John Finn exploits opponents' lack of discipline to win may extra hundreds of dollars.
The good player continually exploits man's most pervasive weakness--laziness. Laziness foments desires to gain values without effort. That, in turn, leads to seeking unearned approval, respect, and money. The good player uses those desires to manipulate his opponents with "favors" that symbolize (and falsely promise) approval, respect, and money. His victims bend to his will in seeking those pseudo favors.
"Favors and bribes that the good player extends and withdraws for his personal profit include--
Out of the loser's desire for "favors" and approval from a respected winner, the good player can often get, for example, a loser's support for changes in house rules that further benefit the good player at the loser's expense (e.g., faster-paced games and higher stakes).
The good player constantly exploits his opponents as they play their cards. He repeatedly lures them into playing poorer and poorer poker. With the proper strategy, he causes them to--
An exploitation ploy that John Finn uses (especially in split-pot games) involves the following maneuver to make a hesitant player call a bet:
The game is high-low, five-card stud with two twists. John has a winner--a lock on low. Quintin and Ted are playing for high. Quintin bets $20. Ted has a four flush and wants to call, but is afraid that John will raise and Quintin will reraise, thus costing him $40 more. He starts to fold. John picks up a $20 bill and holds it over the pot. Now, knowing that John will only call and not raise, Ted calls. He then catches a flush on the twist. After more betting and raising, Ted ends up beating Quintin for high. John wins low and makes an extra $50 by not letting Ted fold.
John seldom fakes that maneuver. So when players see him holding the call money, they know with confidence that he will not raise. But he will often fake the reverse maneuver of not holding the call money and then not raising.
The good player also exploits his opponents through betting. When holding a strong hand, he can build much larger pots by getting other players to do his betting and raising. Successful indirect betting requires accurate reading of opponents' hands and knowledge of their betting habits. Miscalculation of indirect betting can result in smaller pots. Thus, when uncertain about his opponents' intentions, the good player will bet aggressively rather than check his strong hand.
Disproportionate betting can throw opponents into more vulnerable and exploitable betting positions. For example, by making a bet or a raise completely out of proportion to the normal or expected bet, the good player can confuse opponents into making the desired bet, raise, call, or drop. Disproportionate betting is useful as both an offensive and a defensive tool.
Scotty deals draw poker with one twist. John Finn gets a four-card straight flush. For his best investment odds, John wants the maximum players calling a bet big enough to keep them in for the large last-round bets. He also wants to avoid raises that would make players fold. So John opens for $14 instead of the normal $25. Noses wrinkle. Players with poor hands smile and call at this bargain price. Potential raisers, suspicious of the weird bet and fearing a sandbag, only call. The results are perfect for John ... everyone calls and no one raises. John's estimated investment odds soar to a highly favorable--
| ($600) (.4) | = 3.0. |
But if John had bet the normal $25 and only two players called, his estimated investment odds would have tumbled to--
| ($250) (.5) | = 1.7. |
Now suppose John had bet $25, someone raised to $50, and everyone else folded. If John had called the raise (which he probably would not have), his estimated investment odds would have fallen to an unfavorable--
| ($222) (.4) | = 0.8. |
By making the disproportionate $14 bet, John sets up the hand for maximum profits while gaining control of the betting. Moreover, if he checks his bet on the next round, usually one or more players will feel deprived of a full opening-round bet and thus bet aggressively. John can then passively let them do the betting and raising for him. On the other hand, if John bets on the next round, the other players will probably remain defensive and avoid betting or raising.
So with that disproportionate S14 bet, John increases his investment odds and leaves himself in a flexible betting position. John's checking will induce his opponents to bet aggressively; his betting will cause them to remain defensive. Thus he can conveniently turn the betting into either an offensive tempo (by checking) or a defensive tempo (by betting) . . . whichever is more advantageous to him.
Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
[ 24 ] Gambling is defined in this book as "The wagering of money at unfavorable odds." In poker, the good player with favorable edge odds is not gambling, but players with unfavorable edge odds are. Horse players, casino patrons, and losing poker players are gamblers. That definition is consistent with definitions given in: (1) Webster's Third New International Dictionary--"To wager money or stakes on an uncertain outcome." The good player's outcome is certain; therefore, he is not gambling; (2) Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary-- 'To lose, squander, or dispose of by gaming." By that definition, the good player is not gambling, but losing players are; and (3) The Random House Dictionary--"Any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty." The good player's situation is essentially riskless and, therefore, is not a gambling situation.
A gambling situation yields a statistically minus return on money wagered, while a nongambling (investment) situation yields a statistically plus return on money invested.... The intensity of the situation (rate of loss or rate of return) is determined both by the time span of the wager or investment and by the percent loss or the percent return. The intensity of' gambling and nongambling (investment) situations is illustrated by Tables 24 and 25. The tables, compare the Monday night poker players to other investment and gambling situations: The good poker player is in by far the best investment situation. By contrast, the poor poker player is in one of the worst gambling situations.
[ 25 ] The joker (also called the bug) is a wild card for low, an ace for high, and good for filling straights and flushes. In high-low games the joker can be used as both a high card and a low card in the same hand.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com