I appreciate the comments, Rob. The strange thing is that I used to
play 100% on instinct, for years and years. It's only in the past few
years, as I got serious about higher stakes, that I've focused on being
so analytical. I've been working on reading people -- a lot -- and I've
used reads to save substantial bets. I guess the reason I'm so obsessed
is because I can't seem to win consistently, for many months now, and
I'm trying to go back to basics.
I agree with you that the next level for my play would be to properly
mix instinct reading (which I do have some instinct for, I've just
buried it of late under the analytical stuff) with the analytical side
in a Howard Lederer fashion. I want to get there.
However, almost everything I've read says that when you're running bad,
always go back to basics. That's why I'm going back to the simple
things of seeing if this hand or that hand was played right, etc. Poker
can be so frustrating and it's easy to second guess the methods that
you've used successfully for years when they don't work anymore. So,
while I think you're totally right about what the next level should be,
I feel like I should begin to be the winning player I once was in the
way that I was before, and then seek new levels of learning.
As for getting bullied, I am quite sure I wasn't bullied once at the
table. I was rarely in any pots -- I've listed every pot except one
above that I played. The only place I thought read-based that I was
getting bullied was by the Bluff Addict, whom I called down with Ace
high.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Analytical vs Instinctive
Date: 2005-03-22 20:03 (UTC)I appreciate the comments, Rob. The strange thing is that I used to play 100% on instinct, for years and years. It's only in the past few years, as I got serious about higher stakes, that I've focused on being so analytical. I've been working on reading people -- a lot -- and I've used reads to save substantial bets. I guess the reason I'm so obsessed is because I can't seem to win consistently, for many months now, and I'm trying to go back to basics.
I agree with you that the next level for my play would be to properly mix instinct reading (which I do have some instinct for, I've just buried it of late under the analytical stuff) with the analytical side in a Howard Lederer fashion. I want to get there.
However, almost everything I've read says that when you're running bad, always go back to basics. That's why I'm going back to the simple things of seeing if this hand or that hand was played right, etc. Poker can be so frustrating and it's easy to second guess the methods that you've used successfully for years when they don't work anymore. So, while I think you're totally right about what the next level should be, I feel like I should begin to be the winning player I once was in the way that I was before, and then seek new levels of learning.
As for getting bullied, I am quite sure I wasn't bullied once at the table. I was rarely in any pots -- I've listed every pot except one above that I played. The only place I thought read-based that I was getting bullied was by the Bluff Addict, whom I called down with Ace high.