It's Actually Quite Warm in Here
Tuesday, 29 August 2006 17:19![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipitfishSomething lately about poker chatter annoys me. I've worked hard in my game to let absolutely nothing at the table annoy me. I used to get annoyed at rule infractions, people calling plain-old “trips” a “set” and other such things that are pointless that should never impact one's emotional state. Sometimes I get overly annoyed at the way the club is running a table, but I at least have the good sense to quit the game rather than keep playing when annoyed. Ranting here is a way to vent it without putting it into the table. So, here's one of those rants.
The term “cooler” is just being abused all over the place. In other words, “cooler” is the new “nice hand, sir”. People lose money and then like to argue that there was no way they couldn't have gotten away from the situation where they lost.
Since I have a few readers who aren't assimilated deep into poker lingo, I should explain what the term “cooler” means traditionally. (I suppose this explanation will offend my friend, a lexicographer who works for the Oxford American Dictionary, but someday, he and I will actually get to work on a real dictionary of poker.) For the moment, I suppose I should refer to the mediocre (at best) dictionary we have, which is Wiesenberg's Official Dictionary of Poker. He defines cooler, and the original term it's derived from, as follows:
- cold deck
- (n) — A deck, presumably with preset hands in it (usually with several good hands, the best of which will go to the dealer or his confederate), surreptitiously substituted by a cheat for the deck he is supposed to be dealing. So called because, after cards are dealt for awhile, they warm a bit to the touch, while a cold deck actually feels cool. To bring in a cold deck, the thief must perform a switch. A cold deck is also known as a cooler.
A literal “cold deck” was something you actually had to fear in the old days. During the riverboat era of poker in the 1800s, for example, poker was primarily a game of “cold decks” to trick tourists. These days, encountering a crooked dealer working with a player is rare indeed, and the terms are generally used figuratively rather than literally — for situations that come up where one player was doomed to lose the maximum to another.
And, like anything in poker, people latch onto the term as way to
excuse their own bad play. Most poker players will jump through hoops
to find a way to blame something or someone else for mistakes they've
made. The figurative use of the word “cooler” is just
that — a way to say, What else could I have done?
when
there often could be something else done.
For example, I've heard people call it a cooler
when their
out-of-position opponent flops a set when they have aces and bets into
them. I've heard people say having K-Q on a K-Q-T board is a cooler
when their opponent has KK, QQ, TT, or AJ. I've heard people say when
they have the King high flush against the Ace high flush, it's a
cooler. These situations are not coolers. They are
hands you can get away from if you play them correctly!
Heck, even the would-be classic HE cooler — AA vs. KK preflop — isn't really one when the money is deep. When your opponent puts in the fourth raise and you have KK, what else does he have? Is he really doing that with QQ or AK? It's pretty hard for him to have exactly the other two kings, after all.
The proverbial coolers are situations that you actually can't get away from no matter what you do. Before you go running off saying it's a cooler, take a close look at your play, ask a better player than you, and try to figure out if you could have gotten away, or at least played it slightly differently to minimize your losses.
Finally, though, for those of you who are guilty of abusing the term, don't feel too bad, as there are pros that do it too. On one of the episodes of GSN's High Stakes Poker with Phil Hellmuth, he called off a massive amount with KQ on a K-Q-7 board when Greenstein had 77. Did he really think Greenstein would bluff at him? Or, that Greenstein would get it all in with a mere AK? Of course it wasn't a cooler, Hellmuth is just clueless in NL HE cash games.
Now, the real cooler I saw on that show is the most recent episode,
where Hansen held 5
.
Hansen bet out the turn for $24,000 and Negreanu
called. The river came 8.
Hansen smartly checked, probably hoping that Negreanu
had a straight, and Negreanu bet $65,000 out into
$111,700, Hansen check-raised for $167,000 more.
Negreanu eventually called, but he even speculated at first, you
might have the nuts here
, then adding, if I lose this pot
it's a cooler
. Now, this probably was a cooler. The reason
being that there are so many hands that Hansen would play that way.
Hansen, as a loose preflop player, can have 58s (and was just
semi-bluffing on the flop), 56 (having flopped two pair and filled
on the turn), and maybe even some sort of straight holding (although
pretty unlikely).
There are a few hands that fit the action that aren't 55, 99, and 88. So, one could argue that it is really a cooler. Indeed, the fact that Negreanu didn't automatically call the river check-raise is a tribute that he can actually dodge the proverbial bullets.
Of course, an interesting postscript here for me is that I wrote most of this post last weekend, and didn't get a chance to put it up. Since then, some have argued that Daniel could even get away from this hand that I was about to hold up as the “quintessential cooler”. This just goes to show how easily that term is abused. Even while digging carefully for an example, I found a hand that there was some debate about.
Anyway, think twice or three times before you go calling something a cooler. It probably isn't one most of the time.
Here endeth my rant; hopefully this is enough to get it out of my system and stop me from ever thinking of it again. Of course, my goal is for my opponents to think it's a cooler every single time I beat them, so I will try hard not to point out what is and isn't a cooler at the table.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 08:14 (UTC)Anyway, it's not as bad as the eejits who say "raise" when they meant "bet" and then respond to correction with "you knew what I meant". Well, no, actually I didn't.
Because I'm an evil Nazi I picked up my 7 year-old daughter who decided to try out a new way of recounting a conversation: "I was like... She was like... So I was like...". That was her first lesson (of many, no doubt, if my own childhood/adolescence is anything to go by) in how you need to have at least two forms of verbal communication: the one you use with your peers and the one for "grown-ups". We'll see how well I got the message across.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 15:16 (UTC)You're in the UK, right? That habit of using the word “like” as a replacement for the word “said” is a plague upon us in the USA. It's so common, and because all of us in our mid-30s grew up with it as children, it's completely assimilated into the culture. I find myself doing it often and hate it terribly.
I agree with you about “raise” instead of “bet”, although the truth is that since a “check” could be defined as a zero-bet, I suppose it's not wrong. Usually, I don't find people saying “bet” instead “raise” too often, but rather describing something as a “reraise” when there is only a bet in front of them. This becomes quite confusing when people are trying to recount to me the action in a hand they want advice on, because I find myself asking, somewhere later in the story, , and the answer comes back, . And I respond, , and then we finally realize that the pot was in fact heads-up, and the storyteller simply raised the guy who bet. Very confusing.
However, I think that abuse of the word “cooler” is a bit more insidious than mere imprecision. The problem with abusing that term is that it's a way to excuse bad play. People will say , but in fact, they could have easily folded. The word somehow gives people permission to declare that they couldn't have made a correct laydown.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 19:08 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 16:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 17:44 (UTC)--lanceyh
no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 17:50 (UTC)Barry had QQ and Phil was shortstacked.
Nobody would get away from top 2 shortstacked on this flop.
And K high flush vs A high flush is much more "cooler" than top 2 on TQK board.
If there are 3 suits out there and not 4 and the board is unpaired, i am going broke with K high flush.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-30 19:52 (UTC)It had been a long time since I'd seen it and I didn't have the old High Stakes Poker episodes handy. I'll edit the post shortly with the correction with a note about being short-stacked.
I shouldn't go out on a limb before watching the hand again, but it seems to me if he ends up on the flop with a short stack in that situation, perhaps he shouldn't have gotten to the flop with KQ in the first place. KQ is a pretty marginal preflop holding in NL HE, after all.
I don't really agree that the King high flush is a cooler against the Ace high flush. There are times when you get pot-stuck in that spot. Thing is, the action almost ends up being so obvious. Most players have flush fear anyway, so a reraise when a flush is possible almost always denotes the nuts. Even the worst of player generally just try to call down with weaker flushes when they are getting action.
Also, that is generally the danger of playing suited Kings in NL HE, and why suited aces are so much more valuable. It's tough to call something a cooler when a preflop mistake can often also be part of the picture of why you ended up with your money in bad.
A true cooler
Date: 2006-08-31 07:10 (UTC)I think it's also acceptible to loosen the term somewhat. I only really take offense when somebody uses it after they've been drawn out on. When Daniel flops a straight and the board pairs, and the money goes in, he's wrong to say it's a cooler. That's just poker.
The boat vs quads is probably some sort of cooler, but I do think he could have folded that hand. I think people give Gus too wide of a possible range for making that play when they analyze the hand. They always say, "but man, that dude could play any two cards. I've seen him play just any two cards before."
yeah right not buying it
Date: 2007-08-17 21:35 (UTC)Re: yeah right not buying it
Date: 2007-08-18 15:13 (UTC)this is bs
Date: 2007-08-17 21:47 (UTC)Re: this is bs
Date: 2007-08-18 15:14 (UTC)quitting poker haha
Date: 2007-08-23 03:14 (UTC)Re: quitting poker haha
Date: 2007-08-23 20:17 (UTC)If you've been playing only three months and doing that well, you're surely relying mostly on luck, not skill, at the moment. Your arrogance and close-mindedness will not serve you well as you continue to play. Reasonable people can disagree, of course. However, your assumption that the knowledge accumulated by those who have spent years studying the game is hogwash on its face does not bode well for your poker career.
I suggest, instead of taking my word for it about this issue, you read Ciaffone and Reuben's seminal work on big bet poker, Pot Limit and No Limit Poker. Ciaffone has an interesting section about how he has at times thrown away a set when heads up in NL HE because the betting made it clear his opponent had a bigger set. Will you take a read and reconsider, or will you instead email Mr. Ciaffone and tell him he's a BS-know-it-all, too?
Perhaps you'll remain lucky enough that you'll never notice the EV that you're losing because of your inability to lay down a big hand. Once you've had KK under AA heads up preflop for 500 big-blind stacks a few times (and fail to draw out), perhaps you'll learn that you have to read the action and laydown the second nuts sometimes. If not, I hope your luck holds, because that may be all you have going for you given your current attitude.
who?
Date: 2007-08-23 22:06 (UTC)Re: who?
Date: 2007-08-24 02:24 (UTC)I didn't say that I was an expert. You are confused and mistaken if you think tourney wins are key, but regardless, many pros talk about laying down the second nuts all the time. It depends on the action.
You seem to have still in your game the idea that hands have absolute value. That's a major mistake. Hands only have relative value. You can show betting patterns and situations where laying down the second nuts is insane. You can show betting patterns and situation where not making that lay down is insane. If you can't understand that such a distinction is valid, and indeed can't even consider the fact that your so strongly held convictions on the matter might be mistaken, you may be in serious trouble as a poker player.
Note that you've been mostly making categorical statements in this thread; things like . I would agree that usually one wouldn't lay that down, but not being able to lay it down when needed shows the silly, unstudied rigidity in absolute hand value that is the plague of the weak player. Give some time to consider that you have a lot to learn; your bankroll will benefit from it. And read every poker book you can get your hands on. If you disagree with it, get a blog and post about why, or post on twoplustwo about it and discuss with others to strengthen your understanding.
Anyway, I am done trying to help you. I suspect you might be beyond help anyway because you seem too pig-headed right now to see that poker is a constant learning experience and the great players that you seem to idolize know this and never overestimate themselves as you are doing right now.
Re: who?
Date: 2007-08-24 13:15 (UTC)Re: who?
Date: 2007-08-24 14:39 (UTC)Re: who?
Date: 2007-08-27 05:45 (UTC)Something to the lines of, 'If the situation is tough, and you do not have the nuts, consider laying it down and spending that money on a better situation'.
You don't have to do miracle lay downs. But sometimes you can look at your opponent, and know based on the current situation, and his previous moves, he probably has you beat. If he doesn't, that sucks. But you want to spend money where you are most confident.
'I just don't buy this one point about laying down king flush on flop unpaired'
Those bad beats are where the most money is won/lost. The idea is to try and avoid them where you can. If the situation is such, that you feel very strongly this guy wouldn't be betting like this with a Q high flush...
Why not lay it down? It doesn't have to be a miracle lay down, just once you decide not to look at the pot size, and put down the hand.
And Ive made bad folds before (tons). Top pair top kicker where I'm sure I'm beat, because 2 guys are betting like maniacs. Ends up they both had lower pockets, no set.
Just try folding something strong sometime when you have a little bit of doubt. Ask the guy nicely to show. Maybe you wouldve lost :)
Re: who?
Date: 2007-08-27 13:55 (UTC)isn't it?
Date: 2008-07-14 15:36 (UTC)full house vs str8fl sb vs bb (str8fl made with 57; i raised my pp pf)
full house vs royal flush (maybe nota big one, cuz he pf raised his AK)
so?
Re: isn't it?
Date: 2008-07-16 18:50 (UTC)Are you dumb?
Date: 2009-02-10 19:55 (UTC)Re: Are you dumb?
Date: 2009-03-14 18:12 (UTC)If you are a strong player, you know that there are different types of games. Of course I'm not going to lay down the second nuts that often against this sort of action described here against an average low-stakes NL HE player in a $1/$2 blind game. Such an uneducated player will have open trips and other such holdings too often to make a fold profitable.
But, in the situation discussed here, we have two incredibly experienced players who understand the game. Such laydowns are possible and necessary in those circumstances. The real mistake anyway — which I think is discussed somewhere in the comments above (although this is an old thread and I don't remember exactly) — is that Daniel should have been more careful and possibly avoided a river a value bet with so much money still behind.
So, I am not dumb. Instead, I understand that an extremely high stakes poker hand between two highly experienced players is going to need a different analysis than a hand between a reasonably knowledgeable player and a clueless low stakes player. Perhaps if you want to remain a profitable player, you should consider this fact a bit.
What Some FAIL to Realize
Date: 2009-05-31 18:44 (UTC)The Daniel and Gus 55 vs 66 was not a cooler to me. He didn't have the nuts, he had the notion he was beat, and said "let me see what you got". The he comes back to say "I wasnt exactly going to throw it away" meaning he could have gotten away from the hand, but he wanted to see what Gus was playing. In Daniel's eyes, it was a cooler, which loosens the term.
Taking key logic and altering it into psychological perception of tunnel vision is a classic case of spotting a rookie. Just remember that all decisions are 50/50 from a neutral view before the actual play and 100/0 from a finish play. According to Psychology experts, Hind site is 20/20 and first intuition is a positive identity for right decision. How you alter those decisions is from your own mind.
After basing those facts during game play, THEN, tell me what is and what isn't a "Cooler". You'll be surprised. - D.Brunson
Sets Vs Trips
Date: 2009-07-14 12:07 (UTC)Firstly, I agree with your discussion on the use of 'cooler', the same can be said of 'sick'. People use both to imply that they couldn't have played any better, couldn't get away from the hand and just got unlucky etc etc... when most of the time they could have (or should have) played it better.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with your comment about people calling 'plain old trips a set'. I am watching old episodes of High Stakes Poker featuring some great and well known players like Doyle Brunson, Daniel Negreanu, Gus Hansen, Eli Elezra, Barry Greenstein etc etc and they frequently refer 'trips' as a 'set', and when a '4-of-a-kind' is seen they call it that or 'quads'.
Отличный блог!
Date: 2011-06-04 13:37 (UTC)buy facebook likes cheap bl
Date: 2011-07-21 22:48 (UTC)buy facebook likes cheap
buy facebook page likes
buy facebook page likes buy facebook likes
(http://www.natalie-williams.com/apps/profile/77098273/) how to buy facebook likes buy cheap facebook fans
_________________
buy facebook fans cheap [url=http://contentsocial.info/story.php?id=252899#discuss]buy likes on facebook[/url] buy likes on facebook buy facebook page likes
no subject
Date: 2012-02-20 00:20 (UTC)