A few days ago, I caught this article over at the L.A. Times. The article describes a study in which 198 pro, semi-pro, and recreational poker players were asked whether they used a variety of stimulants and drugs. Not surprisingly, a lot of poker players admitted to using caffeine and energy drinks for an edge. What is surprising, given the small study sample, is that some players admitted to using amphetamines, cocaine, and valium? I'm not entirely sure that would give you an edge...
Poker ≠ Baseball
I have a few problems with this article. First of all, in the world of sports, performance-enhancing substances refer to substances that give one a physical edge--Steroids for muscle mass, red blood cells for increased oxygen intake, and much more. My problem with the article is that it equates poker with sports like cycling, baseball, etc. by its use of jargon. Whereas steroid use has lead to insane home run numbers in Major League Baseball, the edge that caffeine or energy drinks would give, let alone other, more potent drugs, is marginal at best. Essentially, the performance-enhancing substances of the poker world are akin to the corked bat of baseball, i.e. the edge given would be purely psychological. In poker, there just isn't a substance one can take that will make one smarter, more alert, more skilled, etc. without having a profound negative effect on other aspects of that person's game.
It Isn't Performance-Enhancing if, Well, You're Losing
I also have a major problem with the study cited in this article. I found it curious that in a study on performance-enhancing substances in poker, they put pros and recreational players in the same study without any measurement of how successful they were at playing poker? A performance-enhancing substance has the connotation of improving one's skills or abilities, and this wouldn't be the case if some of the subjects were big poker losers. That would be something else entirely, like a drug problem. Furthermore, I do not know any other arena of competition where alcohol is considered a performance-enhancing substance.
Overall, I found the initial topic of the article to be of interest, but the article and the study it cites is flawed. The study featured a sample size that was too small and included way too many substances that would be of little performance-enhancing value. The author even seemed surprised when she wrote, "The study did not include the use of anabolic steroids." I am not sure how anabolic steroid use would be relevant to poker, other than to give someone a major tilt/'roid rage meltdown that would make Phil Hellmuth look like Phil Ivey. This is just a case of a journalist with little poker experience trying to dig up dirt.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Report from the Felt Vol. 1, Issue 2
To people who know me, it was no small secret when I took a break from online poker. I didn't announce the break to anyone who'd listen or spam Facebook relentlessly to let everyone know. That isn't my style. When I went on my poker break, it was more incognito. People, however, could tell that something was up with poker. No longer was I talking about poker at every moment, trying to pull anyone with the vaguest notion of what poker is into my exciting world. Even though I was very excited, I was not overconfident. Everyday I marveled at the fact that I was able to win anything at all in poker. Playing online always seemed like an automatic losing proposition. It always seemed like the game I could never completely grasp. That excited feeling didn't go away, but rather, I did suffer a blow to my confidence that forced me to step back from the game and hit the books (and forums)!
I found some serious initial success playing 6-max cash games, but in a series of hands, I found myself down three buy-ins. Three buy-ins, gone as if I never had them. And how? I didn't completely understand. I shared some key hands with an online pal of mine, and he pointed out that perhaps I should rethink how I played Top Pair-Top Kicker. I put in some time, read some online sources he sent me, and sure enough, he was right! My post-flop play had improved tremendously, but there were still serious holes in my game. At that moment, instead of going back to the tables and maybe tilting away some more money, I decided it was time to hit the books hard and sharpen my edge.
Two weeks passed before I was ready to take my place at the tables. I started getting the poker itch. It came on slowly. At first, I found myself drifting more and more to Youtube, where I'd watch some poker videos. Then, I thought about what I would play when I returned to my game. Right before I returned, I was dying to play. However, something was still missing. Several days passed, and I caught a video of Ted Lawson:
Now before I offer up my commentary, even though I've been a fan of poker since 2005, I never really followed the World Series of Poker. I was only a fan of the games themselves. It wasn't until very recently that I began to watch WSOP videos and catch up on everything I had missed. When I initially saw this video, I thought that Lawson was the biggest idiot and/or donkey (and in reality, he might be). Just an idiot with money, it seemed. However, I was really surprised when I saw this next video from the same 2008 WSOP event:
I was completely surprised to see him take down that same tournament. Three tournaments all time? Yeah, it's likely that Lawson got lucky, but really, you have to get lucky to win any tournament with a large field. I kept watching. That's when I saw the bit at the end when he was asked the question, "So this is your first tournament at the World Series and only your third tournament overall, did you feel like you might be in over your head or thought it might be your day?" His response? "Well, the truth of it is, I expect to win..." That's the attitude I wanted to have! Even though I couldn't really draw inspiration from his play, his top-notch attitude is ultimately what put him in a position to win the tournament (with the aid of favorable situations and cards and everything else that goes into a WSOP bracelet). If an outmatched amateur can have this attitude at the WSOP, surely the worst of my opponents do. Feeling inspired, it was time to return to the felt!
I've seen success since i've returned, playing Sit N Go's of all things. I haven't complained at all about 'bad play' or 'suck outs' and really, I'm playing my A-game right now. I hit a hot streak when I came back, which surely helped, but even over some rocky sessions, I haven't even felt close to tilting. Later this week, I'll go over what Sit N Go's I've been playing, and also give everyone a review of a book I'm reading (Sit 'N Go Strategy: Expert Advice for Beating One-Table Poker Tournaments by Collin Moshman). I'll also share some of my own thoughts about Sit 'N Go play. Until then, see you at the tables!
I found some serious initial success playing 6-max cash games, but in a series of hands, I found myself down three buy-ins. Three buy-ins, gone as if I never had them. And how? I didn't completely understand. I shared some key hands with an online pal of mine, and he pointed out that perhaps I should rethink how I played Top Pair-Top Kicker. I put in some time, read some online sources he sent me, and sure enough, he was right! My post-flop play had improved tremendously, but there were still serious holes in my game. At that moment, instead of going back to the tables and maybe tilting away some more money, I decided it was time to hit the books hard and sharpen my edge.
Two weeks passed before I was ready to take my place at the tables. I started getting the poker itch. It came on slowly. At first, I found myself drifting more and more to Youtube, where I'd watch some poker videos. Then, I thought about what I would play when I returned to my game. Right before I returned, I was dying to play. However, something was still missing. Several days passed, and I caught a video of Ted Lawson:
Now before I offer up my commentary, even though I've been a fan of poker since 2005, I never really followed the World Series of Poker. I was only a fan of the games themselves. It wasn't until very recently that I began to watch WSOP videos and catch up on everything I had missed. When I initially saw this video, I thought that Lawson was the biggest idiot and/or donkey (and in reality, he might be). Just an idiot with money, it seemed. However, I was really surprised when I saw this next video from the same 2008 WSOP event:
I was completely surprised to see him take down that same tournament. Three tournaments all time? Yeah, it's likely that Lawson got lucky, but really, you have to get lucky to win any tournament with a large field. I kept watching. That's when I saw the bit at the end when he was asked the question, "So this is your first tournament at the World Series and only your third tournament overall, did you feel like you might be in over your head or thought it might be your day?" His response? "Well, the truth of it is, I expect to win..." That's the attitude I wanted to have! Even though I couldn't really draw inspiration from his play, his top-notch attitude is ultimately what put him in a position to win the tournament (with the aid of favorable situations and cards and everything else that goes into a WSOP bracelet). If an outmatched amateur can have this attitude at the WSOP, surely the worst of my opponents do. Feeling inspired, it was time to return to the felt!
I've seen success since i've returned, playing Sit N Go's of all things. I haven't complained at all about 'bad play' or 'suck outs' and really, I'm playing my A-game right now. I hit a hot streak when I came back, which surely helped, but even over some rocky sessions, I haven't even felt close to tilting. Later this week, I'll go over what Sit N Go's I've been playing, and also give everyone a review of a book I'm reading (Sit 'N Go Strategy: Expert Advice for Beating One-Table Poker Tournaments by Collin Moshman). I'll also share some of my own thoughts about Sit 'N Go play. Until then, see you at the tables!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
