Poker Jokers Forum
The Poker Joker Forum >> POKER JOKER CHAT >> Externalization: A common poker state?

Message started by Five Fingers on Mar 7th, 2004, 2:50pm

Title: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by Five Fingers on Mar 7th, 2004, 2:50pm


Definition: Believing outside forces or circumstances are the cause of your self-destructive behaviors. This defense mechanism allows you to avoid accepting responsibility for behavior.


The Fish and I had a healthy debate about the nature of poker on Friday night.

I argued that the winner of poker is always the best player, regardless of how they win.  

The Fish believes that on some nights, luck results in the best player not winning the game (I think, correct me if i'm wrong Gav).

In my view, everyone plays the game with the same chips, using the same 52 cards, under the same time constraints.

In my view, luck is a factor but not the reason players lose.  

A player makes a personal judgement to be involved in a hand.

If a player loses big on a bad beat and against the odds, it is a bad play.  That players judgement was flawed, the player chose the wrong hand to bet on, and staked too much.  Similarly, the winning gambler had to make a judgement to bet their hand.

The best player makes an individual judgement based on pot odds, cards in view and body language of the opponent.  The winner of the game must have made the best judgement calls.  

The best player on the night wins every time.


"I know that no one can really stop me but myself and that really no one can help me but myself."
Peter Nivio Zarlenga


Any views out there?

Title: Re: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by The Fish on Mar 7th, 2004, 3:32pm

Well my main point was that I personally felt that there were too few chips.  As you rightly say, we can all make bad decisions even with good cards, but when you make such a decision on the first hand without betting wildly it's a little unfair to be left in a position where you are down so much that recovery becomes an issue.

The dilemma of the night was whether to slow play or to speculate, but I didn't have to make that decision as I was presented with a pair in the hole on the first hand and I raised up accordingly only to be re-raised significantly.  As I respect the player in question and believed them to have the cards, I folded and was later shown that it was a sound decision as they - out of choice - turned over QQ.

Next two hands also looked promising and so I saw the flop, but got absolutely no help from the board and so kept hold of my remaining stack waiting for a playable hand for some time.  Again lady luck was not on my side and as the blinds came around for the second time I put my final chips in on a flush or straight draw (don't remember which) with a Jack (and the card I don't remember).  A poor hand to go in on, but the best I'd had for ages and with the small blind about to come and leave me with one chip, I decided it was probably my best shot.

So, was that bad play?  I'd say not.  Did I win?  Hell no!  Am I bothered?  Not in the slightest.  In fact some would say I'm back on form for a ranking game ;)

I think the changes to when the blinds go up was a good move in response to complaints received, but there are many aspects about reducing the number of chips which I don't like.  If it remains that way I'll adapt my game accordingly, but I'd be interested to know what others think about the new format?

Title: Re: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by Five Fingers on Mar 7th, 2004, 5:02pm

i love all this debate and review... its like golf or chess (is that a good thing!).

i think i had QQ and did the reraise.

you bet heavy out of turn.  there were a few people left to make a decision after you and i would suggest that you could have waited.  you were too near the dealer to make a bet before seeing all the players make a move on the flop.

of course, without QQ we probably all would have folded. personally at that early stage i would have played it cautious.

having said that, i played like a donkey and talking the talk is my only consolation... i havent won a match for 12 months!  i felt a return to some form too albeit i needed QQ to do it!

i felt as last months defending champion, the Fish was there to be fried!  I particularly liked the RED BADGE to mark of defending champion... watch out Braveheart!

i am not sure about the antes raise yet.  i reckon we need more chips but not as many as before.  we'll have another experiment next time!

i can't wait for the Fishbowl vs Jokers heads up match, when you want to do it mate.

Title: Re: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by The Fish on Mar 7th, 2004, 10:43pm

You're talking about the wrong hand mate - I don't respect you  :P

When it was me against you I was in the big blind and was virtually out of chips.  Having waited two full cycles for some good cards, why the hell would I not stick 'em in?  Would rather go out in a blaze of glory (!?) rather than be whittled out by the blinds.  I'd waited patiently - that was a time to act!

Funny you should mention position.  One of the biggest lessons I've learnt over the last two weeks is position.  Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to use that lesson.  Maybe 35 chips next time?

Title: Re: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by Five Fingers on Mar 7th, 2004, 10:49pm

well that explains the crossed wires then! apologies... beer is a wonderful but memory damaging joy. you can see why i was a bit bemused by my own recollection!

i reckon 29 chips next time if you have been studying!

bring on the next game...

Title: Re: Externalization: A common poker state?
Post by REAL_DEAL on Mar 27th, 2004, 1:06am

Bad beats follow winning streaks, winning streaks follow bad beats. That's poker Sunshine. 8)

Poker Jokers Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1!
YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved.