Ed Recommends: Elements Of Poker by Tommy Angelo

I loved this book. I now breathe in and look at the fire alarm, breathe out and smile at the fire alarm.

Then I find myself grinning at myself grinning at the table for no apparent reason. If the game has been on a boring stretch, it not only helps me but seems to stump observant opponents. Like, I think maybe he’s simple, I should call HIS raises. =)

His CD is a real hoot, too. If you play a lot, you will laugh out loud during some of his songs.

Yeah, the key insight in that excerpt is this (to get all Benthamite : Money has a diminishing return in utility. It should be intuitively obvious. There’s a reason why most millionaires don’t pinch pennies the way I do.

Maybe it’s just because I’m a perfectionist, but every time I see someone on 2+2 post something like, “Yeah, putting that guy on tilt would be +EV but I’d feel like a scumbag for doing it,” I want to scream, “You just mean it’s +EV in cash. It’s -EV in utility/happiness/whatever you want to call it!”

I hadn’t really thought of buying Angelo’s book but I’ll consider it a bit more now. I’ve still gotta think about PNLHE II and the new Harrington books first!

Ed,

you’ll probably kill me for what I write now, but you showed us Tommy as an example:

How can we get our individually signed copy of your upcoming book???

Man, don’t tell us you cannot do what Tommy can!!!

Greyzy

So, when you are are losing money, you should keep playing. If you manage to win most or your money back, you will be much happier than if you quit now. If you lose more money, it won’t feel much worse than losing what you have lost so far.

Irrefutable logic.

Mikko, I’m pretty sure you are just joking but for the benefit of any newbies that might be reading this – Tommy Angelo along with most other poker authors have talked about reaching a “saturation point” when you are in a losing game. That’s where you have had so many losses that more losses don’t seem to hurt any more. They all pretty much agree that you definitely should leave the table at that point, and take your moderate loss before it balloons into a huge loss.

I think Tommy Angelo’s book looks good and it is on my to-buy list, along with Ed’s upcoming book.

JJS, sure it is correct to quit when you reach your “saturation point”.

I just don’t think it is correct to make decisions based on your happiness level at the poker table. Tommy Angelo may be a great coach, but someone still needs to explain to me why decisions based on happiness are OK when you are winning and bad when you are losing.

If you have reached the saturation point, your happiness can only improve if you stay at the table

I just don’t think it is correct to make decisions based on your happiness level at the poker table.

I agree in a sense, but the key words are at the poker table.

Every decision we make maximizes our happiness. The question is, by maximizing your short-term happiness (”I’m going to quit winner rather than play longer in a juicy game”) are you failing to maximize your long-term happiness (”I’m so glad I stayed in ten juicy games this month. I ended up getting stuck in 3 of them, but the other 7 wins were so huge that they overshadowed them”)?

If you get great satisfaction from maximizing your winrate over time, then quitting any one session slightly winner or loser is small potatoes in comparison to staying in for the big win.

Mikko,

I think you misinterpret what was said. Nobody meant that “decisions based on happiness are OK when you are winning and bad when you are losing”. Actually in both cases the decision was based on your hapiness (or the lack thereof). Let me explain:

The first example includes a crucial point: you made it back after a losing stretch! Most people (including myself) value a win a lot different after a (long) losing stretch than if you were winning right from the start of the session. This means that your level of happiness after a losing stretch is MUCH bigger even though you won the exact same amount of money. This means that you have a lot more to lose (in terms of happiness, but NOT in terms of money). Sure your chances of adding more money are the same in both cases (and so is the risk of losing), but it will give you 2 different amounts of additional pleasure. Wouldn’t you prefer to get the maximum pleasure for a given amount of (financial) risk? That’s what Tommy recommends: Get up, enjoy and risk your money when you get more fun out of it.

In addition to the logic I just described: The chances to LOSE a certain amount of money are NOT equal in both cases. People tend to play scared once they recovered from an extended loss. Some might even take bigger risks! I think it’s safe to say that usually you will NOT play your A-game in that situation, meaning that your risk of losing is actually bigger than in the situation where you steadily won from the start of the session.

Now to the second case where you lost a lot already:
Again for psychological reasosn you will most likely NOT play your A-game here, meaning your expectations are better another time (so you should quit for now).
Even if you actually play your A-game and win a certain amount from there on, the pleasure you will get from it (and also for taking the risk of losing as described above) is less than the pleasure you get from winning the exact same amount but right after sitting down. Same logic as above: get the maximum pleasure for the same amount of risk => quit for now!

To me, there are 2 crucial criteria to consider when thinking about whether to stand up or not:
1. Can I still play my A-game?
2. How much better will I feel if I win another 100BB (or any other amount you like)?

If I can’t play my A-game I should quit, because I increase my risk.
If I don’t feel better by “the usual amount” that’s connected with a win of an additional 100BB I decrease the “pleasure value” that I get from playing. If you are a grinder and play to make money it’s OK if you keep on playing, but if you play poker (at least partially) for the fun of it, then stand up and get more bang for your buck next time.

Wouldn’t you agree?

The simple concept that I’ve learned is this…You keep playing in a game that is a “good” game as long as you’re winning and still feel like you’re playing your “A game”.

EVEN IF you are losing, as long as you can be honest with yourself that you’re not tilting, too tired to play, have lost interest in the session, etc…(Definately -EV. And YES, we’re talking about TILT=-EV=-CHIPS=-MONEY. NOT happiness, sadness, constipation, or any other feeling for that matter.) you should STILL continue to play because you FEEL like playing AND you’re playing your “A game”. ie..you’ve got a couple of big fish at your table and stack off twice as a 90% favorite to these fishcakes who check call you down and hit their 4 outters on the river. BUT, because they’re that bad, you keep playing knowing that variance will hopefully swing back in your favor again as a huge skilled favorite over your opponents.

Finally, you’re losing, playing good, bad, whatever, you quit when you just don’t feel you’re playing your best game.

I really feel like Mike Caro’s Institute has some of the most valuable poker insights ever written.

One of them states quite simply that “A penny saved is a penny earned.” LITERALLY.

Works for me.

Skillish