March 23, 2012
Playing style
I've been watching some BlackRain79 vids over on another training site (shhhh...), he's one of the most consistent and successful winners at the micros ever, and he's produced a series called "crushing the micros 6max" where he works from 2nl through 5nl to 10nl and focusses on really sound fundamentals which he basically never deviates from ever. He hunts out fish relentlessly and doesn't even bother playing against reggy type players or trying to establish/exploit their weaknesses, and he seriously avoids what he calls "high variance plays" or "high variance situations". I kind of realised my natural tendency and playing style is to go hell-for-leather at these high variance spots, situations that BlackRain expressly avoids because he's patient enough waiting for much "safer" spots to get his opponents' money and he also wants to expressly avoid situations that might tilt him, even though he knows/suspects he has a slight edge.
Kinda got me thinking about my whole philosophy toward the game and what sort of player I consider myself/want to be etc. I've always felt the game becomes boring if we play super-safe TAG ABC poker almost to the point of removing some of the game from the game, and certainly a lot of the fun. But I'm not sure how much I enjoy exposing myself to all these situations that I never really thought of as "high-variance" until I started piling together a massive losing streak and looking for reasons why, and saw one of the most successful micro winners expressly avoiding a bunch of spots that I go for as standard.
Something to think about. Maybe I shall just play the safest taggiest poker I can to protect myself from so much swingyness. It's a massive dichotomy right now given that I really want to start winning and avoiding all this downswing/tilt BS, but I kind of believe I should be true to my own philosophies about how I want to play the game too, and I know that if the shoe was on the other foot and I had have run good instead of bad I would have won a boatload and not even questioned it at all.
Interesting spot...

K
(2 players, 1 is all-in)
2

