---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by Tommy Angelo (Micro/Small Stakes)

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I'll let Tommy answer this when he comes back. If you haven't figured it out after 4 episodes, I'm never right. However, I'd have to say apples and oranges, unless your talking your range is better than his range, so you have a reciprocal advantage, at which point I'd say "Ahhhhh!"

Wayne

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

I loved bridge and would encourage anyone to learn it, but that's not answering your question. No. Bridge is more difficult to learn than poker and way more all-consuming.

Just look at who plays it. Old ladies. You think this didn't have something to do with them being old ladies? Play bridge. Become an old lady. That's my excuse.

Wayne

The way he performs this technique is horrible and a really bad and missleading way to think about poker.

Wow. So that's why I lose every argument, well, except for the one about Freebird. I thought I was just stupid. But that would be only me, surely no one else. I never knew he could TRICK me!

Wayne

Tom/Wayne,

On reciprocality

Have you considered self-reciprocality - measuring your actions vs your own previous actions.
e.g. A-game measured against previous A-game play
or A-game vs C-game
or C-game vs C-game

How would you view reciprocality as a prism for measurement of improvement?

A separate but perhaps not distinct point.

How do you know that you have a level of competence in measuring a given circumstance through a prism of reciprocality? i.e. how do you avoid self-delusion where you say well in fact I would be profiting here but because you have not accurately measured the pool/range of possible responses accurately you might just be = or losing.

Thanks again.

Enjoyed this video.

Wow. So that's why I lose every argument, well, except for the one about Freebird. I thought I was just stupid. But that would be only me, surely no one else. I never knew he could TRICK me!

Wayne

U are not stupid Hr Wayne. U just lack a little confidence. Each morning I suggest u take some time in front of the mirror. Stand up straight, breath calmly and repeat ten times: "Tommy is just a man".

Hey Tommy!

This post really got very very long, I'm actually surprised myself
So maybe you want to get yourself a coffee and food for three days before you start reading

I'm a big fan of your series, cause it's maybe the one that will help me the most, cause I'm just a huuuuge tilter.
If someone would say that I am my worst poker enemy he would be totally right.

Normally I'm a pretty calm guy (very emotional though, but mindfull emotional) I help solving arguments, don't have huge arguments that often, I'm pretty much good friend with everybody (as far as this is possible ), but when it comes to poker and computer games in general I'm just very prone to tilting since I was a little child hammering on my keyboard because I lost some stupid little game.

It's really not funny and I suffer a lot from it, not only in the poker world were I lose a ton of money because of it, but also in real life, cause I scream and shout through the whole house, which annoys the persons around me (esp my mother, cause I live at home) and destroyed my mouse several times and also a keyboard, a headset and a pokerstars stress-star (lol, cheap crap).
I'm ashamed for this everytime again but I can't stop it.

I tried so many things, watched psychology vids on another site (which were not even close to as good as your series), bought a psychology book, read a ton about this topic in several forums/blogs and worked with your series, but it just doesn't get that much better.
There is a little little little bit of an improvement, but I'm far away from my first and most important goal, which is stop annoying other people around me (second goal would be to stop annoying myself).

For example today I played for a while, being pretty calm and tiltless (there were a few situations where I was tiltet a bit, but I was able to manage them pretty well) and than suddenly I drop like 3 stacks or whatever amount in a few hands which destroys my session totally (I know this is wrong view, but I just think that way in that moment).
I played and played and made good decisions but now it was all for nothing, I even lost some money (again wrong view, but I can't turn it off). And this huge fish just played terribly wrong and it was the worst card in the deck that came on the turn and pokerstars is such a ****** software and rigged and blablabla... wrong view over wrong view over wrong view.
I try to overcome this, but it just seems impossible to me if those things that tilt me happen so fast in a row. I'm basically not done with the first tilt activator and then the next thing happens and it just builds up on each other.
To make it visual: I'm on 0 on the tilt scale, after a beat I get on 50 "degree tilt", I breath in and out, in and out, try to do all the things I learned from you and it gets better and I move down to 20 degree tilt.
But then another thing happens: BOOM, oh no, not again! This time it tilts me even more, so together with the 20 degree tilt I'm now on 100!
Ok, calm down, calm down, BUT... now it's just far more difficult to get down on the tilt scale, cause my mind is shutting down more and more, I just get slowly down to 70 degree tilt and how it goes, if there were two tilt activators the third isn't far away (this might even be a thing I don't care about if it happens if I'm at 0 degree tilt) and suddenly I'm on 180 and in my evolution back to the stone age. Ugga Ugga destroy mouse, now keyboard, let out brute screams Ugga Ugga!! I'm basically a tilt monkey now, totally mindless.
I try to get back to normal, breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out but it doesn't help anymore no matter how often I do it.
I just need to let my aggression go out somehow, which results in those destroyed things, the persons around me being annoyed and me being ashamed and having lost some money.
But what can I do against this?
How can I reduce my "tilt degrees" faster?
How can I get back to mindfull in 180 situations where the breathing thing doesn't work?

Maybe this is a problem of me being alone infront of my computer, because if somebody is watching me play (standing/sitting next to me or sweating through the internet while talking through skype or whatever) I'm faaaar less likely to tilt.
Actually I don't tilt at all if somebody is standing next to me (maybe because it wasn't the case that often and just in some good sessions) and not that often if someone is watching through the internet.
It also helps to make a video while playing (but this is less effective than having somebody else to talk to).
Is this because I just stay more mindfull in those situations?
And how can I take those benefits into daily grind, where I just can't have somebody next to me all the time?
Why can't I control my emotions while being alone whereas I can control them if someone is around?
How can I practice to control them while being alone?

Maybe I should quit immediatly everytime I get a bad beat/cooler or whatever is tilting me?
But thats no solution forever, cause it would result in many very short sessions, which would reduce my winrate (cause I couldn't wait for the blinds to come along, cause in those hands there might be another tilt activator), I would have to leave all the tables which I choose in a time costing selection and the next session I would have to table select again.

And I want to overcome tilt and not let tilt dictate me how to play poker!

The most important thing for me at the moment is to stop influencing other persons lifes, which I think totally sucks, cause I can imagine how angry I would be if someone screams through the house while I try to sleep a bit after lunch.

I don't want to quit poker, cause I love the game, I have fun playing it (most of the time, obv not if I'm on tilt), I have invested so much time learning the game and getting better and the money is a very good bonus, but if I continue to tilt that hard there is basically no other way.

Hopefully I described my situation well enough to get some good advice and hopefully it didn't bore you too much.

Thomas

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

The crux of what I think he is saying is that if you make a single poker decision in the EXACT same situation over a million hands and add up the sum of how much money was won or lost and then compare the same result to how your opponent did if he or she made a single, DIFFERENT decision, if your sum is greater than his or hers, you win.

This can be hard to visualize because EVERY factor must be equal EXCEPT for the decision. This means stack sizes must be the same, the opponent(s) must be the same, your images must be the same, your hole cards must be the same, and even minute details like how you breath (live) or how long you click bet/raise/check (online) must be the same. In practice, you can't actually test for this - it's a concept. But, it's not terribly difficult to conjecture. I've been in many situations live and online where I make a decision that I know is +EV and making me money that I know my opponents would not make in the same decision in situation and I know I am winning.

You can't take just one hand example because it doesn't take bad beats, ranges, or luck into account.

Time Link to 01:05:43

Randomly snapped this pic this on my Motorola Razor about 4 years ago. I call it "In the Shadow of the Guru."

Tommy,
Can you please put out a piano only CD?

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

I believe that the answer to your question is yes. We should always be thinking in terms of ranges.

In episode 4, when I gave an example of the type you described, I was pretending that I was talking to someone who had never heard of, or thought of, the tool I call reciprocal analysis. I chose the simplest possible example I could think of. I did not consciously omit the concept of ranges. I just went with an example I've been using for years because it's familiar to me, and it has served well in the past at getting the concept across quickly and accurately.

Now I've had a chance to think about adding range-thinking to the example, or some other example.

I believe it's possible that introducing the concept of ranges to an example that is someone's first-ever exposure to RA could make the example less effective in two ways. 1) It might distract the listener into thoughts about ranges 2) Some people don't think in terms of ranges, and those people might be totally thrown off the intended new concept by the introduction of a second new concept.

That said, I would VERY MUCH like to have an example of reciprocal analysis in my pocket that DOES include ranges, for when such an example would be more effective and/or appropriate than my usual one.

Care to make one up? Pretend you are talking to someone who knows about RA, and about ranges, and they say, "Give me an example of RA that includes ranges."

I think the "if I had kings and folded when you had aces, but you wouldn't have folded in the same spot, I win" -type of examples are a bit misleading. Shouldn't we always be thinking in terms of ranges?

As to "a bit misleading," I guess the questions I want to ask you are: 1) Did the example make it clear in your mind what RA is? 2) Were you misled?

If your answers are yes and no, then I would say that in your case, the example worked as intended.

I can see that it's possible that someone could listen to the example hand in episode 4 and think, "Hey, he didn't say anything about ranges, so he must be condoning an overall way of thinking that does not include ranges." If that is what you had in mind when you wrote "a bit misleading," then please let me know. If it is, then I would call in collateral damage. At this time I still think it's better to keep the example as stripped down and as short as possible. But I could be persuaded otherwise, depending on the example that includes the word "ranges."

Now, if you think the lack of ranges in the example is misleading in terms of getting the basic concept of RA across to the listener, then that is something I definitely want to attend to. So please let me know more about what you had in mind with "a bit misleading." Thank you.

Tommy

I was really happy to read the above post Tommy. It sounds to me like u have taken the criticism to heart and u are giving a perfectly sensible answer this time. U def have changed to the "right view" now ! This is great because I don't have to pick on u anymore !

Tommy, Wayne,

Do u guys think playing bridge is a good way to get a better card sense in general?

there is a local bridge club down my street, I have never played there because there is no cash to be won and never considered it useful, but now I think maybe it would be good to get a better general card sense... your take on this would be great

Thanks

Learning how to play bridge is like learning how to play the violin. You know it's going to be ugly for quite a while. I do think that if you get heavily into bridge for a few years, you'll be a better card player for it. But you really have to get insanely hooked on bridge in order to play it enough so that you learn how to not make screechy sounds. And at the point, poker is no longer the reason you play bridge, so it all sorts itself out.

Tommy

Tom/Wayne,

On reciprocality

Have you considered self-reciprocality - measuring your actions vs your own previous actions.

Yes.

e.g. A-game measured against previous A-game play
or A-game vs C-game
or C-game vs C-game

How would you view reciprocality as a prism for measurement of improvement?

The very end of episode 4 is about what you called self-reciprocality, but more in a life sense than in an A-game/B-game/C-game sense. Same thing though. And a very good point I think, to include the A-B-C's.

A separate but perhaps not distinct point.

How do you know that you have a level of competence in measuring a given circumstance through a prism of reciprocality? i.e.

You don't.

how do you avoid self-delusion

You just keep wrapping yourself in as much awareness as you can.

Tommy

U def have changed to the "right view" now ! This is great because I don't have to pick on u anymore !

:-)

Tommy,
Can you please put out a piano only CD?

A real CD? That's not on the project queue. Free mp3's of the stuff I recorded for EPTPE will probably surface in the fall.