Poker After Dark

[Nocapszy]

I agree with everything except:

Phil Laak - My initial thought was ISTP.

wut

 

[Grayscale]

And as for Doyle...he's just like Matusow, total ESTP. His game is based totally on awareness of present-moment personal dynamics, not long term averages of all possible plays. (Listen to Doyle vs. Dwan discussing hands and reads if you want a great example of the S vs. N dichotomy on these perspectives.)

Look at the way Doyle will make plays like cold call a preflop raise with KK and then call down two or three barrels. Deeper chip stacks, as in a cash game, favor N players because the Sensor's "right now" read stands to lose more on the occasions when it's wrong. Doyle's strategy in deep stack cash is deliberately directed at minimizing pot size and taking advantage of overly aggressive players by snapping off 2- and 3-barrels. And he's really good at it.

If you've read his book Super/System, you'll know that he gained prominence in a time when cash games were played with much smaller stacks, and now he doesn't win nearly as much as he used to since the huge rash of extremely mathematical N-type internet players started to take over the scene, and both cash game and tournament stacks got much deeper in most games. "It's like playing against a computer," he says. How telling.

An N player can't hone in on the exact specifics of the current hand as well, and so good S players actually have stronger overall reads...but N players make up for this with a broader contextual understanding of average hand ranges by studying long-term play data. N wonders what the theory says the pieces of information he's given should say about what hands he should have and how often; S cuts this step out of the process and just reads directly into what he *does* have *this* time.

It's extraordinarily interesting to me how both approaches can produce huge success when used correctly.

i've watched brunson quite a bit and id like to say i have a similar style. what many players dont understand about it is that there is a theory behind it, and that is expected value should consider present conditions. sure, i can make a standard raise on the button with no limpers and pocket aces, that'd be making it too easy on them! if they dont strike me as blind defenders, then theyll probably fold, ill make more when they hit top pair on a rainbow board and think they're playing against just another top pair who is using his position to be aggressive. if you hit a monster, it's very easy to play it like a draw that "just needs a bit more encouragement to fold" and let the super-aggressive players from the internet hang themselves.

combining superior post-flop play, awareness of the environment and other players body language makes it more profitable to confuse your opponents with unorthodox and often times "counter-theory" play. 9 times out of 10, i can guess fairly closely what they have and they have absolutely no idea what im holding. makes for lots of opportunities to trap players into pushing with second-best but "i know i got that bastard beat this time!" hands. also, this image leads others to bluff against me less often because i will check a big pocket pair that i hit a set with 2-3 times despite a scary board if i know they arent drawing. likewise, players often give away free cards because they're afraid, letting me complete drawing hands for practically nothing.

really, the only downside is you have to be very sharp about when your plays have gone awry and lay down big hands, and it's difficult to apply game theory because you cant gauge from their reaction to you. fortunately, if you play deceptively then your opponents cant milk you because they didnt know how strong you were, sometimes you can get away with mistakes on the turn and river for cheap.

 

[simulatedworld]

i've watched brunson quite a bit and id like to say i have a similar style. what many players dont understand about it is that there is a theory behind it, and that is expected value should consider present conditions.

Well yeah, obviously. It should go without saying that all good players use a combination of both sensory and intuitive data, but you can tell from watching personal styles, usually, which is the preferred method of analysis.

sure, i can make a standard raise on the button with no limpers and pocket aces, that'd be making it too easy on them! if they dont strike me as blind defenders, then theyll probably fold, ill make more when they hit top pair on a rainbow board and think they're playing against just another top pair who is using his position to be aggressive. if you hit a monster, it's very easy to play it like a draw that "just needs a bit more encouragement to fold" and let the super-aggressive players from the internet hang themselves.

Well, this is dependent on two factors: stack size and opponent tendencies. As I said, Doyle obviously plays significantly less aggressive in cash games because the stacks are so much deeper and the kind of snap-instinct sensory reads that he favors go down in value, since the risk:reward ratio gets much worse. He's not making super-system type plays anymore at all.

But if you're really at a hyper aggressive table that doesn't know how to change gears (which internet players have a reputation for), then sure, limping KK can be good. But you'd damn well better know when you've gotten too greedy and be able to lay it down when the aggressive player flops his set or completes a draw--that's where his money comes from.

If you play KK like this too often, good players will notice and adjust accordingly.

combining superior post-flop play, awareness of the environment and other players body language makes it more profitable to confuse your opponents with unorthodox and often times "counter-theory" play. 9 times out of 10, i can guess fairly closely what they have and they have absolutely no idea what im holding. makes for lots of opportunities to trap players into pushing with second-best but "i know i got that bastard beat this time!" hands. also, this image leads others to bluff against me less often because i will check a big pocket pair that i hit a set with 2-3 times despite a scary board if i know they arent drawing. likewise, players often give away free cards because they're afraid, letting me complete drawing hands for practically nothing.

Well sure, this is the basic loose aggressive theory. Counterintuitive play isn't always the best idea, though--it still needs to be justifiable from an EV standpoint against your opponent's probable range, but I'm sure you know that. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter whether you play tight or loose, as long as you know what image you're projecting at any given time and how to use that to your advantage. There's no need to make weirdo plays specifically to create a crazy image.

really, the only downside is you have to be very sharp about when your plays have gone awry and lay down big hands, and it's difficult to apply game theory because you cant gauge from their reaction to you. fortunately, if you play deceptively then your opponents cant milk you because they didnt know how strong you were, sometimes you can get away with mistakes on the turn and river for cheap.

That's true...LAG is definitely harder to play because it requires a much more precise read in some very marginal spots. But man it's a hell of a lot of fun when it's working.

Would you like to play heads up some time? It doesn't have to be for money; I just always enjoy a good game.

 

[Domino]

I can't fully explain it but I simply don't feel an SP vibe from Doyle. I just don't. ISTJs can be just as wild and out there as any of the STs. I knew a guy (who was in love with my sister) - he was a completely inscrutable ISTJ, a risk taker, into everything, highly intelligent and had the sorts of life stories that one simply cannot manufacture.

I can't make this less vague, but Doyle feels "open-closed" even when he's making decisions. He also casts an Fi-Te vibe. Not to say a T can't effectively utilize (though unconsciously) the inferior shadow of their primary four functions (i.e. be a Ti user with strong undercurrents of Te).

I just have to hold on to that. He's like no SP I've ever watched or known, but smacks strongly of SJs I've had experience with.

 

[563 740]

tl;dr

Esfandiari - ESTP
Laak - ENTP

Sorry!

Both guys have written articles for Bluff Magazine; Esfandiari's are very factual, linear stories typically about partying and going to tournaments while Laak's ramble all over the place and are full of imagery and metaphors.

Sample Laak: High Stakes Poker by Phil Laak | Bluff Magazine July-2006

Sample Esfandiari: Done and Ditch or broke and eat? by Antonio Esfandiari | Bluff Magazine July-2007

Also, what ENTP would ever have the stick-to-it-iveness to actually become a professional magician??

Would you like to play heads up some time? It doesn't have to be for money; I just always enjoy a good game.

A Typology Central game (for pennies, even) would be the super-awesome.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Unfortunately Nocap would brutally school us all; his years of $2 full tilt sng experience would be insurmountable.

 

[Grayscale]

Well, this is dependent on two factors: stack size and opponent tendencies...

....Well sure, this is the basic loose aggressive theory. Counterintuitive play isn't always the best idea, though--it still needs to be justifiable from an EV standpoint against your opponent's probable range, but I'm sure you know that. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter whether you play tight or loose, as long as you know what image you're projecting at any given time and how to use that to your advantage. There's no need to make weirdo plays specifically to create a crazy image.

it's not really anything, because that would be predictable. obviously there are EV basics which must be observed, but the majority of my play is taking advantage of the table environment and history and using what has happened, what betting actions ive taken, and my cards flexibly. i watch what is going on very closely and track what i think everyone is holding, thinking, etc. and adjust on the fly based on new information or in a recursive manner when there is a showdown and my read was off. i use this information to stay a few steps ahead of opponents, and always try to leave them folding when they should have called, raising when they should have folded, and calling when they should have raised. whoever they are, however they play, and whatever i have really makes no difference to me, i just want my opponents to make as many mistakes as possible.

if i had a basic style, it would be tight-aggressive, but the finer points of the style i outlined above make all the difference. it's about determining the level of play each opponent is on, be the ultimate opportunist, control the action and outplay them to the point that their strategy goes off balance. im not sure that's really so original, but it's the most effective approach ive found.


i play mostly live cash games, but i left a few bucks in my FT account if any of yall want to play and i have some spare time. nickel/dime cant be too spendy for anyone, right?

 

[simulatedworld]

^ word sounds like a good strategy.

I don't have any money in full tilt, but we can run play money i guess?

 

[Domino]

Everyone getting drunk during last's night's hour would have been a relief. That game is dragging it's feet.

No way is Antonio an S. Just look at his eyes and the way he moves his body.*shakes head* Ok, so maybe you aren't paying as much attention to that as I am.... nvm. *ahem*

I've written things too that don't "sound" like me. I've even behaved in manners that would be mistaken for other types, from ESTP to INTJ. You can be N and be factual - my ENTJ best friend is a prime example of that.

 

[simulatedworld]

I can't fully explain it but I simply don't feel an SP vibe from Doyle. I just don't. ISTJs can be just as wild and out there as any of the STs. I knew a guy (who was in love with my sister) - he was a completely inscrutable ISTJ, a risk taker, into everything, highly intelligent and had the sorts of life stories that one simply cannot manufacture.

I can't make this less vague, but Doyle feels "open-closed" even when he's making decisions. He also casts an Fi-Te vibe. Not to say a T can't effectively utilize (though unconsciously) the inferior shadow of their primary four functions (i.e. be a Ti user with strong undercurrents of Te).

I just have to hold on to that. He's like no SP I've ever watched or known, but smacks strongly of SJs I've had experience with.

Doyle is not an SJ. Read Super/System; there's nothing even remotely conservative, by the book, safe, or conventional about anything he's advocating.

The man invented loose aggressive play, because that was what his natural Se response to the environment of the game at the time led him to do.

Of course, cash games used much smaller stacks back then...most of the advice that he gives wouldn't really work with the 100+ big blind stacks that are standard in cash games today. (Cash game stacks were more like 30-40 blinds back then, which is much more reminiscent of what we see as mid-game tournament play nowadays.) But I digress.

I'll grant you Introversion--he seems more and more like an ISTP the more I watch him. But seriously, read his book--he advocates things like shoving in on the flop with any draw with 4+ outs, and other flat out reckless, I'm-barely-aware-of-the-rules-because-I'm-too-busy-instinctively-gaming-the-system SPness. He talks about things like buying into cash games, busting out 4 buy-ins and then taking every chip at the table.

Of course, not even Doyle plays anywhere near that LAG anymore...it wouldn't even work with stacks of 100+ blinds. But he pioneered the principles of "power poker" by responding instinctively and completely ignoring standard practice. Sounds pretty SP to me.

Come to think of it, the entire concept of loose aggressive play is inherently SP, and fundamentally not SJ. You're constantly bullying your opponents through sheer force and confusing them as to your true motives.

As I said, by modern standards Doyle is actually a tight player, but that's because his comparatively weak N abilities place him at a disadvantage in deeper games. NL tournaments (especially live, where Ss in general have a comparative advantage) are SP territory because the comparatively small stacks make especially good use of their yes/no "bullshit detector" in short stack situations with close odds, where the decision comes down to essentially, "OK do I raise all in or fold?"

But the deeper the stack gets, the more the SP player stands to lose on the occasions when his Se bullshit detector is wrong. I've seen Mike Matusow (ESTP) shove 10x the pot on the river just to represent a big flush, only to get called insta-called by Phil Laak's flopped paint flush and ship a $100k stack. Another example is Gus Hansen (xSTP), who lost over a million last time he played in the "Big Game" cash game at the Bellagio, but has always been a fantastic tournament player with his relentless aggression and razor-sharp short-stack situation reads.

But N players gain advantage as the stacks get deeper, and Doyle knows this, and he compensates for it by playing small-pot poker against them as much as possible...their natural inclination to consider the game in terms of the average of all situations over time allows more in depth hand range analysis which can edge out the naturally better S read, especially in an online situation.

Notice how all these young hotshot online pros are Ns? Yep...anyway, I've digressed majorly again. Apologies.

I've played a fair amount of poker and I make a habit of MBTI-ing my opponents, and I've observed zero SJ players who would ever consider completely rewriting the rules of the game. They're just too busy trusting concrete past experience and applying it with consistent discipline.

Dan Harrington is an ISTJ, if ever I've seen one. It's quite evident from reading his books what a structured, safe, measured approach he takes.

But not Doyle.

 

[simulatedworld]

Poker After Dark: Typology Snapshot

This is a particularly amusing combination of personalities:

Antonio Esfandiari - ESTP
Mike Matusow - ESTP
Jean-Robert Bellande - ESTP
Jennifer Harman - ISTP
Vanessa Rousso - INTJ
David Gray - INTP


STPs spend a good portion of the episode negotiating over odds on prop bets regarding guesses at the ages at which other players lost their virginity. "10 to 1 it was after 17!" Such negotiators, they are.

Bellande actually recounts his days of owning a club and being a CLUB PROMOTER...talk about ESTP jobs.

Ti-rrific Jen Harman sticks straight to the facts, coolly and off-handedly manipulating the virginity prop bets in her mathematical favor. Also probably eats calculators. Guess that's a running theme with Jennifers.

David Gray the INTP is always waiting to pounce on someone and nitpick their theoretical understanding/phrasing. He's actually kind of obnoxious at times.

Rousso is obviously INTJ in everything she does. Conservative, calculated, imaginative at just the right times--don't be fooled by her posh appearance; this is simply Ni's awareness of the implications of dressing this way. She takes advantage of the symbolism inherent in being an attractive and well-dressed woman, which is something of a rarity in the poker world.

And then the ESTPs just talk a whole lot of shit, about really anything at all. And they're always ready to gamble on another random prop bet just to pass the time. Matusow seems really absorbed in curbing his Se play in this episode and sticking to Ti basics; he's noticeably calmer and more introspective than usual...Esfandiari is his usual jovial smack-talking self, etc. etc.

Just thought this episode had an especially interesting personality dynamic.

 

[Kasper]

*merged*

Looks like the same show, if that's not the case let me know.

 

[Nocapszy]

But not Doyle.

i'm reading his first book.
he's not a J. he has that whole spiderweb speech patterns thing going on. very P. very Ti.

but there's no freakin' way he's an extrovert though.

 

[simulatedworld]

i'm reading his first book.
he's not a J. he has that whole spiderweb speech patterns thing going on. very P. very Ti.

but there's no freakin' way he's an extrovert though.

Yeah, these days I say ISTP.

By the way, bear in mind that that book was written in the context of:

A) MUCH shorter cash game stacks (like 40 blinds instead of modern 100), and
B) An incredibly tight-passive field, by modern standards.

Doyle opened the door for modern poker theory by figuring out the tactics for exploiting what we today see as an extremely tight game...playing anywhere near as aggressive as he describes in that book is totally impossible now, but he still offers some good insights.

 

[Domino]

I can't stand Bellandhe. I thought Matusow was hard to take, but he's just a nerd really. Bellande is all "look at me!" quasi-tough guy. Ugh.

 

[Nocapszy]

I can't stand Bellandhe. I thought Matusow was hard to take, but he's just a nerd really. Bellande is all "look at me!" quasi-tough guy. Ugh.

well that's what you get with an ESFP poker player.

the dude not only wants everyone to respect him, but he wants them to like him too.

most of the time, i've only seen one or the other or neither.

 

[Domino]

well that's what you get with an ESFP poker player.

the dude not only wants everyone to respect him, but he wants them to like him too.

most of the time, i've only seen one or the other or neither.

Werd. We had him classed as an ESFP too. Not that we don't like ESFPs, we just don't like HIM. Did you see that ridiculous ultimate fighting hat he was wearing? Dude. Whatever.

Antonio kinda looked like he couldn't get away from him fast enough.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Interesting, that's the first ESFP professional player I think I've found.

 

[scantilyclad]

I agree with Vanessa Rousso definitely being an INTJ.