More on Nits

There's nothing like a little controversy!

My "Response to Negreanu" column in the March 29 issue of Card Player has really ticked some people off. That's good to hear. I think open discussion is good for poker and I don't mind the criticism. First things first; knowing that the column would spark controversy, I sent it to Negreanu prior to submitting it for publication and asked him if he was OK with it. Obviously, he was, and he encouraged me to submit the column. For those who couldn't figure out that my comments about Negreanu having "permanent frostbite of the mind" were written in jest, suffice it to say that they were. Now, let's get to the meat of the discussion on nits.

Walther Matthau said, "The game of poker represents the worst aspects of capitalism that have made our country so great." It's a dog-eat-dog game. Selfish people excel in poker. The object of the game is to take your opponents' money – clear and simple. Those who have taken offense to my column are suggesting that people need to do things for "the good of poker." I'm still trying to figure out where all of this altruism came from.

I'm standing firm on the notion that game selection is the most important factor in your success in poker. When I was a prop player at The Bicycle Casino, I learned that the hard way. As a prop, I was essentially the "anti-nit" – I had to start games and play in the bad games. When I looked back at my records, I still made a profit when I was on the clock, but I won about 75 percent more when I wasn't on the clock and had the freedom to choose my own games. Being the "anti-nit" was costing me a lot of money – in spite of being paid a salary.

Negreanu makes some great points. Starting a game or playing in any suboptimal game makes sense if it's an investment. Just don't mistake this for doing something for the "good of poker" or raw unselfishness. Negreanu is willing to give up some edge at the beginning to get a future edge by attracting more players. Another benefit to doing this is that while it may hurt short-term profits, playing against tough competition and playing shorthanded does improve your skills. Here again, you're willing to give up a little edge in the short run to make more in the future. A reader of Card Player pointed out to me that Negreanu's willingness to start games and play in tough games has contributed to his tournament success. I couldn't agree more. If your goal is to be a world-class player, it makes sense to cut your teeth in ultracompetitive games.

Just don't forget that these can be expensive lessons. For the player whose goal it is to walk into a casino and make money that day, he should be looking for the softest games – period. If that makes me a nit, so be it.

I also think that much of how you act depends on whether you are a regular in a certain cardroom. When I played in a private game in Maryland almost every day, I sometimes did things that hurt my edge in the short run to help the game. If I wanted to quit and it would break the game, but the houseman asked me to wait a half-hour for more players to arrive, I did it. I played shorthanded to get the game started. I believe this is what Negreanu means when he talks about "respect for your co-workers." The funniest thing about all of the outrage from my column is that Negreanu and I are basically saying the same thing: Give up a little edge at times to maximize your edge in the long run. Don't do it for the benefit of poker – but for the benefit of yourself. It's why I said in my last column that I had no problem straddling in Omaha to loosen up the game.

If you're not a regular in a cardroom, there's no value in an investment. Why would you put yourself in a suboptimal situation when you may not be there long enough to reap the return? If you win a few racks and the game turns bad, are you going to care if the other players are going to call you a hit-and-run artist behind your back?

Speaking of hitting and running, Negreanu said of nits, "Typically, they either win two pots and quit or lose about five racks! That's not too smart, if you ask me." Any good player knows that when you are winning, you should press your edge. That's why it always shocks me that people have so much disdain for hit-and-run artists. What could you possibly have against a player who is too stupid to play while he's ahead but can't get out of his seat when he's behind?

Nits are annoying. Point taken. Nits are bad for poker at times. Point taken. But if a true nit is a losing player in the long run, shouldn't we be smiling instead of frowning the next time he hits and runs?

Greg Dinkin is the author of The Poker MBA: Winning in Business No Matter What Cards You're Dealt (see the ad in this issue). For a book review – plus a joker – send an E-mail to [email protected], subject heading, The Poker MBA.