Less is Back for More

That's right – after a year away from writing, I'm back. I'd like to thank the Shulmans and all of the staff at Card Player for making that possible. And I will do my best to make a worthwhile contribution among all of the fantastic writers who comprise this magazine. But for now, I have to get something off my chest that's been bugging me for the last year. I believe that if I don't get it out of the way now, I might hurt the next person who is foolish enough to approach me with this topic. It's a phrase, and the bottom line is that I'm sick of it:

"One big bet per hour"

Everyone harps on this phrase. It might be the most overused, misunderstood concept in all of poker. Supposedly, if you are a good player, your goal is to average one big bet per hour as your long-term profit. It not only has been said in print, it's even been immortalized in the movie Rounders by Matt Damon's character, who says, "One big bet per hour, that's your goal." As much as I loved that movie, I wanted to take that line and edit it out, never to be heard again.

I'll go a step further. I'd like to give whoever originally used that phrase 30 lashes with a wet noodle. And as for anyone who uses the phrase now, I'd like to hold his head in my hands, look him in the eyes, and simply say, "No!" I'm getting tired of it. Why? Because it seems that all poker players think it is their God-given right to be making one big bet per hour. They think they're going to sit down in a $10-$20 game, and after eight hours, $160 will fall into their laps on a daily basis. If it worked like that, everyone would be doing it.

The truth is, it takes a little knowledge, a lot of practice, and a ton of discipline. You might know all the right plays to make, but if you don't force yourself to execute them, it doesn't do you much good. In addition, good game selection is essential. You could easily be a money favorite in one $10-$20 game, and have a negative expected value (EV) at the same limit against a tougher lineup. In fact, if your only concern is to increase your expected win rate, choosing soft games is probably the biggest factor in your long-term outcome.

What else is there to be concerned about other than winning?

Of course, if you are a serious poker player, your primary goal is to increase your EV as much as you can. But there are times (and it may surprise you that I am saying this) that I play and do not expect to make a profit. I have played in games in which my EV was very clearly negative. Examples that come to mind are playing Chinese poker with Linda Johnson, one of the best in the world, and playing lowball for the first time. Both were learning experiences, and thus well worth the sacrifice. I was willing to pay my "tuition" in order to get schooled. But I had no illusions of making one big bet per hour in either game, let alone make any kind of profit, unless I got lucky.

On the other hand, I play in games in which I would be very disappointed If I made only one big bet per hour. Prime examples are some very loose high-low stud and high-low Omaha games, which I have been lucky enough to find both in California and online. In such games, good starting-hand selection alone might be enough to make you an expected winner. If you have a good knowledge of how to play past the flop and fourth street, one big bet per hour is really too modest a goal to set for yourself. If I was satisfied with making only one big bet per hour, I probably would not try hard enough to improve my game to its fullest.

But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Here's what really bothers me …

The example I am about to describe is really not that uncommon. A player hears that poker is a beatable game over the long run, and he decides to learn the game. He reads a poker book, gathers some good information, and decides to go headfirst into action. He starts out playing $3-$6 hold'em, keeps honest records of his play, and over the course of a month he beats the game for about a big bet per hour. This is certainly commendable. Winning any amount at any level over a month's time puts him ahead of the vast majority of poker players.

But here's where the problem comes in: He moves up in limits the very next month, and expects to have the same level of success he had during his first month. He plays $6-$12 and anticipates a win rate of $12 per hour. It doesn't happen, and he can't figure out why the money isn't simply gravitating into his pockets. Guess what? It is not his God-given right to be making one big bet per hour. I know I said that before, but I really want to beat that concept into some people's heads.

Maybe he got lucky at the $3-$6 level, or maybe he is getting unlucky at the $6-$12 level. But the more likely scenario is that a month's playing time is not enough to get an accurate picture of how he can expect to do. This is a true story: A player in my $15-$30 game decided to tell the table that he was averaging more than $100 per hour profit in $15-$30 hold'em since he started playing it. There was a pause, and then someone asked him how long he had been playing $15-$30. He said he was coming up on 20 hours. Give me a break! If I play $10-$20 for four hours and win $800, am I going to go tell everyone that I can beat the game I was in for $200 an hour? It's a joke. Put in some real time in a game, show a consistent profit, and give me reason to believe that the profit was a result of your quality play, and then I'll take you seriously. Until then, keep your hourly rates to yourself – and in turn, I won't bore you with mine.

Maybe that sounded a little rude, and I'm not a rude person by nature. But, I just want to make it clear that I'm not pulling any punches this time around. I'm back for more, and along with trying to offer good poker advice, I'm not going to hold back from letting you know how I really feel. At the very least, it shouldn't be boring. I hope you enjoy it.

Questions or comments are always welcome.