A Couple of Lessons in Logic - Pokerwise

Hi. Come on in. I hope you're not hungry. I don't have much to eat today, just some cheese and crackers. Maybe we'll go out later and chow down.

Today we'll be discussing more from the series of "The Many Things I Wish I Had Known When I Started Playing Poker Many Years Ago."

Here's a fact of poker life that when first considered doesn't seem to make much sense. "At limit poker, a good player loses with good hands." But how can that be? Good players should win with good hands. I'd better add something here. A good player, when he loses, loses with good hands. That's better. Assuming that the statement is true - why is it true? It's true because it's logical.

Good players don't play bad hands. Bad players play weak hands and win when they get lucky. You, however, are regularly playing good hands. So when you do lose, you will lose with good hands against a player who played a weak hand and got lucky.

Weak players consistently lose with weak hands because they play so many of them. Skillful players lose with good hands because that's the only kind they play. So, not playing with weak hands means you cannot lose with weak hands. Logic.

When you find yourself losing with mediocre hands, you've found a hole in your game. You are either overvaluing your mediocre hands, or undervaluing your opponents - or both.

This is closely related to the question, "Why is it that bad players draw out on good players and not the other way around?" The logic here is that good players aren't constantly putting themselves in a position to draw out - they are playing best hand or best draw. Bad players, however, are constantly looking to get lucky. They go to the end hoping and praying to the poker gods for a miracle.

More Among the Many Things
Have I ever explained to you about "Roy's Poker Principle?" It's something I have created to save you a lot of pain - and a lot of money. My Poker Principle is based loosely on the famous Peter Principle, presented to the business world several years ago by Laurence J. Peter. His Principle states that, "In a business hierarchy, individuals tend to rise to their level of incompetence."

The Peter Principle means that if a person does well in his present job, he will be promoted to the next higher position. Doing well there means that he will again be promoted. And so on. Eventually he will reach a position where he will not do well and so will no longer be promoted. But neither will he be demoted. He has risen to, and is stuck in, his level of incompetence. (I believe this Principle explains why there are so many incompetent people in positions of authority.)

There is, of course, a similarity in the game of poker. Example: A player consistently beating the smallest games moves up to the $5-$10 level. Winning consistently there, he moves to the $10-$20 game. Another move brings him to the $15-$30 limits.

There, or at some level, he runs into a stone wall. He is outclassed, outplayed, and losing his bankroll. Most players are not willing to admit they cannot beat the game at whatever level this happens, from $5-$10 to $100-$200.

Now here comes a Roy's Rule to save you pain and money. "Be willing to recognize your level of incompetence and demote yourself to your previous level of success."

There is no law, statute, or gaming regulation stating that you must remain at the higher level even though it's a losing situation. There's no shame in stepping back into a winning situation. When you've rebuilt your bankroll and added to your poker skills, you can take another shot at the next higher level. Meanwhile, you'll feel a lot better about yourself, which means that you'll play better and win more (and be able to pay the rent).

I'm getting hungry. Let's go out for some eggs Benedict - I'm buying. Leave the light on. Maybe the burglars will think someone is home.

Roy West, best-selling poker author, continues giving his successful poker lessons in Las Vegas for tourists and locals. Ladies are welcome.