Macro and Micro Poker

Periodically, I'll read an article about "feel" players versus "math" players. The feel players lob a shell: "Math players just don't get it. They make all their calculations, but they just play like robots. A little feel will beat a robot any day."

Then the math defender strikes back: "At its core, poker is math. Math can't be wrong; it is truth itself. To deny math is to deny your nose."

These arguments try my patience. Frankly, I don't think either the feel or the math person gets it. Or, they both have a point, but neither fully understands exactly what his point is or why it might be right.

What (I think) their points boil down to is what I think of as macro poker and micro poker. I find the macro and micro distinction valuable; it helps keep me thinking about the right things. I hope you'll find it valuable, too.

Macro poker is a set of winning principles. You don't have to know how many outs a straight draw is worth to understand macro poker. Indeed, macro poker is generally game-generic; macro poker works in no-limit hold'em or deuce-to-seven triple draw or options trading.

Here's a typical macro-poker thought: "Total all the dollars you've ever bet playing poker. The large majority of those dollars should have been bet from late position. Only a small percentage of your total handle should have been bet from up front." Virtually all profitable strategies adhere to this principle.

You don't have to look at any cards or stare down any opponents or solve any equations to know it's true. It doesn't "depend." Bet bigger and more frequently from late position. Do that, and you're on your way to playing profitably.

"Fold more when the pot is small compared to the bet size than when it's big." That's another good one. "Play big pots with big hands and small pots with small hands." That one's particularly useful in no-limit, but it's good in many games.

I have a thought about seat selection that runs counter to what many pundits think. They talk about having aggressive players on the right, passive players on the left, smelly players across the table, and so forth. I've read long sermons on the proper placement of the fellow with the nervous habit of knocking his chips over when he flops bottom two pair.

My thoughts come straight from macro poker. Macro poker tells me that money flows clockwise around the table. Thus, I want to sit so that the largest "wave" of money crashes on me; I want the worst players on my direct right. They are the largest money source, and I want to sit as close to that source as possible.

I don't worry about how individual hands will play out. "Well, if the aggressive players are on the right, then if I flop a set, I can more likely check-raise the whole table." To me, that's delving into details when no delving is necessary. I know that money flows clockwise, so I want to be positioned to absorb as much flow as possible.

This is the power of macro poker. You can often solve problems confidently with almost no analysis. The problem with analyzing the details is that it's almost certain that you'll forget some. You'll think of 10 possibilities, but overlook two. Sometimes the two you overlook change your answer entirely; it's better to make judgments when analyzing no details at all if you can do so with reasonable assurance that you're correct.

Macro poker is also great for adjusting to various game types. "How do I cope with a maniac?" "What if no one will pay me off?"
Think in broad terms: "What mistakes do my opponents make?" Maniacs put in too much money with weak hands. Weak-tight players fold too often. Then think: "How can I exploit those mistakes?" You challenge the maniac to play big pots with hands that you might fold against typical players, and you bet "light" more often against the weak-tight ones.

As you may have guessed, micro poker is the details. Micro poker is figuring out how to play a flopped set against a weak-tight, aggressive, and short-stacked player, in that order. Micro poker is deciding whether A-10 suited is worth a reraise in this situation, or if you should stick to A-J suited or better. It's the "it depends" part of poker.

Don't get me wrong, good micro-poker skills are vital. You have to know how to evaluate situations down to the detail. But I think too many people get bogged down in details and ultimately go wrong because they have too little perspective. This is the same error that Mike Caro describes as "Fancy Play Syndrome." (I'm careful in using this term, though, because anytime you make a play that's not 100 percent obvious, someone out there will declare that it's FPS.) People get so busy calculating (or, rather, miscalculating) fold equity and hand ranges that they do silly things that they'd never do if they thought about macro poker.

Here's an example from heads-up limit play. An important macro-poker principle for heads-up play is that every bet and raise you make commits you more to a showdown. The bigger you make the pot, the more confident you need to be that you'll see a showdown. "Fold more in small pots than in big ones."

Some heads-up players like to do things like three-bet the turn, planning to fold to a four-bet. They'll build monster pots with multilayered bluffs, but then give up for one more bet on the river. These plays should be "every once in a while" deals. They should serve a balancing role in your strategy. They keep your opponent guessing: "Hmm, a turn three-bet means I'm beat … usually."

Your main strategy, however, must conform to the macro principle: "Fold more in small pots than in big ones." Three-betting the turn had better mean that you are going to a showdown the great majority of the time. If that's not the case, no matter how clever you are, you'll lose to any competent, adaptive player. Your micro decisions need to support, not challenge, macro principles.

While both macro and micro poker are important, macro is primary. To win, your strategy should conform to macro principles. Your micro decisions should be optimizations within that framework.

I think the feel defenders tend to champion macro ideas, and the math defenders like the micro stuff. But I think people on both sides are whistling in the wind, as both macro and micro are integral parts of winning play.

Ed is a featured coach at StoxPoker.com. Also check out his online poker advice column, NotedPokerAuthority.com. He has authored four books on poker, most recently, Professional No-Limit Hold'em: Volume 1.