The Ageless Wisdom of John Fox - Part II

Last time, we started surfing the pages of John Fox's underappreciated poker classic, Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! We had determined that while Fox had an eye for the trenchant observation, he was also very much a product of his time (the 1970s) and circumstance (the old draw-poker clubs of Gardena, California). In order to glean wisdom from his work, then, we would have to develop an adaptive eye, sort through his somewhat overwrought prose, and separate the wheat of wisdom from the chaff of whatever is not wisdom. We still have plenty of exploration left, so let's surf on, shall we?

As I said, Fox focused his book entirely on draw poker, so a lot of what he had to say (how to compensate, for example, for players who won't open with jacks or queens in late seats) has no relevance whatsoever to the hold'em that you and I play today. Other observations are relevant if you know how to spin them. Try this one on for size: "Any time you have opened a pot when someone else was going to open, you have made a mistake. Any time. No exceptions. No excuses."

And no equivocation on Fox's part, either. Fox believed - and belabored the point for pages - that it's better to let the other guy do your betting for you. This had to do largely with post-draw play: In those old Gardena draw games, the player who opened the pot would be first to draw cards, and first to bet after the draw. By not opening when you don't have to, you seize the advantage of position, especially if the opener is directly on your left. What Fox is really saying, then, is that it's good to have position in poker. He says so in so many words: "Knowledge is power." And knowledge derives from position. Can anyone argue with that? Show of hands.

Then again, some of what Fox had to say still holds directly true. Seat selection is important; you want strong players on your right and weak players on your left. Also, check this out: "Don't look at your cards until it is absolutely necessary." More than 30 years ago, Fox was concerned about attentive players "looking left" and picking off tells, based on his reaction to his cards. He knew then, as we know now, that they can't know what you're going to do if you don't yet know. That's why the best players - and the rest of us, if we're smart - practice excellent "card hygiene," waiting until it's our turn to act, and then always reacting to our cards in a consistent and information-neutral way. I've never seen anyone do a better job of this than Greg Raymer. When he puts his fossil on his cards and drops his dopey glasses into place, you don't know if he's going to fold, call, or raise the roof. Fox would be proud.

Fox, it should be noted, was fond of shooting the odd angle or two. For instance, consider the "snorp" play. This has to do with "training" opponents to your left to act out of turn, based on their assumptions about what your action means. It sets up the opportunity to keep your hand live when you want to open but are not sure if there's strength behind you or not. Starting when the hand you hold is a bust and you intend to pass, counsels Fox, … say something like "Snorp" in a loud, firm voice. (The word "snorp" is good since it doesn't sound at all like "pass" - looking ahead to possible arguments.) Then you can start "passing" … by saying "Snorp" more and more softly and meekly. Finally, when you are forced to call the floorman in order to keep a good hand from being passed out, you can say forlornly - "All I did was say, 'Snorp,' and they passed out of turn behind me." How could the floorman ever rule against you?

My advice? If you're ever at a table and you hear someone say, "Snorp," find another game. That's a crafty veteran you're dealing with.

And yes, I can hear you saying, "But that's unethical," and I'd be the first to match your righteous indignation with righteous indignation of my own. But let's face it: Since the 1970s - indeed, since long before that - angle shooters have been a fact of poker life. While you might never consider essaying such underhanded behavior yourself, it's useful, for defensive purposes, to know how these nefarious devils think. John Fox was one of the most unashamedly nefarious devils ever to put pen to page, and we can learn volumes just by clocking the gears of his devious mind.

But really, can anyone tell me where "devious" kicks in and merely "attentive" leaves off? Fox spent enormous time and effort to collect and interpret the information available to him in a poker game. True, he drew no distinction between straightforward tells and - let's call them murkier - areas of investigation. He offers, with equal equanimity, both, "When a usually very talkative player suddenly becomes silent, he probably holds an opener," and, "Try to sit directly across the table from a player who nervously shuffles his hand - thereby successively exposing each of his cards as it appears on the bottom." You may say he's advocating cheating. I think he's just thinking hard about the game.

And, as I've said, some of his thoughts are timeless. Tell me if this rings a bell:

Unfortunately, I have frequently seen some sharp but inexperienced young player learn a new technical play and then enthusiastically run off to play. He will now be convinced that he will "now be going to win." Such a player does not realize that his new play adds about one hundredth of one per cent to his potential effectiveness.

I'm reminded of a certain enthusiast I once met who "always opens for the size of the pot when the flop comes three of a suit." He had noticed that people tend to be scared by this action - they are - and tend to fold - they do - but the rest of his game was such a mess (and an unexamined mess, at that) that no matter how much edge his rarely useful stratagem bought him, it could never dig him out of the hole of his own bad play. Fox is at pains to remind us that the best opponent at the table can never inflict as much damage on us as we can on ourselves.

I guess that's what makes Play Poker, … such an enduring read. Sure, Fox gets bogged down in the mechanics of double- and triple-pot hands of draw poker (and waxes enthusiastic about "the old coffee cup trick," a special stall reserved for huge pots), but his bottom-line thesis - think hard about the game and focus on what's important - applies to every kind of poker, from draw to hold'em to stud, or even to those bastard-child kitchen-table games we've all played at home. That's why John Fox is worth a look … a look we'll continue with next time.

John Vorhaus is the author of the Killer Poker book series and the new poker novel Under the Gun, in bookstores now. He resides in cyberspace at vorza.com, and blogs the world from somnifer.typepad.com. John Vorhaus' photo: Gerard Brewer.