Nombre y objetivo de las Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad

The good player constantly exploits his opponents as they play their cards. He repeatedly lures them into playing poorer and poorer poker. With the proper strategy, he causes them

to--● make mistakes

● improperly estimate the value of their hands

● play a looser game

● play hands that should be dropped

● drop hands that should be called.

An exploitation ploy that John Finn uses (especially in split-pot games) involves the following maneuver to make a hesitant player call a bet:

The game is high-low, five-card stud with two twists. John has a winner--a lock on low. Quintin and Ted are playing for high. Quintin bets $20. Ted has a four flush and wants to call, but is afraid that John will raise and Quintin will reraise, thus costing him $40 more. He starts to fold. John picks up a $20 bill and holds it over the pot. Now, knowing that John will only call and not raise, Ted calls. He then catches a flush on the twist. After more betting and raising, Ted ends up beating Quintin for high. John wins low and makes an extra $50 by not letting Ted fold.

John seldom fakes that maneuver. So when players see him holding the call money, they know with confidence that he will not raise. But he will often fake the reverse maneuver of not holding the call money and then not raising.

The good player also exploits his opponents through betting. When holding a strong hand, he can build much larger pots by getting other players to do his betting and raising. Successful indirect betting requires accurate reading of opponents' hands and knowledge of their betting habits. Miscalculation of indirect betting can result in smaller pots. Thus, when uncertain about his opponents' intentions, the good player will bet aggressively rather than check his strong hand.

Disproportionate betting can throw opponents into more vulnerable and exploitable betting positions.

For example, by making a bet or a raise completely out of proportion to the normal or expected bet, the good player can confuse opponents into making the desired bet, raise, call, or drop. Disproportionate betting is useful as both an offensive and a defensive tool.

Scotty deals draw poker with one twist. John Finn gets a four-card straight flush. For his best investment odds, John wants the maximum players calling a bet big enough to keep them in for the large last-round bets. He also wants to avoid raises that would make players fold. So John opens for $14 instead of the normal $25. Noses wrinkle. Players with poor hands smile and call at this bargain price. Potential raisers, suspicious of the weird bet and fearing a sandbag, only call.

The results are perfect for John ... everyone calls and no one raises. John's estimated investment odds soar to a highly

favorable--($600) (.4)

$80 = 3.0.

But if John had bet the normal $25 and only two players called, his estimated investment odds would have tumbled

to--($250) (.5)

$75 = 1.7.

Now suppose John had bet $25, someone raised to $50, and everyone else folded. If John had called the raise (which he probably would not have), his estimated investment odds would have fallen to an

unfavorable--($222) (.4)

$100 = 0.8.

By making the disproportionate $14 bet, John sets up the hand for maximum profits while gaining control of the betting. Moreover, if he checks his bet on the next round, usually one or more

players will feel deprived of a full opening-round bet and thus bet aggressively. John can then passively let them do the betting and raising for him. On the other hand, if John bets on the next round, the other players will probably remain defensive and avoid betting or raising.

So with that disproportionate S14 bet, John increases his investment odds and leaves himself in a flexible betting position. John's checking will induce his opponents to bet aggressively; his betting will cause them to remain defensive. Thus he can conveniently turn the betting into either an offensive tempo (by checking) or a defensive tempo (by betting) . . . whichever is more

advantageous to him.

Next Page | Contents | Feedback for Valuable/New Information | Previous Page

Footnotes:

[ 24 ] Gambling is defined in this book as "The wagering of money at unfavorable odds." In poker, the good player with favorable edge odds is not gambling, but players with unfavorable edge odds are.

Horse players, casino patrons, and losing poker players are gamblers. That definition is consistent with definitions given in: (1) Webster's Third New International Dictionary--"To wager money or stakes on an uncertain outcome." The good player's outcome is certain; therefore, he is not gambling; (2) Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary-- 'To lose, squander, or dispose of by gaming." By that definition, the good player is not gambling, but losing players are; and (3) The Random House Dictionary--"Any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty." The good player's situation is essentially riskless and, therefore, is not a gambling situation.

A gambling situation yields a statistically minus return on money wagered, while a nongambling (investment) situation yields a statistically plus return on money invested.... The intensity of the

situation (rate of loss or rate of return) is determined both by the time span of the wager or investment and by the percent loss or the percent return. The intensity of' gambling and nongambling (investment) situations is illustrated by Tables 24 and 25. The tables, compare the Monday night poker players to other investment and gambling situations: The good poker player is in by far the best investment situation. By contrast, the poor poker player is in one of the worst gambling situations.

[ 25 ] The joker (also called the bug) is a wild card for low, an ace for high, and good for filling straights and flushes. In high-low games the joker can be used as both a high card and a low card in the same hand.

Next Page | Top of Page

Search WWW Search neo-tech.com

NT Home Page::The Precursors to Neo-Tech

Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life

Neo-Tech Home Page

The Ultimate Leverage for Riches

Next Page | Contents | Feedback for Valuable/New Information | Previous Page

3. Hypnosis (87)

Because the good player is able to intensely study and closely scrutinize each poker opponent, he

quickly gets to know their minds and psyches. With planned experiments, he can discover subconscious responses in many players and then actually hypnotize certain players--particularly the dull, emotional, or mystical ones. Typical hypnotic stimuli

are--● staring into the subject's eyes (psychological)

● moving a finger through the pot (visual and motion)

● breathing audibly during a tense silence (sound)

● tapping fingers on the table (sound and motion)

● repeating sub audible chant-like commands (e.g., "fold--fold--fold," or "raise--raise--raise").

Various repeated motions, sounds, or muffled voices can subconsciously instruct or signal vacillating opponents to make specific folds, calls, bets, or raises. The alert player can discover subconscious or hypnotic signals that will trigger automatic or trained reactions in his opponents.

While the good player can get certain opponents to bet, call, or fold by hypnosis, he uses hypnotizing actions cautiously to avoid revealing his own hands and intentions to alert opponents.

After the draw, John Finn takes the final raise for $100. He has Scotty Nichols beat and wants him to call. Scotty groans. Looking at the huge pot, he sees John's finger slowly stirring the pile of money--stirring slowly and smoothly. Ten and twenty-dollar bills are moving in circles. Scotty's floating brown eyes start rotating with the money. His chubby hand slowly picks up a $100 bill. He

Google Search

calls the bet.

Scotty tries to smile as John pulls in the pot. Eventually he may become aware of that hypnotic trick. But then John will simply use another trick.

John estimates his earnings per life of hypnotic trick range from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

4. Distractions (88)

The good player can exploit his opponents more easily when they are distracted. A radio or television for sporting events has excellent distraction value. A late newspaper is usually good for several hands of distracted play from opponents checking horse-race results, the stock market, and the news.

Pornographic literature offers an absorbing distraction. Good spreads of food and assorted drinks provide steady and effective distractions.

Availability of beer and liquor usually benefits the good player. One drink takes the sharpness off a player's ability to think and concentrate. Even a single beer will reduce the effectiveness of a superior player. That is why the good player never drinks before or during the game. And that is why the good player is glad to see superior-playing opponents take a drink.

Moderate amounts of alcohol have less effect on poor players because their concentrations are already at reduced levels. The poor player must drink enough to become intoxicated before his edge odds are

reduced to even lower levels. But the advantages of having intoxicated opponents are sometimes canceled by disadvantages such as slowing down the game and causing drinking problems that may drive profitable opponents from the game.

Each week, John Finn is a good fellow and brings beer to the game, along with the late evening paper containing the complete stock-market closings and horse-race results. Ted and Sid read this paper while playing their hands. Every now and then they lose a pot to John because of that

distraction.

Those newspapers cost John less than $15 per year, but are worth about a $1000 a year in distractions--or about $20 per newspaper.

By encouraging and creating distractions, John Finn increases everyone's confusion. At the same time, he keeps the action moving. In the Monday night game, however, he discovers his opponents will play for significantly higher stakes when using cash rather than faster-moving poker chips.

(In most games, the reverse is true, and thus the good player normally prefers using poker chips.) To offset this, John speeds up the game by alternating two decks of cards between each shuffle and deal.

By using an array of distractions, John increases his edge odds by about 20 percent. That means

$8000 additional income per year at his current winning rate. He estimates that while playing their hands, his opponents are distracted 35 percent of the time. And they are distracted a much higher percentage of the time when they are not involved in the action. The chart on page 142 estimates the in-action distractions of each player:

Time Distracted, %