A Portrait of the Artist as a Mid-stakes Grinder

[Nade]

By Haseeb Qureshi (aka DOGISHEAD/INTERNETPOKERS) Hey guys, life has been good back in Austin. Getting my bearings straight with coaching, playing poker, studying the game, and all the rest of the crap I manage to waste my time with. But this week isn't about me. No, this week is something special. It's something of a love letter. It's a love letter to the MSNL player, the low-midstakes grinder who is tasked with the Sisyphean goal of moving up in poker. You, who toils day in and day out, grinding at the tables and looking up in awe at the seemingly unscaleable mountain that is high stakes poker... this goes out to you. This week, I have edited and cleaned up a forum post that I wrote many years ago. I was 17 at the time of writing this. Back then I was a solid 3/6 6-max grinder. I was the biggest winner on the stars 6-max games and put in tons of volume, but I could never move up to 5/10. Every time I tried, I'd get smashed and would return to 3/6 to retool my coffers and try again. I was very disheartened by this, and was taking a long hard look at my own game and my journey as a poker player. Here's the post, cleaned up for all of posterity. For all you 1/2-3/6 players out there, I hope you enjoy it. ---- (Little Haseeb, circa 2007) Okay, lately I've been thinking a lot about my game and why I'm not making obscene amounts of money. I've come to realize something absolutely and utterly incredible about the way that I understand this game and my place in it. I realize that I have been utterly blind to this... and you probably are too. I have realized that there is an attitude that permeates MSNL players that is at its core utterly toxic to their development. It is this: many MSNL players treat "being good" as a vague and ethereal thing that we prescribe to someone's game. But they don't think about "being good" in terms of particular situations or attributes. I admit, that I am guilty of this as much as anyone else, and the more I think about it, the more I see what an absolute tragedy it is. What is it to be good? Good players tend to look like us. They play in spots like us. We read their thought processes, and we can follow them quite clearly. They post in our threads and share our opinions a lot of the time. We feel like we are probably good players too. We just have a few leaks, they're just "a little better." We don't wonder why, or how. We don't look at our game and lament, "This guy is doing something right that I am doing wrong. He is making more money than I am by doing things that I am not doing." No, not at all. He is just kind of better, I am just kind of worse. That's how it is. Maybe, over time, I'll become better like him. Everyone gets better that way, slowly. There seems to be in the mid-stakes poker world a great deal of respect for "style." There is a certain point of scrutiny past which we will refuse to analyze people. "That's just his style," we'll say. "That play makes sense, but it doesn't fit my style." Well, guess what. **** you and **** your style. There's a gigantic and ugly misconception of "style" as something artistic or special, something that makes you individual and inherently interesting because you play a certain way. That is for the most part a bullshit excuse for the fact that you're unwilling to take risks that you're not sure will work out or don't understand. Or, shit. How about it's simple denial of the fact that you are in fact bad at poker, and there are people much better than you who do different things than you? Don't try to justify yourself with style, and don't try to excuse yourself from learning from other people's lines and creativity with the excuse of "style." If you are not beating 200/400NL, then your "style" doesn't mean shit; all it's doing is holding you back from making better and more interesting plays than your bullshit midstakes grinder mind can be comfortable with. Your game is not just the behaviors and actions that you enact, but the thought processes behind them, which formed those behaviors in the first place. That is what will define you in situations where you are up against other good players who you will battle against for your winrate. We solidify those thought processes into habits, which we continually reuse in later spots without rethinking those habits. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing! A vast majority of these habits, for players who can beat mid-stakes, are going to be perfectly fine at the lowest levels (i.e., at playing most basic hands correctly, at beating fish). But for every poker player, there is some level of complexity at which your habits can no longer dictate the action for you, and you are forced to rationalize a new decision that you have essentially never made before. That is, you are forced to face this moment as new and original. Your "poker logic" cannot solve the problem for you, and the ghost in the shell is called upon to make its administrative decision. Now, there are three things that separate a mediocre player from a great player in this respect. The first of these three things is that that the great player has habitualized many of the decisions that a mediocre player has to rationalize (that is, for a great player the ghost in the machine is called upon less often), which indicates that the great player has much more experience and can use his poker logic to generate solutions to more situations. The second thing is that a great poker player's poker logic will be finer attuned to making precise and optimal plays than the mediocre player's. His habits will be closer to optimal and will have fewer sloppy habits. But the last and most important difference is that the great player is capable of re-rationalizing many of the spots which approximate habitualized spots; that is, where a more mediocre player might be inclined to treat different variations on the same theme exactly the same, a great player will see a subtle difference in these spots, call upon his ghost in the shell, and let it decree a variation upon the habit already in place. One of the biggest pitfalls to moving up is that people pay a great amount of attention to very salient spots, such as huge river decisions and bluffs, but they do not take the time or effort to re-rationalize lower level situations that contribute most significantly to their winrate. If you keep the fundamentals mostly the same of when you played 2/4 when you move up to 3/6 or 5/10, although it may appear as if you play not much differently than other people do in the large pots, you actually are sacrificing lots of EV in the smaller or medium sized pots because you are not re-rationalizing many of the decisions which you treated as routine at lower limits. The distinctions you have to make to be a great player are very fine and numerous. I think that's probably one of the big reasons why very good players tend to shoot up the stakes MUCH faster than most people - it generally does not happen that somebody shoots up the ranks from 5c/10c to 2/4 extremely fast and then can't move up any higher. The reason for this, I think, is that such a person will be very used to treating poker strategy as a constantly dynamic organism, which he will formulate and reformulate in many degrees and aspects in whatever game he is playing, whereas somebody who plays the same stakes for a long time will realize that he'll simply be wasting his mental energy if he tries to think out every single routine spot he plays. The human brain doesn't work that way and cannot work that way. It's simply not economical. So over time these patterns become imprinted on your subconscious mind, such that to an extent when you are playing poker you could not tell someone who points at a decision and asks you "why are you doing this" - maybe you can tell them, "well, the variables X, Y, and Z of course," but that's not really why you did it. The truth is, the thought process NEVER consciously entered your mind, you are merely recalling a pre-formulated response to the situation. Now I don't doubt that any intelligent player will be able to re-rationalize the situation and explain after the action what the original thought process "should have been," had you had actually thought it out. However, mistaking the ability to recall a thought process afterward with having actually thought out the action is simply a fallacy, and in the long run if you don't have the self-awareness to recognize it, it will be your undoing. That is not to say that rationalizing the thought process has to be verbal, but most of us don't truly rationalize most of our important decisions. What this means, if you think about it closely... is that most of our leaks, most of where we're making our biggest and most profound mistakes... we are passing over in silence. We don't even give ourselves the chance to realize it. We are closing our eyes and riding the waves, without ever trying to learn how to perfect the ship we're sailing. To bring this all back, I think again about myself. As I've been ruminating about poker over the last few days, it strikes me that I have had a great but subtle fallacy in the way I've been thinking about the game. It seems almost like a form of denial when I put it into words now. I realize that I have been treating the game of poker as combat between competing pre-rationalized strategies. For a long time while I was grinding out 3/6, I did not make most of my decisions. What I mean by that is, it was very rare that I respected somebody enough to decide that I needed to re-rationalize my decisions for medium-large sized pots, and that I would be capable enough of winning just by completely relying on the intuitions that I already had acquired after playing an enormous number of hands 12-tabling. I did not realize this at all, and would probably have denied it vehemently if you accused me of such a thing. I was a winner, and that kept me complacent enough to know that I could beat everyone I was playing with, so it was probably good. But it never really occurred to me that a good player, if he moved down to 3/6, would be making 6-7 ptbb/100. 6 to 7! That's enormous! I could never sustain that. What would he be doing differently than what I'm doing to increase his winrate so much? What fundamental mistakes am I making that he wouldn't?? He would be playing so much better than me, making such better reads and decisions than I would! Why didn't that occur to me?? Why didn't it frighten me, inspire me, drive me? How could I simply rest, knowing how much I lacked that other people have? I think I probably treated a higher-level player, somebody who'd be able to make 6-7ptbb/100 at my stakes, as merely a set of pre-rationalized strategies that were more "optimal" than mine. He wouldn't be thinking these things out, he'd just have already thought them out a long time ago and routinized them, and so he'd be chugging along with the same absentness of mind as I had. But why do I let that excuse me from my own mediocrity? Why can I be okay with that? ****. **** me. ****, ****, ******* ****. Anyway, that's all I can think of. This probably sounds like nonsense to a lot of you and maybe it is, I don't know. Poker is ******* crazy, and I'm really bad at it, and I want to get better. I will leave you with just one thought. There are only three moves in poker. calling, betting, and folding. How can somebody who's only allowed to call, bet, or fold, be making so much more money than me?? It's only call, bet, or fold, but his decisions are making him so much more money than mine! Shit, I gotta start call, betting, or folding better! Thanks for reading, Little Haseeb (Ditto. - Big Haseeb)

[Yorkshire Pudding]

Re: A Portrait of the Artist as a Mid-stakes Grinder This makes some interesting reading, much like your own post. Now sure If I am allowed to link to someone else's blog, guess I'll soon find out! http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/03/nlhe_6m_pros/

[Nade]

Re: A Portrait of the Artist as a Mid-stakes Grinder I've been meaning to put NoahSD's 6max and MTT posts up, thanks for reminding :ok - though he doesn't allow copying his whole blog posts so not sure what to but if any MTTers reading this i recommend reading Noah's MTT posts on his blog.

[Nade]

Re: A Portrait of the Artist as a Mid-stakes Grinder

What is it to be good? Good players tend to look like us. They play in spots like us. We read their thought processes, and we can follow them quite clearly. They post in our threads and share our opinions a lot of the time. We feel like we are probably good players too. We just have a few leaks, they're just "a little better." We don't wonder why, or how. We don't look at our game and lament, "This guy is doing something right that I am doing wrong. He is making more money than I am by doing things that I am not doing." No, not at all. He is just kind of better, I am just kind of worse. That's how it is. Maybe, over time, I'll become better like him. Everyone gets better that way, slowly. There seems to be in the mid-stakes poker world a great deal of respect for "style." There is a certain point of scrutiny past which we will refuse to analyze people. "That's just his style," we'll say. "That play makes sense, but it doesn't fit my style." Well, guess what. **** you and **** your style. There's a gigantic and ugly misconception of "style" as something artistic or special, something that makes you individual and inherently interesting because you play a certain way. That is for the most part a bullshit excuse for the fact that you're unwilling to take risks that you're not sure will work out or don't understand. Or, shit. How about it's simple denial of the fact that you are in fact bad at poker, and there are people much better than you who do different things than you? Don't try to justify yourself with style, and don't try to excuse yourself from learning from other people's lines and creativity with the excuse of "style." If you are not beating 200/400NL, then your "style" doesn't mean shit; all it's doing is holding you back from making better and more interesting plays than your bullshit midstakes grinder mind can be comfortable with. Your game is not just the behaviors and actions that you enact, but the thought processes behind them, which formed those behaviors in the first place. That is what will define you in situations where you are up against other good players who you will battle against for your winrate. We solidify those thought processes into habits, which we continually reuse in later spots without rethinking those habits. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing! A vast majority of these habits, for players who can beat mid-stakes, are going to be perfectly fine at the lowest levels (i.e., at playing most basic hands correctly, at beating fish). But for every poker player, there is some level of complexity at which your habits can no longer dictate the action for you, and you are forced to rationalize a new decision that you have essentially never made before. That is, you are forced to face this moment as new and original. Your "poker logic" cannot solve the problem for you, and the ghost in the shell is called upon to make its administrative decision. Now, there are three things that separate a mediocre player from a great player in this respect. The first of these three things is that that the great player has habitualized many of the decisions that a mediocre player has to rationalize (that is, for a great player the ghost in the machine is called upon less often), which indicates that the great player has much more experience and can use his poker logic to generate solutions to more situations. The second thing is that a great poker player's poker logic will be finer attuned to making precise and optimal plays than the mediocre player's. His habits will be closer to optimal and will have fewer sloppy habits. But the last and most important difference is that the great player is capable of re-rationalizing many of the spots which approximate habitualized spots; that is, where a more mediocre player might be inclined to treat different variations on the same theme exactly the same, a great player will see a subtle difference in these spots, call upon his ghost in the shell, and let it decree a variation upon the habit already in place. One of the biggest pitfalls to moving up is that people pay a great amount of attention to very salient spots, such as huge river decisions and bluffs, but they do not take the time or effort to re-rationalize lower level situations that contribute most significantly to their winrate. If you keep the fundamentals mostly the same of when you played 2/4 when you move up to 3/6 or 5/10, although it may appear as if you play not much differently than other people do in the large pots, you actually are sacrificing lots of EV in the smaller or medium sized pots because you are not re-rationalizing many of the decisions which you treated as routine at lower limits. The distinctions you have to make to be a great player are very fine and numerous. I think that's probably one of the big reasons why very good players tend to shoot up the stakes MUCH faster than most people - it generally does not happen that somebody shoots up the ranks from 5c/10c to 2/4 extremely fast and then can't move up any higher. The reason for this, I think, is that such a person will be very used to treating poker strategy as a constantly dynamic organism, which he will formulate and reformulate in many degrees and aspects in whatever game he is playing, whereas somebody who plays the same stakes for a long time will realize that he'll simply be wasting his mental energy if he tries to think out every single routine spot he plays. The human brain doesn't work that way and cannot work that way. It's simply not economical. So over time these patterns become imprinted on your subconscious mind, such that to an extent when you are playing poker you could not tell someone who points at a decision and asks you "why are you doing this" - maybe you can tell them, "well, the variables X, Y, and Z of course," but that's not really why you did it. The truth is, the thought process NEVER consciously entered your mind, you are merely recalling a pre-formulated response to the situation. Now I don't doubt that any intelligent player will be able to re-rationalize the situation and explain after the action what the original thought process "should have been," had you had actually thought it out. However, mistaking the ability to recall a thought process afterward with having actually thought out the action is simply a fallacy, and in the long run if you don't have the self-awareness to recognize it, it will be your undoing. That is not to say that rationalizing the thought process has to be verbal, but most of us don't truly rationalize most of our important decisions. What this means, if you think about it closely... is that most of our leaks, most of where we're making our biggest and most profound mistakes... we are passing over in silence. We don't even give ourselves the chance to realize it. We are closing our eyes and riding the waves, without ever trying to learn how to perfect the ship we're sailing. To bring this all back, I think again about myself. As I've been ruminating about poker over the last few days, it strikes me that I have had a great but subtle fallacy in the way I've been thinking about the game. It seems almost like a form of denial when I put it into words now. I realize that I have been treating the game of poker as combat between competing pre-rationalized strategies. For a long time while I was grinding out 3/6, I did not make most of my decisions. What I mean by that is, it was very rare that I respected somebody enough to decide that I needed to re-rationalize my decisions for medium-large sized pots, and that I would be capable enough of winning just by completely relying on the intuitions that I already had acquired after playing an enormous number of hands 12-tabling. I did not realize this at all, and would probably have denied it vehemently if you accused me of such a thing. I was a winner, and that kept me complacent enough to know that I could beat everyone I was playing with, so it was probably good. But it never really occurred to me that a good player, if he moved down to 3/6, would be making 6-7 ptbb/100. 6 to 7! That's enormous! I could never sustain that. What would he be doing differently than what I'm doing to increase his winrate so much? What fundamental mistakes am I making that he wouldn't?? He would be playing so much better than me, making such better reads and decisions than I would! Why didn't that occur to me?? Why didn't it frighten me, inspire me, drive me? How could I simply rest, knowing how much I lacked that other people have? I think I probably treated a higher-level player, somebody who'd be able to make 6-7ptbb/100 at my stakes, as merely a set of pre-rationalized strategies that were more "optimal" than mine. He wouldn't be thinking these things out, he'd just have already thought them out a long time ago and routinized them, and so he'd be chugging along with the same absentness of mind as I had. But why do I let that excuse me from my own mediocrity? Why can I be okay with that?

I need to quote this as it's really going over in my mind the last few days, it's really eye-opening. Good players tend to look like us. They play in spots like us. We read their thought processes, and we can follow them quite clearly. They post in our threads and share our opinions a lot of the time. We feel like we are probably good players too. We just have a few leaks, they're just "a little better." A few weeks ago in one of my posts i made a point so similar to the one above - i know such much about my opponents and we're really fundamentally similar so how come some win so much more than others?. Haseeb concludes the difference is those who win much bigger pay way more attention to the much smaller pots and therefore the much smaller details. He says the way to improve on this is to always be consciously thinking why we're doing what we're doing even in the most mundane spots that we've played thousands of times before, even maybe verbalizing those thoughts to bring them into the conscious thought process. Those points really connected with me as when i had a coaching session with a mid-stakes player over a month ago i found it really hard to verbalize a lot of my plays - so much of it was sub-concious auto-pilot. That doesn't mean to say playing with your feel of common situations using experience is bad, but what Haseeb says is to get to the highest possible level it's infinitely more optimal to always play with your mindset in the present.