Bad reg?

jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
I was my friend/mentor who plays $2-5/$5-10 and occasionally dips lower games and such and was talking about bad players aka bad regs...who for the longest time I assumed were losing players and I realized he's talking about me lol. Now over my sample of the year I'm at $25 an hour, which is bounced back and forth between $2/5 and $1/2/$1/3 and I was actually really happy with (eh losing is never bad right?).

It was the one statement that really hit me when I was talking about him beating the games and the type of player he goes after and he was talking about $2/5 and $5/10 regs and it was along the lines of "yeah man I mean they just choose random hands to 3-bet with assuming Ax blocker is too weak to call but don't wanna fold" or "I haven't 3-bet in a while, 76s is too weak to call here vs an EP open but they wanna play it but don't wanna have their range more condensed so they 3-bet plus it always has playability" but they don't think past that and understand why it's good to 3-bet that hand as it proceeds's post flop. It was literally like he was pegging me exactly as a player, and as he elaborated I was like hahah oh that's me. The "thinking player" but doesn't really quite get it aka doesn't make any like tragic mistakes but just doesn't grasp the game across all streets, pre-flop, post flop, stacks and positioning. Just thought it was funny that like what I always considered as "decent winning player" is actually "bad reg".

Comments

  • derdonkerderdonker San Jose, CA USARed Chipper Posts: 125 ✭✭
    hey, you should consider getting coached by someone like @Faustovaldez123 . he can explain how those wider preflop ranges connect with postflop play.
  • RCP Coach - Fausto ValdezRCP Coach - Fausto Valdez RCP Coach Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    Thanks @derdonker, im available ladies and gents
    COACHING NOW AVAILABLE HERE
    MY COACHING REVIEWS HERE
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
    It's been considered, but now both time and funding diversions away from the game would make it a waste :(. One day soon I'll harness the thunder.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭✭
    Often the actions of players can make it difficult to determine whether someone is a good or bad player. It's the reasoning behind those actions along with the the future planning that makes the difference. So, if a player 3 bets with 76 simply because they haven't 3 bet in a while or they're trying to "mix it up", that's a big difference from the player who says they're 3 betting to isolate a bad player or to exploit some other weakness. Sometimes these player's actions will overlap and the bad player will make the same play as the good player. However, the good player's moves are tailored to a certain situation whereas the bad player is just relying on chance.
  • zampana1970zampana1970 Red Chipper Posts: 549 ✭✭✭
    In other words - intension is everything.

    In my world (movie making) the most brilliant filmmaker can make a film that on the outside might seem like the biggest piece of shit ever made. But if they MEANT to make the biggest piece of shit ever made as a comment on the state of cinema today, and it genuinely is the biggest piece of shit ever made, then you have to reframe how you watch it and see it for the masterpiece it is.

    David Lynch and The Room by Tommy Wiseau come to mind.

    Something like that.
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
    I'd say poker is more along the lines of mathematics and sporting. Unlike sports were the playing field of athletes is unbalanced due to genetic and athletic ability, the world of poker is completely balanced. Everyone get the same cards over the long run, the same chips mean the same things. However, the level of skill in employment of those chips and cards is what separates the good players from the bad. So the game is similar to video games, an even starting footing, but as time goes on the separation occurs. I think film is more...well...subjective as all "art" is to personal interpretation. I'm sure there are "shit films" that gross a lot of money or are block busters, and really good films that are technically "losing" films and box offices and awards. I doubt there are many super "skilled" poker players that just can't seem to win (although I'm sure everyone has heard it before 'THESE GUYS ARE SO BAD LIKE SO BAD AND THEY JUST WIN THIS GAME IS A JOKE!').
  • zampana1970zampana1970 Red Chipper Posts: 549 ✭✭✭
    That's the thing - you see that all the time. And then I remember one post a few months back that described the actions of some high stakes guys and from the outside they looked as terrible as the worst of the drunk worst at a casino saturday night.

    Poker is clearly a mental game (sport? Not sure..) and there is math of course, but I'm starting to wonder if the great players aren't actually performing the game rather than playing it. Or playing in the same way that actors play their roles, in an acting sense. I have no idea where this goes yet, but it's in line with some other thoughts I've had - that the poker game we're in, in that moment, shows us how to play it, if we'll just pay attention (rather than us playing the game we think we should play based on strategy learned elsewhere); or that the cards are our motivation, our tools, and we improvise to the end of the hand with a specific goal or intension, to win the hang and the chips, and there are many valid ways to that end, and of course the math informs us, we can't ignore the system of the cards, but there's SO MUCH MORE that the other actors around the table are playing, consciously and unconsciously.

    The most skilled actors will always be the best actors but that doesn't mean someone like Brenden Fraser (or many many others) can't stumble into a fortune. And many great actors don't make millions and don't find their breakout roles. Or maybe they do thirty years into their careers...

    I couldn't be more vague if I tried. It's going to take a while for me to fully understand what it is I'm trying to say and by then things will likely have changed and I'll have to try and find a new metaphor...
  • SturmwespeSturmwespe Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
    Jfarrow, I think your mentor is engaging in a bit of poker snobbery. If over a meaningful amount of time you are consistently being profitable then your are not a "bad reg". Most players are consistent losers at the stakes that they play. Much of the rest are break even or very minorly profitable. You are by definition an above average reg. Could you be better, without doubt. Would you be a bad reg at higher stakes or against elite competition, almost certainly. If you played Tennis or Golf professionally and were consistently profitable would you consider yourself a bad pro even if you never became an elite player? In poker I think it is very important to be a critical thinker, but it is also important to be self confident. You are already well ahead of probably 60-70% of the people you play against. Something for you to chew on.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file