More on Exploiting Regulars

OK, I still have not finished going through the exam questions.  Partly, I am really taking my time and writing some fairly detailed answers before checking Tri's.  Partly because I've continued to stay quite busy with work and family, and poker across the board has had to take a bit of a backseat.

However, I wanted to get a review up because if I understand correctly, the price of the book is going to double in the next few days when pre-order is done.  Bottom line, if you play 200NL or higher, I would recommend you get the book.

The first reason I would draw the line there is simply what the book costs in relation to a BI and also the alternative you would get if you were to purchase coaching.  But that's not the main reason. 

If you are playing 100NL or lower, you should just avoid good regs, which I think you can do pretty easily if you either datamine or play in the games regularly yourself.  There are not enough really good regs to warrant staying at a table with them without at least a couple of other soft spots.  And if you are in such a spot, you should avoid confrontations with the good reg and focus on the better spots.  Even when you play well against a good reg, you're going to be better off going against the other spots at the table.

Beyond that, even a good, thinking reg will probably not play or adjust in a way that will make the book exactly applicable.  In fact, I think it's borderline at 1/2, where even most of the better regs still don't value bet wide enough or make tough folds.  But it does get closer at 1/2, and even closer at 2/4.  There's probably a reason why all the examples are from a 3/6 game :).  That said, beginning at 1/2, I think there are times when you will have 2 or 3 regs on a table with one, maybe two, soft spots.  And one of those regs are bound to be decent.  Also, the games start to feature a little more aggression (some misplaced, but still aggression).  The context of the book starts to hit home there, some of the time.

There are a couple spots in the book where I think you could just follow a straightforward outline and make a unique play or two, but for the most part,  you shouldn't get this book expecting a quick read and magic results.  It will take some work to get the most out of it, and the most valuable parts of the book for me (and there were several) covered the sorts of things to evaluate before deciding on a given play.

I don't agree 100% with everything Tri says, but there's nothing that I wildly disagree with.  And even though it's a short book, there were multiple things that I hadn't considered in the light that Tri presented them before.  I did provide him several suggestions, some of which were addressed in an updated draft he sent, some of which were not.  I am about to provide him a few more.  I don't feel it's fair to comment on them because this is not a published draft, but if anyone would like me to comment on them after the book is in general publication, let me know (assuming I can get an update from Tri to see whether my feedback was addressed).  Feedback was more about flow of the book, formatting of the exam, and some extra bits I thought he could pretty easily add to round out some discussion -- it was not over anything I considered bad, though.

Exploiting Regulars, so far

I'm going through a preview copy of an upcoming e-book called Exploiting Regulars by Tri Nguyen,  I reviewed his PLO book in the past, which I thought would be an awesome starting point to complement some PLO videos if/when I start getting into PLO.  But I couldn't be sure, not having played PLO.

Going through this NL workbook so far, though, is different because I can relate to a lot of what Tri covers.  I haven't even finished the meat of the book yet, which is a series of workbook problems, but I'm quite enjoying it.  Some of the concepts seem different from videos I've watched and posts I've read. 

But what's happening is that the book, with its focus on play against regs, is illustrating specific applications of some concepts. Regs in general have certain tendencies, which while more profitable than the tendencies of various fish in the population, can nevertheless be exploited.  The book is doing a great job illustrating that I don't do a good enough job adjusting to regs.

When I think about adjusting to regs, at a very high level, I would say that it boils down to value betting a little less thin and bluffing a little bit more.  Sounds obvious, right?  Maybe.  But the "why" of it, and the associated problems, help drive that home in some specific ways.  Ways that I know will increase my bottom line when I can get them applied correctly.

There are some things I'm not sure that I agree with, or would like to see more detail behind Tri's thought process.  I'll see if he'll respond to my questions after I finish everything.  After I get his thoughts, I'll write a more detailed and actual review, rather than this sort of non-review.  But I'm sure my impression of the book will be quite favorable.  It's already made me sit back and think pretty deeply about some standard spots.

I haven't read Let There Be Range, which is Tri's most well-known book, but assuming it's as good as the pre-release of Exploiting Regulars, I'm missing out on good stuff.  I just can't justify to myself that high of a price tag, with the volume I get in.  But based on Exploiting Regulars, I may reverse that decision.  If you've read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, especially if you've also read Exploiting Regulars.

Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho....

Warning:  This is tl;dr, with no poker content.

Work's been pretty meh the last few months.  I put in well over 40 hours/week, but I spread it out over a lot more time on the computer, mixing work and non-work tasks.  Not just poker, although that's easily the biggest non-work item.  I'm on the computer a ton, probably 12 hours/day during the week and several hours/weekend.  Not all work of course, but I definitely put in the hours and get my sh*t done.

But clearly, the lack of excitement is coming through.  My boss and his boss have both told me.  As part of our annual review process, my boss gathered a bunch of feedback from the team I manage and my peers.  Others have noticed the same lack of motivation.

Some of the biggest examples they cited were actually due to me not demonstrating more clearly what I've completed.  That said, compared to myself a few years ago, it's a fair observation.  I used to pretty much attack every problem.  Now, I get stuff done, but do very little more than the bare minimum required.  I've gotten good enough at my job that the minimum is enough to get my projects complete in better shape than most of my peers (confirmed by my boss).   Which is all well and good if I want to just keep doing what I am doing right now.  I don't think I do, but I'm not as sure as I was a few years ago.  Back then, I had a plan to become a high-level executive, and worked pretty hard at filling the gaps in my resume to get there.

I've got the hard tools to do that now, basically smarts and experience.  But I lack some of the softer skills, or more precisely the motivation to hone and use those skills.  See lack of demonstration/tooting my own horn, above.  And some of the stuff I'm good at and really should get done, I find really boring, and I let them slip.  This is the other part of negative perception, and also why it's a fair perception.  Bottom line, I'm good at what I do now, have the recognized potential to do more, but am acting (and feeling) somewhat disengaged. 

So, I totally understand that if a position would come up at the next level, why I wouldn't be at the top of the list for it.  I mean, I might, but I would get why I wouldn't be there.  Like poker, a good chunk of being at the top of the list is in my control.  If I choose to let things slip, and even for things that don't slip, give the impression that I'm not terribly motivated to dot all the I's and cross all the T's, it's my own damn fault if someone else gets the nod.

That said, even if I were completely on top of my game, which I was for a time, there needs to be some opportunity.  Going back to a poker parallel, life in the corporate world is a mix of work and luck, obviously in different contexts.  Luck in the corporate world includes being in the right place at the right time.  The work is about maximizing the chances that you will be, and that you'll be ready when the opportunity comes up.  Although the work does entitle you to the reward in a literal sense (a little different than poker), it does not mean you will actually realize any reward.  But there's a cost to continuously keeping yourself ready, of maximizing your chances.  A cost, and an opportunity cost.

In an environment where very, very few chances are likely to come up, you need to evaluate whether the cost is worth it.  On the one hand, the stakes are higher because you get so few chances.  Each chance better count.  On the other hand (and this was me), even if you're doing everything you can, that chance may never come.  So, I've gone from complete readiness to mostly complacency. 

I allowed myself to slip into complacency; I take accountability.  But it has opened other opportunities.  Without most every waking hour going into work, I've spent more time with my family, coached my kids' sports, studied poker fairly seriously, and other stuff, not to mention getting a decent night's sleep on a regular basis.  So I don't feel all woe-is-me, at least not too much ;).  I'm just feeling more introspective than usual, trying to figure out whether I've struck the right balance, or where I need to tweak things, especially work-wise.

When you don't hit your set

Full stacks at $1/$2.  A TAG with solid stats (let's say 24/19/3.5, if you want) raises to $7 UTG.  You only have a stats read on him.  You flat with 88 from the BTN, and the blinds fold.  He bets $11 - $13 into $17.  Does your flop play (and tentative plan for the hand) change for the following flops?  And what is the play/plan?

Flop 1:  K93 rainbow.
Flop 2: K73 rainbow.

Bonus question:  Same basic preflop scenario, except we've opened from UTG with 88, and the TAG flat-called from the BTN.  What's your plan for the two different flops?

We probably each have a default way we play these situations, which might make for an interesting discussion.  I'm more interested in whether you all change your plan based on that subtle difference in board texture.