Remember when poker forums were full of questions like:

What do I play in early position?

What are the Top 10 hands?

A-A UTG?

And “insightful responses” were basic “you’re 2:1 to hit your flush and there are 10 small bets in the pot, so make the 2:1 call with 10:1 odds.”

This is elementary to the slightly below average poker player in this day and age. Pot odds are mentioned as casual common knowledge analysis on World Poker Tour broadcasts every week. Even the housewife watching Celebrity Poker Showdown knows what pot odds are and that two overcards are a coin flip against a pocket pair preflop.

I love poker books. I’ve read my share like everyone else- all of the “classics” along with some of the obscures. Many things can be taken from these books and there was a time, as recent as a year a ago, where you play it “by the book,” and be a winning poker player.

Times have changed. Traffic is skyrocketing and the average player will always be giving money away, therefore you’re more likely to run into losing players than you were before. (You do the math.) What has changed the most is not the luck aspect of the winning player, as many fee, but the importance of gametime decisions has risen to level higher than it’s ever been. Now, you need to know the book to have a foundation, know the book to know how your opponents who play by the book are playing, know the book to surprise them, and you need to know how to surprise them.

You can no longer post a hand on a forum like 2+2, RGP, or PokerForums.org with a hand history from your online site or a description of the cards and the betting. Now, properly evaluating a 1/2 NL hand or a 3/6 limit hand, which could be liberally described, need twice as much description as before. The players, table characterization, and your position relative to certain players have transformed obvious +EV decisions into marginal or even heavily -EV situations. Just read how the average player on the poker forums describe philosophies on Q-Q, J-J, and A-K now. Then, search the archives of these topics from a year ago and the general consensus of these philosophies have changed dramatically.

Because the average player understands how to include situational discrimination in his basic mathematical decisions, it forces the winning player to incorporate the other player’s thought process more than the low-mid stakes winning player has ever done before. If you’re putting your solid opponent on A-K preflop, you need to know how married this person is to A-K to equate your folding equity in your estimations. But it goes even further. You have to ask, “Even though this guy is solid and knows that his A-K is not best, does he know that I know that? If he does know that I know that, how will that change his reaction? Will he just give it up and say, ‘Nice hand’ or ‘nh’ or will he make me put my read to the test?” These questions can change what you do preflop and on the flop with T-T, 9-9, 8-8 and see a J high flop.

Of course, when it’s you that has the A-K and you have your opponent on T-T, 9-9, 8-8, or 7-7, this changes your decisions on that J high flop, as well. Hmmm.... You see where I’m going with this?

What about that low-suited connector? According to Brunson in the late-70's and now, they’ll never see it coming. WRONG!!! The average player isn’t paying off as many straights by calling all-in’s with overpairs in the hole anymore. Why? Because they do see it coming.

Now, knowing that the cards will not surprise your opponents as much as before, what do you do? Surprise them with you.

1.) SWITCH GEARS AND DO IT WITH DISCRETION.

Switching gears every X amount of hands doesn’t do much for you. This is how I was doing it at first and surprisingly, it did work. Why? I still really don’t know, in all honesty. But doing this created big swings and is really ineffective. Knowing when is the most generic definition of the word “when” is not effective. Knowing when means knowing your who’s, where’s, and when’s to determine your how’s and why’s.

How do I beat this player in this pot from this position based on what I have accumulated from observations? As elementary as this can sound, switching gears only works if you know that the person that you’re switching it up with has a book on you. Otherwise, you’re just switching it up for your own amusement. However you answer this question must have a why to rationalize all points. Otherwise, you’re really just guessing and the ABC decision is usually the safest way to go.

This also involves changing to fit the pace of the game and changing the pace of the game itself. If you are a tight player that profits most from loose action, be more aggressive and go back to your play when you’ve changed the pace to your liking. If this goal seems unattainable, but you’re doing well, keep it up. If this goal seem unattainable, the table’s still playing tight, but you’re losing money, people have figured out what you’re doing. They won’t fall for it. Leave the table.

If you’re a more aggressive player and the table is loose, whether passive or aggressive, tighten up and distribute your aggression more positionally. Play it by the book.

2.) BE SOCIAL.

People will pay more attention to your play is you’re social. This is good in some cases and bad in others. If you are aggressive and profit most from tight players, the tight table will notice you anyway. If you’re tighter and are more selective with your aggression and the table is very loose, you will need to accumulate some respect. Be nice. Be social and you’ll establish an image with certain people and be being social, you’ll know who they are. I see too many people posting hands on poker forums stating their tight image against bad players.

Bad players will play their cards for the most part, not you. You have no image with them, but when you start getting a lot of respect for your play through their play or a remark, you’ll know that you have a image with them, not the table.

Being social helps you to get to know people and will aid your memory in their actions. Looking at everyone and doing commentary in your head is good, but take it to the next level. You’ll have memory cues with the conversations. There are two players that I always remember my book on because I had a Randy Johnson/Bob Gibson argument while playing with them. Notice that I didn’t say that the argument was not with them, but I remember some interesting aspects of their play that occurred during the discussion.

3.) STOP SHOWING YOUR CARDS WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO.

When I say, “have to,” I don’t just mean showdown. There are three and only three reasons to show your hand.

A.) The showdown order requires it.

B.) You can beat the other hands that are shown down.

C.) There is a strategic reason behind it.

Many show their hands to show that the person that beat them that they sucked out to do so. This is childish and unproductive. When a player shows you the winning hand, muck it as soon as you know that you’re beat. Throw it to the muck so he can’t ask what you had. The dealer can only show cards that he/she can find. When firing up a table and you’re beginning to sense the change coming or angry players, show the bluff and tighten up. They’re done with you. If the energy has risen or it’s only beginning to rise, don’t do it. When you’re opponent makes what looks like a big laydown and doesn’t show you the laydown, the last thing that you wanna do is show, whether you were strong or not. Before making a laydown, it childish to show. Just fold. Make them ask themselves questions. Don’t answer their questions before they can ask them.

LAST WORDS

The New Game has very, very good players. But poker isn’t about who plays good. It is just like any game where winning requires being better than the opponents. There are hundreds of bowlers averaging 200+ pins per game in the USA. More people don’t win 1st prize in a tournament because of it. More teams can’t win more than half of the games of a league’s single season. There are never going to be more winners than losers in poker. To be a winning player means asking more questions and being able to answer them in the moment and answering the questions as isolated incidents along with equating the long-term session of a career. The scrutiny placed of incidents has been heightened. The bar has been raised. Jump higher.