The Poker Shrink, Vol 13 - A Complete Psychology of Hand Analysis
Dr. Tim Lavalli
Poker Shrink One trait that all good poker players share is their
ability to analyze hands and learn from their mistakes. Very good
players also improve their game by studying hands played by others;
either in books, video, television or in conversation with other poker
players. The problem with hand analysis is that seldom are you presented
with the complete situation at the table when the hand in question
was played. For that reason we "fill in the blanks" with
our own poker experiences and often fail to recreate the critical
table dynamic, which may have made the "bad play" the best
play in a particular situation.
Let me illustrate with a hand I saw earlier this week
on the broadcast of the 2006 WSOP $1,000 NLHE Event. You may have
seen this
$1,000,000 freeroll at paradise Poker
broadcast; this is the final table that ESPN touted as a confrontation
between Humberto Brenes and John Phan. The hand in question is where
the 3rd place player is busted. Here is a print report of that hand:
John Phan folds. Mike Pomeroy completes from the small
blind and Jon Friedberg checks his option. The flop comes As9d5h,
Mike checks. Jon bets $40,000 and Mike makes the call. The turn is
the Qs and Mike Pomeroy again checks. Jon Friedberg bets $400,000
and is called. The river is the 9c, Pomeroy checks for the third time.
Friedberg moves all in and Pomeroy calls and shows Qh3d for second
pair of Queens, he hit on the turn. Friedberg shows 5d5s for a fives
full of nines; flopped a set and rivered the boat. Mike Pomeroy finishes
third; Jon Friedberg and John Phan are now heads up for the bracelet.
I was in the bleachers for this final table and I have
no factual corrections to the tournament report. If you look at the
hand I am sure at least part of your analysis will be: "What
was Pomeroy thinking?" Why did he check-call 40K on the flop
and check-call 400K on the turn and check-call all-in for over 800K
(yes, he had still had 800K) on the river?
Now, if you saw this hand played out on ESPN before
you read the hand report above, I am fairly sure you think Mike Pomeroy
had a meltdown. You would have heard him say before the river call:
"This may be the worse call I ever made." Mike had been
the chipleader coming into the final table and was again the leader
going into three handed play. The televised hands make it appear that
he was losing confidence and Jon Friedberg was on the aggressive rise.
This was not the impression we in the audience had at that final table.
No, it was clearly anyone's bracelet to win or lose when they got
down to three handed. Cards decided this event not skill or deception
or bad play. The entire picture is often very different from the isolated
snapshots offered on television or in print reports.
So is studying hand histories in print or on video a
bad idea? No, not at all. What I am saying is that there are factors
that do not come across in print or in video and furthermore, televised
events are edited and staged to create viewer interest, often distorting
the true table dynamic. Part of the complete analysis of a hand is
the consideration of why a player makes a certain raise, call, or
fold. Part of the psychology of poker is being able to fill in the
potential missing information in a series of possible variations,
as if you were at the table and not on the sofa with a remote control
in your hand. Ask not why did a player make that move; ask why could
he have made the move. Consider all the options, all the potential
dynamics. Finally, remember that some plays really are just plain
bad but other seemingly bad plays are appropriate to the entire psychology
of the situation.