Good news is we live in a world where information is vast and fast. Bad news is we live in a world where information is vast and fast. Jokes aside, we love the access but we hate being overwhelmed by it. This is why we put such a high premium on concepts akin to “prioritization”, “efficiency” and “concentration”. It is only natural to want to extract the pure essence or the “big picture” of the chaos that is the world around us. No piece of information can resonate with us and ultimately scale, if it is not rooted in something very simple. This fundamental core idea is the Holy Grail we seek when we are searching through the endless stream of noise and trying to make sense of it all. Fortunately, this is not a fool’s errand. Even the most complicated structures are built with very simple building blocks and even the most complex organisms were single cells at some point. Similarly, even the most complicated concepts have rather simple – although potentially very deep – roots. In their best-seller book “the ONE thing[DP1] ” real estate entrepreneurs Gary W. Keller and Jay Papasan are discussing exactly that: how focusing on the most important aspect of every project can improve productivity and scale.
The idea of the idea
This concept is not new. It goes all the way back to Plato who was the first to coin the term “idea” to describe the common essence of a subject matter which may be technically different to individuals but it bears similarities among them. This commonality is exactly what bridges the gap between the different experiences and makes communication possible. The classic example is the word “dog”. Everyone likely has a different mental image of what this word means, but the truth of the matter is that we likely agree on certain characteristics that permeate all these images. These include but are not limited to: four legs, barking, moving tails, voracious appetite, a certain cuteness etc. This idealistic abstraction of an otherwise highly varied concept is what is now known as a Platonic Form[DP2] .
We may now take it for granted, but Plato revolutionized the way we think, or more accurately, the way we understand thinking and transfer information between individuals. This is why, when we often describe a concept in a few words, we may also begin with something among the lines of: The basic idea of X is […] or end with something like: […] and that’s the main idea behind X. What makes this remarkable is that coming up with the concept of the “idea” is an idea in itself. Essentially, Plato had the idea of the idea, or the first meta-idea. In essence, he was able to abstractify the concept of abstraction itself which is very impressive, especially once we take into account that there was no word for it at the time!
It’s all about brief but big ideas
Digging a big deeper, we start to realize that a certain simplicity of the core essence of an otherwise complicated subject matter seems to be a necessary (although not sufficient) condition of success. We already saw that Plato[DP3] ’s big idea was the invention of the idea itself, but he was not alone. His teacher Socrates[DP4] based almost his entire philosophy on the grounds of a certain “innate ignorance” (something that I would call meta-humility) which allowed him to constantly probe with deeper and deeper questions to eventually expose the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the world. Plato’s student Aristotle[DP5] , on the other hand, was always keen on identifying patterns by sampling the environment around him, an approach that earned him the title of the grandfather of the scientific method. The point is that, nuance aside, the lifetime achievements of these great men can be meaningfully summarized in basically one sentence.
It does not end there. Leonardo Da Vinci [DP6] was driven by a remarkable curiosity about the mechanics of the physical world, as well as an unquenched thirst for worldly beauty, both of which were evident in his artistic work. An innovator of extraordinary caliber, Da Vinci was able to infuse engineering into his artwork, producing a nearly animated representation of reality in ways that had never been done before. Isaac Newton[DP7] based a lot of his work on simple principles such as: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (his 3rd law of motion) or the idea that both time and space can be similarly continuously divisible, something which resolved Zeno’s paradox of motion[DP8] and led to the invention of calculus. Albert Einstein[DP9] had the simple and yet incredibly profound idea that gravity is not a force but rather a distortion (“curvature”) of the fabric of space-time, which was based on the even more astonishing idea that neither space nor time are uniform and their properties change depending on the matter/energy interacting with them as well as the conditions of the observer. Charles Darwin[DP10] , formed his entire theory of evolution on the elementary principles of common ancestry and natural selection, namely the fact that nature favors adaptation. Pablo Picasso[DP11] was famous for his reductive approach where he would paint the same painting over and over, each time removing non-essential attributes. It was as if he was trying to paint Plato’s idealistic Forms. Incidentally, one of the common misconceptions about Picasso was that he was unable to draw in a “regular” way, so he came up with his “weird” methods to justify his artistic existence. This could not be further from the truth. He was very much capable of ultra-realistic drawings (as evidenced from his earlier work[DP12] ); he just chose not to do it.
Modern Nuggets
The list is endless and we need to get to poker, but the reader may indulge me with a few more examples from our modern society. If we look at some of the world’s most successful CEOs we will notice a similar pattern. Take for example Warren Buffet [DP13] (Berkshire Hathaway), Bill Gates[DP14] (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos[DP15] (Amazon), Elon Musk[DP16] (Tesla, SpaceX) or Jensen Huang[DP17] (Nvidia). We can list some of their basic ideas in less than a paragraph. Invest and hold for decades in things you understand. Build a platform, where all software can be created, instead of wasting time on individual software. Customers are always the number #1 priority. Energy efficiency and space exploration are paramount. We should focus on software that builds software (aka. artificial intelligence), thus effectively automating the process of automation itself!
Not all simple ideas are worth-pursuing!
Of course, it would be disingenuous to say that the visions above are all that these men ever employed in their careers, or that they never had poor or controversial ideas. It would also be equally misleading to assert that all simple ideas are worthwhile. Let’s not forget that some of the biggest atrocities humanity has participated in such as genocides, slavery and nearly every form of war (holy, civil, colonial etc) are all based in elementary, yet terrible, ideas. This is why simplicity is a necessary yet not sufficient condition for success.
Bottom line
What any of this has to do with poker? The point of this long introduction is to convey the idea that behind complex structures and lifetime achievements one can always uncover SIMPLE nugget-like ideas. By “simple”, I mean they can be described succinctly, not that they are shallow or easy to implement. They are incredibly important, because they require very little mental bandwidth when we need to recall, consult and generally refer to them to steer us in the right direction. Since poker certainly qualifies as a complex structure, it would be natural to look for poker’s one deep core idea.
Poker’s ONE idea: Control the hand!
What is then poker’s big main idea? First, let’s make sure we understand what is not. It is certainly not the answer to how we play any particular hand. This vaguely describes what we want, but it is far too complex to be usable. We can go more abstract and say it is maybe all about attacking or defending equities (ie shares of the pot), since poker has a lot to do with getting more than one’s fair share and forcing opponents to do the opposite. This is certainly progress as it provides us with a more concrete vision of where to look. The problem is this idea does not provide us with the how to do it. To get the “how”, we need to dig deeper. We need to find a way to do it in a way that our opponents won’t, at least not instinctively. We need a bifurcating concept that would clearly separate ourselves from the rest of the field, thus allowing for a skill differential to emerge and ultimately profitability. This “differentiator” is the act of being in control of the hand. If a player like Alex controls the hand (whatever that means at this point), then by definition her opponents (for example Bobbie) do not, which is exactly the bifurcation we were looking for. What is left, is to understand what this means and why it can lead to profitability. Once we do, we will have a clear road map to the elusive how we can employ this strategy
Poker’s fundamental asymmetry: Bet > Call
What does it mean to control the hand? Simply put, it means to be the one responsible for when and how much money goes in the middle. This could allow someone like Alex to manipulate the action of the hand in her favor. For example, she may elect to build a larger pot when she likely has the best holding or keep the pot small when she doesn’t. It could also allow her to take calculated risks with timely bluffs when she is unlikely to have the best holding but Bobbie is also unlikely to withstand some heat. And so on. If this sounds a bit too good to be true, it is because we haven’t yet explored the most important asymmetry of the game.
I am talking about the innate difference and ultimately superiority of the action of betting versus that of calling. In a vacuum and when all else are being equal, Alex wants to be the one who betsversus the one who calls. This is because there are some very subtle yet incredibly important differences between the two.
The reader familiar with my work will recall that I have talked extensively about the subject in my book[DP18] as well in several articles online (see for example: here[DP19] ). I will happily again summarize the nuances briefly. Essentially, it comes down to two properties. The first one is that there are two ways Alex can win by betting against Bobbie: either by making him fold and win the pot outright, or by getting called and end up having the best hand in showdown anyway. On the other hand, there is only one way Bobbie can win by calling and this is by ultimately making the best hand. In other words, a call cannot generate any fold equity[DP20] .
The second difference is that a bet dilutes an opponent’s range[DP21] faster and thus making hand reading easier. The idea is that when Alex is choosing between checking and betting, her holdings are divided into two buckets (namely the checking bucket and the calling bucket). In contrast when Bobbie is facing a bet, he now has three choices, namely to fold, call or raise, so his holdings are now distributed into more buckets thus effectively reducing the number of hands per bucket. In other words, Bobbie’s range can be more efficiently narrowed down that way. These subtle but noticeable differences between a bet and a call are what I like to refer to as: Poker’s Fundamental Asymmetry. Poker players articulate this dichotomy eloquently by calling ‘bets’ aggressive actions, while they reserve the term passive for ‘calls’. This is very good evidence for the presence of an asymmetry.
Of course, this is largely a simplified birds-eye-view explanation to convey the basic idea that – in the long run – a bet is innately better action than a call. This does not mean that calls do not have their uses, but it means that one needs to be cognizant of the fact they are employing a lesser strategy when calling, so they should better have a very good reason for it. We will get back to this later.
For now, we should point out that controlling the hand means more than just prioritizing betting over calling. It literally means being the player who dictates the action at the table. Aggression (ie prioritizing betting over calling) is just a first step in that direction.
Typical Controlling Actions
What are some ways one can control the hand? We can start with something like the following non- exhaustive list and build from there:
- Choose betting/raising over calling
- Use the Trifecta preflop (Position, Initiative and Card Advantage)
- Be the first to go all-in
- Check to get a free card in Position
Let’s look a bit closer. We already examined the first option thoroughly. The second approach simply refers to the fundamental idea of using Position (ie. acting Last postflop) and Card Selection (ie “patience”) in order to place ourselves more favorably against the opponent by having more information and better holdings than them in a vacuum. Subtly, it also suggests using Initiative which technically means to be the last aggressor before the flop. Alex loves that idea because it generally means that opponents will check to her on the flop and even on later streets. This is the epitome of what it means to be in control of the hand!
Going down the list we see that in all-in situations (something very relevant in push/fold[DP22] scenarios during the later stages of a tournament) being the first to go all-in generates control. Similar to the superiority of a bet versus a call, the pusher can win the hand in two different ways (by generating folds or in showdown) while the caller is forced to get lucky and win at showdown. Lastly, it may be sometimes prudent for Alex to check and get a free card in position. This may seem like she’s waving the white flag (and she very well may) but by the time she does that the majority of the damage has already been done. The archetypical example is when Alex bets on the flop, gets called by Bobbie, and then check back on the turn. That way she gets to see all 5 cards and she can realize her hands full equity. Sure, Bobbie may read into this and bet the river but Alex can now play nearly perfectly based on whether she hit her hand or not.
Go big or go home
The astute reader may be wondering: Why is controlling the hand even possible? To answer the question properly we need to look at several layers of abstraction. For starters, the game is no longer symmetrical (see “fair”, as in an “edge” is now possible) the moment we have the aforementioned bifurcation of approaches. On the one side of the spectrum we have someone like Alex who likes to prioritize controlling actions and the seizing of control. On the other side, we have players like Bobbie who are largely indifferent towards them, electing to have a more passive/responsive role. This dichotomy gets further stretched by the fact that players like Alex have the tendency to quickly get out of the way early in those pots where they realize they are not going to have control over. (Weaker players can have good hands too, so “forcing control” indiscriminately would be ill-advised). This is what I like to call the go big or go home mentality. Alex either maintains control all the way by continually applying (controlled) pressure or she typically gets out of the way early when this is no longer possible. There are some exceptions to that of course, but they are exactly that, exceptions.
The Gordian Knot conundrum: Bet or Guess!
We can go deeper than that. To understand the power of controlling the hand, let us ask ourselves, what happens when we are not in control? What would Alex do if she is not in control of the betting? The honest answer is she should have to play the guessing game. This is because she would no longer be able to generate folds so she would need to correctly assess how often she can win the hand instead.
This is best illustrated via the following simplified example. Say the pot is $100 and the bet is $50 (the rest of the details are irrelevant for this exact point). Since the Bettor is risking 1 unit to win 2 units they would break even if the Caller calls at a 2-1 ratio. In other words the Bettor would break even the moment the Caller folds 33% of the time or more. In most cases, this is a very low and achievable frequency. In all likelihood the Bettor will make money on Caller’s folds alone (ie on Fold Equity) and then essentially free-roll their competition when called. This is a luxury the Caller does not share! From the Caller’s perspective all they see is that they would be risking 1 unit ($50) to win 3 units ($100+$50) and thus they will have to make an assessment whether or not they think they can at least win 25% of the time to break even. This is harder than it sounds, especially if the Caller is sitting with an unpaired hand. Imagine for example we are the Caller with a hand like KQ on an A52 board facing a bet. Unless our opponent has an Ace, we have a decent chance of winning the hand (and that includes the cases where they have a low pair, which would mean that our 6 outs give us a borderline breakeven equity of ~25%). So do they have the Ace or do they not? Who knows? The point is however that this is certainly not a question the Bettor has to worry about, since they get most of their profit from Caller’s folds anyway!
We can conclude that, as the Bettor, Alex was somewhat indifferent to how Bobbie reacts, because unless Bobbie raises her (something the Bobbies of the world typically do not do very often) she can still win the hand whether he calls or not. As the Caller however, things are much more complex because now she has to decide whether or not she wants to fight back or not. This is akin to the Gordian Knot[DP23] problem, where Alexander the Great[DP24] famously elected to cut the very intricate Knot of Gordium, instead of tediously untying it. The moral of the story is that without a sword/boldness on his side, Alexander would be forced to untie the Knot the hard way. Similarly, without betting on her side, Alex would have to solve the riddle of the hand by guessing correctly.
Maniacs: When controlling the hand goes too far!
Let’s take this abstraction one step further still. What happens when someone tries to take the betting control away from Alex? The answer would depend on how they intend to do it. Are they going to do it the wrong way or the right way? The easy (but wrong) way would be for Bobbie to abuse aggression and employ a suboptimal high frequency of bets and raises. This is what poker players affectionately call, a “maniac[DP25] ”. By definition, this means that now Bobbie is in control of the betting and thus the hand. However, in the process of doing so he sacrificed something very sacred to poker players: unpredictability. Using our previous metaphor, by betting too frequently Bobbie made the Knot too easy to untie! This means that although Alex has no longer control over the hand and although this would typically mean that she has to play the guessing game, the truth of the matter is there is not much guessing necessary. If Bobbie bets indiscriminately with good and bad hands alike, Alex would be a favorite to call him down until showdown with a good hand, as the likelihood of Bob making a very strong hand is really low. Incidentally, this is a very common misconception among beginning players as highlighted by their inability to adjust to maniacs. Just because one can never truly know if a maniac has a hand or not (they would bet both after all), it does not mean all hope is lost, since one can still play the odds! Making a hand in poker is rare, so someone who bets ALL the time is bound to NOT have a hand the majority of the time.
Fighting back for control the right way.
Now let’s address the elephant in the room by asking the obvious question: What happens if Bobbie tries to take the control of the hand from Alex the right way? That is by employing a carefully crafted loose aggressive strategy with a good balance of bluffs, value-bets and everything in between. Unfortunately, there is not much Alex could do in that situation other than perhaps attempting to do it better than Bob or decide to change tables if she cannot.
The astute reader may now realize that the success or failure of controlling the hand depends on what the opponents will do. In other words, an opponent can voluntarily elect to deem our strategy moot by refusing to comply. This is exactly right! Poker rules are fair, which means if all players were to play perfectly there would be no edge to be had. In other words, we cannot control how other opponents play, we can only control how we do and hopefully we do so in a way that maximizes the chances of their mistakes, while minimizing the chances of ours. Said in yet another way, poker success is highly relative and depends on the skill differential between Alex and Bobbie. Without a skill differential there is no profit to be made. This is why for example, any professional would make a very strong case for game selection[DP26] . It may not be important for Alex to be one of the best players in the world to be profitable, but it is absolutely paramount to be one of the best players at her table! Fortunately, this is still very much possible since not everyone elects to prioritize profitability over having fun. As a matter of fact the exact opposite is true, as most players play the game to have a good time before anything else, which inevitably means that they will have to make “sacrifices” on the profitability end of things.
Exploitative versus Optimal Strategies
To wrap this up, it may be worth saying a few words about poker’s eternal debate, namely exploitative[DP27] versus optimal[DP28] play. Fortunately, this comparison is irrelevant here, as both approaches will “fight” for the same end result, namely, the control of the hand. The main difference is that an exploitative approach will go for maximal control at the risk of losing that control if the opponents can re-adjust and counter-exploit, while an optimal approach will play it “safe” and settle/hedge for a lesser piece of the “control pie” while ensuring that this piece is not at any risk, irrespective of how the opponents react. Another difference is that a solver will handle the tough spots (ie the “guessing spots”) much better than a regular human would. Besides that, both approaches have the same goal, namely to be as close to dictating the action as possible. In other words, the concept of controlling the hand is universal among all strategies. This is exactly why it is poker’s most fundamental concept.
With that in mind, if you were to boil it down to one quintessential question, next time you feel lost in the middle of a complicated hand, it would be the following: Are you in control of the hand?
REFERENCES:
[DP1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Thing_(book)
[DP2]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/
[DP3]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
[DP4]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/
[DP5]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
[DP6]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leonardo-da-Vinci
[DP7]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/
[DP8]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ParMot
[DP9]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein
[DP10]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Darwin
[DP11]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pablo-Picasso
[DP12]https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/period-first.php
[DP13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
[DP14]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
[DP15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
[DP16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
[DP17]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Huang
[DP18]https://dandbpoker.com/products/why-alex-beats-bobbie-at-poker?_pos=1&_sid=5038c0be4&_ss=r
[DP19]https://upswingpoker.com/study-poker-and-win/
[DP20]Fold Equity is simply poker lingo for the value created from the folds caused by a bet.
[DP21]A poker range is a players possible hands in any given situation.
[DP22]A push/fold situation in tournament poker, arises when a player has a short enough stack that their only viable options before the flop is to either fold or go all-in.
[DP23]https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gordian-knot
[DP24]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great
[DP25]A maniac is a player who typically bets/raises in almost all hands and all streets.
[DP26]Game Selection is the practice of choosing games/tables where one things has the edge over the rest of the field.
[DP27]An exploitative strategy is a strategy that allows the hero to maximally capitalize on opponents’ mistakes (‘exploit’) at the risk of allowing the opponents to re-adjust, effectively nullifying all of hero’s profits and counter-exploiting them back.
[DP28]A game theory optimal (GTO) strategy is one that secures a lesser profit than the exploitative strategy but without the risks of leaving one open to re-adjustment and counter-exploitation by the opponents.