Speaker 1: Separation is kind of just an illusion. We create separation
between things, but reality is one thing that you are
your experience.
Speaker 2: Hey, this is Remco.
Speaker 1: Thanks for clicking on a video.
Speaker 2: This is my brand new podcast called Face the Ace,
in which I talked to the most interesting people in
poker and go a little deeper into the topics you
most care about. Enjoy. I have a fellow recent dad
with me millions and earnings, written books. He's done it all,
but we still have tons of talk about even though
I've known this guy for such a long time. Andrew Lichtenberger,
Welcome to the show. I'm so happy to have you.
Just to start off with what has today been like
in dad life? I won the latest chapter.
Speaker 1: Well, I just got back to Vegas last night, my wife, myself,
my brother, and my daughter at one am last night,
so we were in New York. So today was unpacking,
getting things sort of back in order. Yeah, I mean
it's always a new adventure. We were setting up some
pack and plays for the baby so we can have
somewhere to put her because she's getting a lot more
mobile now. I don't know how old is your.
Speaker 2: My son is turning one at the end of May.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, so you're a few months ahead of us.
You know what that's like. Yeah, yeah, ye're pretty quick.
They are pretty quick. They're very resourceful.
Speaker 2: It's just awesome to have noticed the shift in the
way I approach life just by having another human involved.
Oh yeah, But I feel as though, out of all
the people that I'll interview on the show, you are
probably mentally prepared for every type of scenario because you've
been so involved with mindfulness, You've been so involved with
sort of learning more about yourself and the universe, to
just put it that way, Maybe there's many universes we
don't even know. But would you say that any of
the things that you've gone through on a personal level
have sort of set you up for success to become
a father or is it perhaps something so different that
even you could not have anticipated how that would feel
and sort of develop.
Speaker 1: That's a really question. I do think that my I
would say, willingness to be open and just sort of
accept the uncertainty of life and the adventure that's naturally
present in it does prepare me for the Yeah, just
unusual things that happen and will probably increasingly occur as
a parent. But I will say that I probably over
exaggerated in my head how different it was going to
be because I found it striking in the first Like,
let's just say month, how many things were the same,
Like I was totally prepared for my entire life to
come crashing down and just something totally new to happen.
It was like, oh, well, I'm still me, my wife's
still her, we still live in the same house, you
know what I mean. So I guess a bit of both.
But it's been really fun and yeah, I just melt
every time she smiles and laughs, and it's it's just incredible.
I'm just loving it.
Speaker 2: We could do like POGs podcast, so we can go
deep on that. That's probably worth another a couple of
chapters and seasons as the years go on, so we'll
keep every when you're ready, Yeah, exactly, we can totally
do that. But there there are sort of a larger
topic at hand that ties into the uniqueness of your
position in poker from the way I see it, because
obviously you're very much involved on the on the solver side,
the studying side, and trying to become the best possible player,
and then you have this highly contrasting sort of look
on life and and and approach to life, and you know,
the yoga of poker and the camp set. We can
talk about all that stuff, but to me, it almost
feels like so polarizing in how those things can be
so different and that spectrum could be so wide. Why
do you think it is that you fit into both
those sort of boxes, if you will, because I don't
think you could find many people that that that fit
those both.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I I appreciate you acknowledging that. I do
recognize that it can appear to be very contrasted, and
in a sense it is. But the way I see
it is that they're two sides of the same coin,
and I often liken it to the left and right
side of the brain, like one is more logical, rigid, structured,
and the other is more creative, imaginative, intuitive, And I
think that the solvers present an opportunity to create frameworks
and understand, within a very sort of rigid framework, what
strategies will look like and how people can or should
play given those parameters. But the reality is that in poker,
you don't always get the luxury of having those handed
to you on a silver platter. In some cases you will,
and that's you know, nice, I suppose, or easy as
it were. But the reason I find of this more
fluid way, woo way or chemist type of approach to
be valuable is that when you're navigating uncertainty in poker,
like you really do, kind of have to embrace it
and just sort of figure it out on the fly,
and the structure helps, but it's not always going to
be the answer, and that's where I think intuition comes
into play.
Speaker 2: You did a podcast recently with Chance Cornith where you
specifically mentioned Sean Winter and how he does weird stuff
if you want to just put it very plainly, Yeah,
but you also said more often than not, he is right,
even though it should be random. Why do you use
him as an example and not yourself? Do you feel
like your intuition needs needs a lot more work. Do
you see him as a very intuitive person, as something
that he naturally possesses.
Speaker 1: How do you look at that?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I do think he is very intuitive. I think he's
probably leaned into it to a greater extent than myself
or other players over time. I think that's an interesting
kind of topic generally, is how much are players willing
to lean into it. Like Prime Ivy is sort of
the example that comes to mind as someone who was
just very deep in there. And I also think that
because I've had this kind of funny thought like, let's
just say, irrespective of what people believe, let's just say, hypothetically,
there is some Yogi and the Hamalias meditating right now,
and if we just brought him in this state of
zen to the Pokerro studio, would his intuition actually like
accomplish anything or would the lack of understanding of the
structure of the game hold him back? And I'm inclined
to believe that the latter is more likely. And that's
where I think that, you know, going back to like
a Prime Ivy, he probably didn't have as much of
a theoretical basis. He would have obviously had a deep
understanding of the game, but as you know, the industry
has changed and more ideas become commonplace and more access
to information is present. I do feel that intuition, it's
not that you have to temper it by but I
think it's boosted by a theoretical understanding that one has
and the topic of like how deep can you go
with it? So I don't know. It's something I've thought
a lot about. I think there's always room for improvement
with anything strategically or intuitively, and I just always am
trying to improve in that right lect.
Speaker 2: But I find that so fascinating because, as some people know,
I've lost a lot of weight over time. And this
is relevant because a lot of times when I talk
to people about health and lifestyle changes, the biggest thing
that I like to focus on is that you shouldn't
be majoring in the miners as far as don't focus
on the details, do the big things right. To me,
it almost feels like the miners are that intuition, that
last little push, the last little extra. If you're not
doing the majors right, which is the studying and the
theory based and the fundamentals, you never even have to
worry about the intuition because that is sort of like
the cherry on top that you develop over time because
of repetition and and and and you know, talent and
all those kinds of things. Do you think that people
can sort of start to tap into that sort of
final set of additional skills or perhaps intuition once they
have that solid foundation, as you mentioned, you know, the
yogi probably wouldn't do that well at the book table.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's an interesting it's an interesting way to look
at it. I'm inclined to think that intuition has more
I don't know if I want to say more value
or more relevant than it being like a final push.
I feel that it's always valuable, especially as it pertains
to just executing at the table, irrespective of what level
you're playing at. But yeah, I'm not I'm not sure.
I mean, I can't really quantify it, and it's also
maybe a bit challenging to speak generally on it because
I am going to be biased by my own experience
with it, and it is something that's very authentic to me.
Feel very inclined towards it being something that is not
just the final push, that it's kind of always finding
a way. For example, like with solver strategies, so many
decisions are mixed, and furthermore, the models are fairly fragile
in a lot of cases, and if you make a
few assumptions, then they'll shift dramatically. And you make more
larger assumptions and they'll shift even more dramatically. And I
think that that's where I see intuition has a lot
of value in being able to make those adjustments without
having a sort of premeditated approach to a spot.
Speaker 2: When you think back to when poker was easy, so
to say, right when talent and hard work and having
a few friends you can discuss hands with was enough
to really do very well. Do you think that you're
general mindset then could have could have been like applied
to be successful in the current state of the game,
or do you think that the entire progression you went
through was necessary to still be successful now?
Speaker 1: Hmmm? I think yeah, I mean I think I could.
I could still be successful if I didn't change that much,
but it would be rocky road, that's for sure. But
I did not always But there was a certain point.
I can't tell you exactly when it was, but I
have valued for a long time, like the understanding of
structure and the willingness to deviate from it when appropriate.
But yeah, I mean, in the early days, having like
any structure, even just being able to sort of conceptualize
what the fundamentals of poker might look like and how
to build strategies around these, you know, cohesive or coherent ideas.
That was such a huge leg up back then, and
that was something that was largely innate for me. I
guess I could say I got lucky with it, but
it's just sort of probably influence from my parents in
some sense, and just sort of the game or brain
that I have.
Speaker 2: Right, But is it like talent and intuition and perhaps
maybe some some pattern recognition to where you know, just
through repetitions, even though you're not you know, studied in
like a clinical sense, you're improving almost like on a
daily basis, even though you might not be conscious of
that improvement.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think anytime you're immersed in something,
you're probably going to continue to improve as long as
you're open, right and reflective of what's happening.
Speaker 2: Right. So, then in that sort of early era, were
there key moments you remember or key people that you
met that in hindsight turned out to be sort of
pivotal towards your continued growth in the game, like instances
or people that contributed, And if you have examples of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the one example that comes to mind
is I was playing an online session, which was you know,
part for the course. I was playing probably almost every day,
and I just remember I had the spot I had
Ace Queen on an ACE high board. Maybe it was
a three bet pot, maybe it was a single race pot.
I can't really remember, but it was some like ACE
nine deuce rainbow, just some dry spot. I just felt
like bad about it, and I was like, huh, this
is weird. I, you know, previous to this moment, because
this was somewhat of a watershed experience for me, I
just didn't really either have the awareness of what these
intuitive signals would be or care to delve into them.
But I checked it back and then I ended up
losing a smaller pot than I would have and my
opponent had Ace king. I was like, Okay, that's pretty interesting,
and then I just sort of kept an eye out
for when that similar signal would come. And I guess
over the years, I've valued what those signals look and
feel like, and I have oscillated. There's been times where
I feel like I basically I have gas lit myself
into thinking that like that's not real, and then I
have to like touch the hot stove and realize that
that doesn't feel good. So it's been a journey. But yeah,
I mean it's it's fascinating because I do think that
I was more naturally predisposed to just like a purely
logical approach. As far as people I met over the
years who would have maybe assisted in that, gosh, I
mean really so many people. I can't pick any out
in particular, but from the generation I came up in
before solvers, there was no I mean, there was some
convergence around ideas, but there was a lot. Yeah, there's
a lot more that was just subjects to interpretation because yeah,
everyone was just sort of figuring it out of the fly. Yeah,
and I appreciate. I just added that I really did
appreciate when they came out, although I had some early
resistance because I was like, well, it's kind of nice
to be able to quantify these things that we've sort
of not known for a while and ruminated on. Soh yeah,
I just thought it was cool when it happened.
Speaker 2: It's fun to like speculate on this because in a way,
becoming a really good poker player has never been easier
because the access to tools is there's so many. If
you wanted, you could study for a whole year before
even playing a single handed poker and then showing up
being well prepared. But back when you came up, it
was almost like, you know, a bunch of young kids
would win like satellites to PCA and epts, and they
would all meet and they would all find common ground.
They're all like, you know, under the age of twenty
and become instant best friends. And that sort of group
pushed themselves to a very high level, very quickly in
relation to the field totally. How do you look at
those two different ways to reach the top, Because you know,
the case can be made that the access now is
what's crucial to reach the top, but also it's harder
than ever because the competition is so strong.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's a good point. The access to information is
just going to be helpful if someone's like newer to poker,
And I do think it's always been a possibility to
start from scratch and make it to the highest stakes.
And I would even add that because there is a
more ubiquitous understanding of poker theory and you can just
figure things out if you want to. To me, that,
by contrast, highlights the importance of intuition and execution and
all the soft skills that go along with understanding the
structure of the game, because not that everybody will have
the same understanding. That's clearly not the case. There's so
much nuance to it, and the game tree is huge,
But if people are generally converging around similar ish ideas,
it's like, well, what will give you an adage? What
is like the next frontier so to speak? And to
me it is all those soft skills.
Speaker 2: From the guys you've seen come up in like, let's say,
less five years that you know are playing in the
Pocco studio or you know you see him at like
big final tables across the country or even internationally. Can
you pinpoint to something having played against those players that
sort of has given them the opportunity to reach the top?
Do you see something in their playing style, or in
their you know, social skills, or in perhaps something you
know from talking to them that that sort of sets
them apart from perhaps others from their generation who have
not made it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the first name that comes to mind
is Jesse Lanis. I think he started kind of competing
in like mid to higher stakes tournaments around COVID. You
know when I first met him. Not trying to burche
hate on the gorilla, I love him, but I was skeptical.
I mean, he's just playing like pretty different than most people.
And that was probably around the time that I was
stuck in a more rigid kind of mindset. But I mean,
he has great soft skills, There's just no two ways
about it, and he it is just a great card player.
At the end of the day. That's actually really what
matters because we're playing cards. So I do think that
just as much as it was true back in the
day when we were winning PCA packages and whatnot, it
really does always come down like poker is not like
a multiple choice like quiz. It's a dynamic environment where
you have to be willing to trust yourself and make
bizarre sort of moves that might only make sense in
a very unique context. And he does clearly trust himself
and is willing to make those plays, and that's clearly
benefited him a lot over the last few years.
Speaker 2: Is it possible to learn from a player by watching
them play or talking in hands with them if they
are so unconventional? And I think back of a memory
that I have where I believe was Patrick Antonius trying
to do a training video and it was really funny
because you know, he clearly knew what to do, but
he didn't really know one hundred percent how to sort
of lay it out in that sort of way that
you know, you guys would do on your training sites.
Not to throw shade at Patrick, of course, it's one
of those things where, you know, intuition, like the way
you described Ivy for example, or Sean Winter, sometimes they
do things that might not be the common line, and
Jesse Loanis is probably.
Speaker 1: A good example.
Speaker 2: But back to my question, are there learning opportunities in
that even though it might be a little bit of
you know, sort of wide magic type situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, it's a really good question. I think it
highlights something interesting about intuition that it will give you
a signal and it sometimes is up to you to
trust it or not trust it, but then to sort
of back engineer it and figure out like why did
this make sense in context? And I think that in
the case of you know, learning from someone like Jesse
or the Patrick training video, it's going to be a
little bit more cryptic because there's not as clearly find
sort of parameters and rules as to why they're operating.
But in general, I mean all winning players are going
to converge around some similar ideas. An example I like
about this is you're familiar with Mikhael Tall. He was
like a prolific chess player, Yeah, and he was known
for his like elaborate sacrifices and exotic sort of play style.
But to get to that level, you're going to draw
a lot of games against gms and play fairly sound
in a lot of spots. And I think that like Prime,
Adamo or Fade or even like, there was a lot
of a lot of hype around some of these. I
think exotic is a good word to describe the plays
they would make, But most of the time they're just
playing like good standard poker. They're just willing to push
the boundaries in some cases, and those you know that
will make a big impact on one's win, right, especially
when it goes well over a short stretch.
Speaker 2: Do you think that for those types of players like Lonus,
Fade or Odamo, do you think that them get to
a certain level of fame it gives them an extra
edge because of the perception of their play now becoming
a factor where people anticipate them playing a certain style.
And then of course the I guess X factor being
can they adjust and profit from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I was going to mention that I think, yes,
it definitely will help, and especially if they're willing to
sort of discern how players, whether you know, pros or recreationals,
will feel like they're doing something that they may not
be doing. I think that's something I heard. Joe Kata
mentioned this at one point that after he won the
main event, he went on like a prolonged sort of
downswing where he didn't realize that he just had to
play like he was an old man and he'd just
constantly get paid. I think having an understanding of, yeah,
just how people perceive you, like a meta table image
would definitely be necessary in those cases where you're on
such a rip.
Speaker 2: So for yourself, playing a lot in an environment where
you play against the same players all the time, would
you say that because of your intuition and the way
that you are able to tap into it or trust it,
or you know, sometimes that sort of wave hits, would
you say it's an advantage to you to play a
lot against the same people because it might strengthen those
feelings because you get to play against a lot of
the same players over and over again, where you know
you might even like subconsciously pick up on things towards
certain opponents.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I do think again, like just repetition
will be helpful in that respect. It's maybe tempered by
the fact that those are primarily great players. Yeah, so yeah,
I mean it depends, like what the other group would
be if that's the control group, is the other group
also great players or are they like unknown? Because I
would do better against the unknown and for sure even
with less data, and I would get tricked sometimes, right, Like,
I mean, that is a cool thing that I think
makes poker popular. Someone can come off the street and
just you know, trick an Ivy or an Agrando or
whoever because they just you know, they just have an
erratic style. But yeah, over the long run, you know,
there'll be adjustments and clarity had how much.
Speaker 2: Sort of self awareness do you have to do you
have to bring to the table when you're playing in
a field where you know you are the most known
player at your table, do you have to try and
learn whether they know who you are and does that
help your game? Or do you sort of have to
make perhaps general adjustments because you have to assume that
people might want to, you know, tell their friend that
they've bluffed luck a Chewi.
Speaker 1: That's a great question. I will admit that I don't
think this is something that I've done the absolute best
job of over the course of my career. I mean,
I do think I've done well enough at that, but
I think that different people perceive me differently, and I
don't always totally recognize how that might look. I guess
strategically I sort of figure it out or get close
enough to what the answer would be or how they
would play in a spot. But yeah, I've often been
surprised at things people say, like comments and passing. Like
one that comes to mind is many people over the
years have mentioned they feel I'm like very like mathematic
or almost robotic, and I'm like, okay, I can see
why they would think that, but I don't necessary like
I mean, I do love numbers. And my wife would
probably laugh at me telling you this, like She's like,
why would you be surprised by that? But it's just
because of my own internal process around the game and
that I am willing to really rely on intuition in
key moments but in all moments really, so in a way.
Speaker 2: You're you've all correct if I'm wrong, but it feels
like you're saying that you don't necessarily make adjustments because
that's almost like baked into your style because of the
roots being in the in the math. That sort of
pushes you towards perhaps randomizing or making adjustments just because
that's what the situation calls for.
Speaker 1: Well, I just think poker is inherently a game of adjusting.
So places in which I would say I make adjustments
would be more deviations based on ideally more concrete than
sort of ephemeral data. But in spots where it is
a mixed decision, then you can kind of go either
way if your assumptions are accurate enough. And that's where
I personally think intuition has a lot of value because
it's like, well, if it's the same either way in
the long run, well, your opponent has two cards in
this spot. So if you can like quote unquote guess right, like,
it's going to be worthwhile.
Speaker 2: How fast does the brain of someone at your level
process these things as the hands is developing. How much
of this is internal talk? How much of this is
perhaps just appearing in front of you. I know people
that have like a photographic memory, and they remember things
very vividly. But I also know people that have like
this very strong internal dialogue that sort of leads them
down as a decision making process. What does it look
like for you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question to me. It's sort of
it asks like, how does intuition work on an individual basis?
I would say it's different day to day. It's sometimes
different over the course of a day. I mean, I
suppose it's a pretty well oiled machine at this point.
There's plenty of room for improvement. I'm not entirely clairvoyant,
to say the least, but I guess probably the physiological
sensations are maybe most reliable in some cases. And sometimes
it is like an inner dialogue, and that can also
be very helpful, just a firm, kind of clear deck
of like this is what you should be doing here.
Speaker 2: Do you, for example, memorize or reach back for memories
on things you've studied while things are happening in the
moment or is it more so almost like programmed to
where you see something and it triggers like almost like
an instinct where you know that the decision tree is
going in a certain direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I will occasionally do the former in a
spot where like, let's say I want to discern what
a reasonable beat size would be with my range, for example,
but for like a hand specific, combo specific type of play,
I feel it's generally more the latter, where I think
the value in understanding that structure is to feed the
subconscious in understanding and then let the intuition just sort
of take over and mandate how should this be coalesced
and executed.
Speaker 2: So what would you give as advice to players who
say I enjoy studying. I enjoy, you know, playing all
those solver games. I have good scores on those things,
but when I'm in the moment, I'm having a really
hard time applying it. It's almost like the solver is
like a video game. But then real poker is such
a different environment to where whether it's recall or whether
it's intuition is sort of lacking. So there could be
a situation where frustration arises when you feel like you've
done the work, but then applying it becomes like a
whole new.
Speaker 1: Set of issues, totally extremely relatable for myself and many others.
And I feel that this is kind of again where
we get to that dichotomy of thinking versus feeling, because
like the thought is well established, but the feel it's
almost like it's been well, if not neglected, then sort
of disparaged in a sense. It can almost be seen
as a weakness in many cases. And I mean I
suppose that although this wasn't like the main reason that
I built the Chemist app, but even if you don't
believe in extrasensory phenomena at all, just the idea that
you would engage in an activity where you are not
thinking and feeling, I think can be helpful because that's really,
to me, the heart of the matter. You have knowledge
and you're then in a spot where you have to
take that knowledge in like a somewhat tense, pressure filled
scenario and determine, like what am I going to do
with this knowledge now? And I think that if you
ignore the fact that I mean, in a lot of cases,
I think people have emotional blocks, there's some inner conflict
or friction or something that is preventing that progress and
engaging in activities like meditation, mindfulness type of things. I mean,
maybe the Chemist app can help with that if one
is reflective, but I think just generally freeing up your
ability to feel comfortable feeling and being to do what
you feel is correct. I think something many people have
mentioned and I would echo this sentiment is that you
really do have to not be afraid to look stupid, right,
because if you're afraid of looking stupid, you almost ensure
the fact that you will look stupid. Yeah, it's just
kind of like part of the game. And if you're
willing to do that, that's like almost a superpower for.
Speaker 2: Those Just real quick for those that don't know about
the camp st and we'll link it below as well,
give a brief.
Speaker 1: Description of how it works. Yeah, so it's just a
randomly shuffled deck of cards. You are then just feeling
which card is coming next, and you're scored based on
how well you guess. You get one point for the
right suit, three for the rank, and thirteen for a
perfect And as you go throughout the deck, it's not
populating new cards, you're seeing them get grayed out, so
you can never pick a card that has a yeo
percent probability of being correct.
Speaker 2: Right, So it's kind of like intuition, but it's also
kind of like a memorization game because of the.
Speaker 1: Remot cards knows you're seeing on the Street Seeker. Great app. Yeah,
it's a very specific form of intuition, which Heartmouth Institute
has designated as non local intuition. Some people would call
it precognition. And I just think that's fascinating. The extent
to which I'm capable of it, I'm not sure I've
had enough experiences where I enjoyed doing it, and I
was like, Okay, well, I'll just make the app. It
was a fun project anyway, and maybe it'll, you know,
be of interest to some people. My wife and I
actually did a one day retreat event up at Mount Charleston.
We got twenty people up there, and she's a Chinese
medical doctor and she talked about how that framework in
philosophy relate to intuition, and we did some exercises. She's
taught some chigong and we had a great time. But
I just think it's fascinating because I know that these
are real phenomena, and I think poker is largely an
industry that has not embraced them at the highest levels.
But if you talk to like any casual player, they're
pretty much all interested in it because of the way
that you feel in hands, and it's just a significantly
more common sentiment in smaller stakes games. And of course,
the you know, counterpoint would be like, well, they're not experts,
so like why would you value it? They're not playing
at your level. But I think there's like something to
be said for that that, you know, that's something that
draws people to poker.
Speaker 2: Honestly, this, this whole, this whole concept and this topic,
it raises so many interesting thoughts with me because my
sort of very I guess, you know, I come from
a small town, and like it's kind of like this
rigid sort of structural thinking where you know, just you know,
stay normal and just like don't don't start floating through
the air with all your crazy thoughts. And that's like
the first thing that comes to mind, like come on,
what the hell are we talking about here? But then
as you go deeper into the conversation, it becomes fascinating
to the point where.
Speaker 1: Like, you you don't.
Speaker 2: Lose anything from from from trying this, and you don't
there's no downside.
Speaker 1: So I certainly don't think so that's that's me saying that, right,
But I believe, yeah.
Speaker 2: I believe that too, because it's always good to try
and do new things and to like learn about stuff,
even if you are.
Speaker 1: Skeptical about it.
Speaker 2: Sure, but I find it funny, especially in the context
of poker. Yeah, because in a way it almost perfectly fits,
but it also perfectly doesn't fit.
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't fit because of the cultural boundaries or
the Overton window or whatever you want to call it.
But at the end of the day, I mean, I
have had a decent amount of success in poker, and
these are completely authentic things to me. And I'm like, well,
you know, people can take it or leave it, but
I'm not like lying about the stuff I experience. You know,
someone could argue, like a Devil's advocate point that I'm
not perceiving my own experience is accurately enough, which like
fair enough. I don't really have a counterpoint to that.
But I mean, when I look within, I'm like, Okay, well,
what's going on? Like, yeah, I think that there's there's
value in intuition and feeling, in understanding your emotions. I
just I think of it broadly as soft skills.
Speaker 2: I find it sort of fun to think about when
you and whenever this might have been along the journey,
when you consider yourself successful or established or you know,
now I have the means to live a life where
I don't have to really, you know, grind day to day.
Whatever that moment was, I wonder how much that sort
of freedom had an impact on how you started thinking
after that, and how much perhaps more rigid you were
before that because the focus was more on becoming successful.
Speaker 1: Well, it's funny because to an extent, I'm not sure
that that is a healthy perspective to have, and I'm
not sure it's one that I even really do have,
because I'm always concerned that when I go to play,
I may just play terribly and make all kinds of
blunders right, and then look like a fool. And I
think that that's good, Like I like that poker has
that you never have sort of like sailed off into
the sunset and like you turn up works.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's from like a spiritual way where the
freedom of having no immediate financial pressure for each next
event or each next game you play, having that freedom
to not be so tied to the day to day
results gave you the room then to become more spiritual
because you had time to open up your mind to
all these things that you're involved with.
Speaker 1: Now, I would say that that's a fair point. But
in a sense, the willingness to not feel thrown about
by the daily results is what actually allows you to
get there. You sort of have to become that person
that's I don't know is sovereign the right term, or
clear about who you are and what matters to you.
Like if you really, I feel like you're doing your best,
then you shouldn't care as much about the results. There's
still going to be lessons to be learned in every case.
But yeah, I think that sort of getting there first
is what allows the physical aspect of things to arrive
right or seamlessly at least.
Speaker 2: So was there a moment in time in your career
where you felt as though, now I will sort of
stay the course as a poker player because this is
something that I enjoy, this is something that I see
a future in. And on the contrary, have you had
moments where you probably where you thought to yourself, is
this what I want to do? Is this my pathway
to to you know, living in a financially stable life,
because the ups and downs are are never more obvious
than when you talk to a poker player.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure, I think a lot of the very
clear moments of this is something I'm definitely going to do.
Happened early on, and then over time it's been a
rocky road in certain cases, especially as I've pursued avenues
and opportunities outside of poker or adjacent to poker. I
guess like every time I succeed in any capacity, it
gives me confidence to keep going. I mean, it's a
challenging game. It was something I like to say, is
you know, whenever something happens where you know someone would
be mowing their bad luck or complain or whatever, I
just say, it's the life I chose. You know, there's
trade offs to everything, and part of what you're rightly
pointing out about, you know, a luxury of the poker
player lifestyle is that, yeah, I don't have to get
up every day and go to a traditional job, and
I'm very grateful for that because it has just never
suited me to live that way. On the other hand, yeah,
those trade offs that you know, you can have a
losing year or deeply question your abilities or feel out
classed or whatever it is that comes with the territory.
Speaker 2: What's the longest losing streak you've had or the sort
of the lowest point that you've that you've sort of,
I don't know, ended up in and what did it
take to turn that around?
Speaker 1: It's usually about a year and a half is sort
of the longest stretch I've had. It's after a few times.
Speaker 2: You're saying it like this happened multiple times.
Speaker 1: It has, Yeah, it definitely has. And then the second
question was like what got me out of it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, like, I mean, the easiest answer is, yeah, I
won two million and then all of a sudden I
was back. But clearly it's probably not as simple as
it looks.
Speaker 1: Well. One thing that I feel very strongly about is
that in any prolonged downswing I've had, there was something
like I was just not seeing things. Clearly, there was
a part that I played in it. I was not
a victim. I was just playing bad or wrong about something.
And I feel making whatever mind set shift that was
pertinent at the time really helped unlock that for me.
Speaker 2: Was it a real time sort of assessment or was
it a hindsight assessment?
Speaker 1: Uh no, No, it was a real time thing where
I would recognize I'm doing something wrong, I'm thinking about
things incorrectly, and then getting rid of that or shifting
it is probably a better way to say it. Transforming it.
We're just free up emotional bandwidth. It would free up
space in my head that I maybe didn't even know
was there, leading into you know, that prolonged down swing.
Speaker 2: But it's fascinating because in the grand scheme of like
poker's lifelong sort of sample size, especially when it comes
to live poker, you know, the people that have played
online sessions or you know, gone to a million hand
downswing or whatever the case may be, they might hear
this and say, like, you haven't even scratched the surface
yet on what a downswing could be, and whatever it
is that turned it around, it is probably much more
variance than it is application.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm very familiar with this view and perspective, and
it's one that I held for a long time. If
I'm speaking honestly about my experience and someone says well,
well that's because of X, Y and Z, I can't
like overrule it and say, well, I'm sure this is
true because this is my experience, like it can be
true for me and someone else can still feel that
it's objectively dubious, right, But stepping aside from that, slightly.
I am skeptical. I'll say that ontological randomness is a thing,
that randomness truly as a concept, is baked into reality.
I feel that there is there are reasons that things
unfold and happen the way they do, and I'm deeply
intrigued by looking for those reasons. And I feel like,
irrespective of whether I'm right about my skepticism, there taking
ownership over your experiences and looking for ways to improve,
I don't see any downside to that. I feel that
that is a net benefit for anyone who walks that path.
Speaker 2: When you become aware of being in that sort of
downward spiral, you know, as far as your play goes
or or your mindset, do you have specific things you
then sort of recenter with, like maybe like some you know,
hardcore study hours or additional meditation or long hikes in
the wilderness to perhaps have a reset moment.
Speaker 1: I think all those things can be helpful. I think
of those as you know, they're sort of all tools. Right,
Sometimes doing more is not always the best answer. Sometimes
doing more is what gets you there in the first place.
You continually are looking for things to placate this uncertainty
about you know, when will things change? Will they change?
Sometimes just accepting it and just being grateful for what
you already have is the way to shift things. So
if it speaks to the individual who's in that case,
I mean sometimes you do have to be also realistic
about the fact, like, hey, maybe I am strategically lacking,
Like if you're consistently blundering in situations where you know
you're heers are not like they understand what these strategies
look like and how to effectively implement them. I mean
clearly that's that's a cause for concern. So, yeah, that
would be one example of where studying would be effective.
If you generally have a good grasp on the game
and there's sort of more subtle aspects at play, then
maybe backing off that and yeah, going on a hike
or doing some mindfulness practices would be a more effective
way to you know, extricate yourself from the downswing.
Speaker 2: I know you've coached Landon Tice, who I've talked with
the studio recently, and he mentioned you as like one
of his mentors and how much he he valued that.
But where does someone at your level go for for
for coaching or for help? Is there is there like
another tier of people or do you have one specific
person in your phone that is able to walk you
through situations like is there is there coaching for guys
at your level?
Speaker 1: I mean I haven't had what you would define as
coaching in that sense in a very long time for
poker like strategy related stuff. But I am very fortunate
that I have a lot of friends that I can
bounce ideas off of, and some people are more skilled
a you know, certain things than others. So like Steven
Chidwick is a close friend and I can, you know,
bounce ideas off of him, although I actually don't really
talk to him as much about strategy because I mean,
at this point you can, for myself or any other
pro you can ask other people about strategy questions, and
that's totally valid. But when you have, you know, the
solver readily available, you can plug it in and then
anything that someone else is going to tell you, unless
you're asking like a specific thing about a specific player,
like how would you maybe proceed in the spot against
this guy based on what you know? What do you
think his assumptions might be? That's a little bit more
granular and different. Barring that nuance you can look at
the output and just sort of understand or you know,
no locket or whatver, and just be like, Okay, this
is kind of what is presenting here. How do I
think that might have shifted? But anyway, point being, I'm
just very fortunate and grateful to have a lot of
friends in the space, and if I need help or
want clarity about something, I can just ask them, and
you know, I would hope they would feel the same
willingness to do that with me if so desired.
Speaker 2: So when you sort of transpose yourself to like this
situation where you were coaching Landon, what was it that
he needed or perhaps other students that you've had, what
do what do students need if you coach them?
Speaker 1: That would.
Speaker 2: Make coaching necessary as opposed to the approach you just
mentioned where you can note lock something, We're going to
run through some solvers and you know, feel satisfied to
start to keep moving forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean with Landon, it was a bit different
because he was like around the time that I would
have been I guess you could say coaching, although it
was never really like a traditional arrangement. We were friends
already and he was transitioning from cash games to tournaments,
So I was mostly just kind of sharing tournament ideas.
But to your question about like what is coaching offer someone,
I think a lot of times it's really just pinpointing
the aspects of their thought process or understanding that they
themselves cannot identify, either through just the experience they have
in the game, or sometimes we don't necessarily want to
look at at certain things. And I think ideally one
plays poker and kind of a holistic fashion where you
don't really want to ignore anything that's going on when
you're at the table or that you're thinking about, like
it all kind of ties in together. I think this
is probably part of like a broader I guess you
could call it chem set life philosophy. But separation is
kind of just an illusion, you know, we create separation
between things, but there's just like reality is one thing,
like you are your experience, So just figuring out where
you might be miscalibrated or out of alignment or what
have you outside of the table, and then of course
strategically as well. Again I just feel very I guess
gifted in that sense. I strategy just kind of made
sense to me not to be pompous or whatever. But
it just it just it felt like once I got
a grasp on it, I was like, oh yeah, balance, Okay,
I don't know, just yeah, a lot of it made sense,
and I I was pleased to see that some of
the early ideas I had were sort of validated by solvers,
and then some were up ended as well, Like some
things I just did not get correct.
Speaker 3: So yeah, do you think there's there's traps in people
studying and using solvers and perhaps not using them the
right way and leading them down like the wrong path,
or perhaps down a path where they might not improve
as much because they focus on the wrong things.
Speaker 1: Definitely, And I think that's one of the traps I
fell into, was just feeling as if these outputs are
like gospel. I mean, that's not a helpful approach because well,
just ignores the reality of how they were created and
how they can shift. So I think if one is
too rigid, that's a problem because eventually you're going to
encounter a spot where you almost feel like this sort
of egoic sense of entitlement, Hey I should have won
this or you should have folded that hand, and it's
just like hey, bro, like that's reality. And you went
up against it and you didn't you couldn't accept it,
and then you know, you got crushed. So I think
that's one thing that can cause issues. Other than that,
I don't know, you know, it's an interesting question, like
take someone like Jesse, who I think's been kind of
open about the fact that he doesn't use or value solvers.
You know, would him taking the time to do something
that he's not interested in help him. I'm inclined to
think no, even if the data or knowledge is valuable.
I just think there's many different ways to do things.
And I kind of go back to my time playing online.
I had used a hot at times, like I heads
a display that shows you player stats and whatnot, and
basically all of my peers were using it, and there
was a time where I just felt like it was
too much visual noise and it was taking me out
of the moment. And maybe that's like kind of a
comparable example where you know, sometimes less is more.
Speaker 2: Correct me if I'm wrong on this, But when I
listen to podcasts with successful individuals, whether it's sports or poker,
oftentimes when people describe their experiences, there's a certain element
missing where they are privileged by the fact that they
were born with a certain talent, you know, running fast, swimming, tennis,
or in your case, having the mind to apply yourself
well in strategy games and in poker. How big of
a factor is is sort of what you were born
with in the in the in the context of your success.
Speaker 1: Uh wow, tough to say. So my father was an engineer.
I actually just recently learned that. My mom told me
she went to college for three year studying psychology and
thought she would have done better in that field than
where she ended up in nursing, because it's a more
like mental thing. And I was like, oh, wow, that's
really interesting. It's like, do you understand that that's a
bit ironic because I pursued a mental activity and I've
done pretty well at it, which you know, she didn't
really catch that either until I brought it up. But
it is likely at the very least that, you know,
those traits that my parents had were sort of disseminated
by osmosis. But there are certain things, and I mean,
I don't know, it depends how do you want to
go with this, Like is it retrocousal? Like I was
always sort of meant to be a poker player, and
I was drawn to these activities by virtue of that.
But it was extremely interested in all kinds of games
and memory in particular as a kid. And obviously that's
helpful in poker, not just because it, you know, helps
recall strategies, but you know, hand histries, you played against people,
and all kinds of stuff. So there are definitely things
that I do think I was sort of I guess
you could say, genetically predisposed or environmentally predisposed to that
helped with poker. And there are certain things where I
did sort of have to like get up and get
after it in a sense that also helped.
Speaker 2: So you when you like are first learning about solvers,
when the solver era sort of started and you got
access to to use one.
Speaker 1: What did that look like? Was it exploratory?
Speaker 2: Was it someone who you know got into that before
you teaching you how to use them? And did that
then lead to sort of the way I see it,
maybe back in the day when you guys used to
play online was like NonStop, round the clock multi tabling
stuff like that. Was it sort of that? But then
in the solver world give some insights into when that
era sort of started coming along.
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny. So yeah, I did have friends
who got into them before me, and they were pretty
pumped about it, and I was intrigued. I remember the
first solver that I became familiar with was Poker Snowy.
I don't think it was a CFR based kind of
factual regret minimization program. It was it was some sort
of algorithm that created solutions in its own way. Maybe
it was a version of CFR, but I thought it
was interesting how it suggested playing preflop with different hands.
And then soon after that, like more like the solvers
that are kind of still around to this day, were
commonly used by you know, various pros came around, and
at that point I was on a pretty big upswing
and was being stubborn and I just wasn't really that interested.
It also didn't help that one of my friends should
be an early version where there was clearly some bug
and the solow was just saying to fold the nut straight.
I was just like, yeah, I don't need this, like
I'm doing well right now. So that would have been
like around twenty sixteen, and I sort of prolonged my
exposure to them. I also had a lot of other
life stuff going on around this time. It was unclear
to me if I was going to stick with poker.
I got on a very big down swing, and yeah,
I was just sort of going through some growing pains
in my life generally speaking. And then around twenty nineteen
I was like, Okay, I should pursue this. This is valuable,
and I did. And then when COVID hit, I really
got deeper into it. And that was one of the
ways that Land and I bonded because he was using
these tools a lot as sort of part of the
younger generation that grew up with them or grew up
in poker with them, you know, sort of eventually came
to value them, and then I went too far the
other way. And then, you know, I speak from experience
when I say feeling that you know these are our
gospel type truths or the downsides of that rigidity. Those
are all firsthand experiences that I lived and had to
come to terms with, because when you don't know that
they exist, and you come from an era like I did,
where you can ruminate about a hand for a while
and often come to the sort of crux of the decision,
it's like, well, if he would have done this with
as eight, then it's probably you know, a good play,
and if not, then it's a bad play. And the
solvers just give you that right away. So the incredible
power that they contained within that ability to process data
and output solutions, I was like, Wow, this is really cool,
and that really got me excited about exploring them very deeply.
And then yeah, I just went too far with it,
which I've probably done with many things in my life.
And then I you know, found a middle ground and
now I feel that, you know, like with most things,
just finding a balance is healthy.
Speaker 2: For televised poker, we're in a very weird situation where
if it's the cash game, it's organized by a person
and he brings his friends if the stakes are high enough,
and that type of entertainment will get tens of thousands
of people watching in real time, myself included, because of
the unpredictable nature of the characters and the amount of
money that's on the table and you know, all the
little sort of side randomness and factors and drinking and
whatnot that's happening at the table. And then the contrast
to that would be the you know, as some of
people have called it the math contest, you know PGD
event final tables where on day one, and we've shown
this on stream also on day one, it is casual,
it is laid back, people are joking, having fun, and
then when the final table starts, it's quiet and obviously
there's lots of thinking happening, but it is not outwardly.
It is inwardly and it becomes very mechanical. Is this
just how poker is now? Where the cash games give
us a chance to watch peel back to curtain on
what that sort of high stakes world is like. And
then on the contrary, we have the tournament universe, where
the focus is much more so on the who's best
prepared for the situation. And then of course the amount
of money at stake varies from event to events. But
that contrast could not be any bigger.
Speaker 1: Right now now, I completely agree. I'm glad you brought
it up, because I've actually thought about this a lot.
I think the main thing that's going on there is
in cash games, in order to get a seat and
be in that juicy game, you have to be entertaining,
and in poker tournaments there's really no incentive to be entertaining,
you're probably going to decrease your win rate. If anything.
I do like to try. I mean not when I'm
like in hands, I'm quite stoic and focused on the
task at hand, But in general I like to be
social and and just have a good time at the table,
you know, So maybe that's entertaining. It's probably not to
the same extent, especially when juxtaposed with the fact that
during hands I am more focused then players would be
in a cash game. It's just a more competitive environment.
And if that were to shift in some way, if
poker were to, you know, have more exposure or have
higher end sponsors or what have you, you know, I
would be first in line to be happy to Like basically,
if the fans were to vote for who they really
wanted to see, then you'd have a lot more incentive
and there was benefit to being there outside of just
you know, playing the tournament. Is this making sense kind
of thinking about it?
Speaker 2: It's kind of It's kind of like the chicken or
the egg, right, because you have to make it entertaining
first before sponsors are interested.
Speaker 1: That's fair. I don't know how much me shifting the
way I may it would have to be like a
collective effort of course. Yeah, yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: And and by the way, I'm not saying that you
guys should do this, Oh no, I totally understand. I'm
just saying that, like as a pivot point, cash games
do provide those opportunities because the environment is so different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it absolutely is. I think that there's ways to
structure tournaments that if you were to set it up
solely as a product to be entertaining, you could handpick
the field. I mean basically like a TV show. And
I think if you go back to the poker boom,
those tournaments were immensely entertaining. And I think, you know,
probably for most people that came up in that era,
if you ask them what the most entertaining poker content
they've ever seen, they're gonna say WSOP in the early
two thousands, high sakes poker, all the stuff that came
out around that time, well, high stakes poker was a
cash game. But point being, I don't think tournaments are
inherently uninteresting. I just think that they the culture has
evolved to favor the more competitive archetype, and cash games
have not evolved in that way. Is almost a contrary exactly.
Speaker 2: It's almost like if you become good at cash games,
you don't have any games to play.
Speaker 1: Well, that's not entirely true, because there are definitely some
players in any lineup that you could find where you know,
they're very talented players. They just happen to have sort
of you know, met the needs essentially of the players
that are happy to play those games. And yeah, I
mean again, it's just a trade off, you know. It's
just a different way to approach being a professional. Nothing
right or wrong about it, it's just different.
Speaker 2: Do you feel as though the high stake tournament community
has a responsibility towards non professionals to create an environment
that is inviting for them to come and play.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to an extent, definitely. Some people might say no
because they're like, well, they can just not play. But
I think got short sighted and I think it kind
of misses the mark. I mean, at the end of
the day, if enough people stop playing tournaments, tournaments will die.
And there's just every reason to be welcoming and inviting
to all players, but especially the ones that are just
kind of there to have a good time. I mean,
if you're a pro, you clearly want that player in
the field. So I don't like the I'm not sure
even to what extent this is reality versus just sort
of image. Imagine it's in my mind and fabricated. But
like I used to play a lot of cash games
in Vegas. When the game's got more privatized, I just
didn't really want to deal with the schmoozing and the
politics and whatever. I think it's fair to not want
to do that, but to just be like a reasonable person,
just be nice to people that turn up to play cards. Well,
I mean sure, I think that's there's every reason to
do that. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah? No. And I also think that we can't understate,
for those who've never been to the Pogogo studio how
laid back, in casual that atmosphere actually is. That's true, yeah,
which which is like, again, as we talk about contrast,
a big contrast with the politicking of high stakes cash.
Speaker 1: And also a big contrast with the way that the
final tables look when it's like, okay, well you've played
now for twelve hours on day one or whatever, and
then you're at the final table vying for you know,
the real money. So this is a very jovial atmosphere
on the first day, in the first I would say,
the first half of the first day, and it gets
progressively more serious, but it's really always just fun. And
that's one of the reasons I love the new stream format,
the reality TV style format. Yeah, I think it's fantastic.
Speaker 2: Shout out to Donnie for that and Antonio for making
it happen.
Speaker 1: Any love that.
Speaker 2: It's been a fun insight and it attracts the hardcore
fans who just want to see a little more. And
it has that reality TV element to it, which was yeah, funny.
Speaker 1: It's not polished at all, and I get that that's
not going to create the next poker boom, but I
do feel that something that kind of like gets under
the hood a little bit more like Again, I just
look back at those early WSOP episodes and effectively was
a reality TV show and it created a pop culture phenomena.
Right now, there was other things going on, the boom
of online poker, moneymaker himself being such an enigma and winning. Yeah,
there was other factors, but I do think that style
of content, the way it was packaged and created, it
also helped. With the guy that put it together had
nine Emmys so you know that's not gonna hurt, but yeah,
there's just a lot going on there that's, you know,
just very different than what we have now.
Speaker 2: Your poker world, from your perspective that you sort of
operate within, do you feel as though that has gotten smaller?
Like you play at the studio, you have your group
of friends you talk to. Do you still venture out,
do you still like meet new people, go to new places?
And how important do you think that is or could
be in order for you to have a good understanding
of where the poker world as a whole is currently
sitting at.
Speaker 1: It's a good question I would like to think. I mean,
you know, again, always want to think they have clarity
about things, but I would like to think I have
a pretty decent understanding of the way that poker is
seen in the wider world. I am pretty social in
my life generally, and I like talking to people about things.
When I run into people who are familiar with poker,
it is very common that they either know it from
the boom or they follow someone on Instagram that is
like a larger name. Occasionally it'll be like, you know,
like they've seen Wolfgang Shorts on YouTube or yeah, just
a few people on Instagram that you know, just have
larger audiences that you know, may never step foot in
a tournament environment.
Speaker 2: Do you have a good sense of where poker is
right now? Because people love to love to throw these
things at are like, oh this is good for poker,
or oh this if this thing happens, well that's going
to be a game changer. But instead, I think we
often forget to take a step back and appreciate how
poker is sort of intertwined and across all starsian media platforms,
and if people get exposed to it much more than
they've ever been, there's surely a level of saturation when
it comes to the amount of content that's available, which
perhaps fragments attention a little bit. But ultimately for you
as a player, I wonder how you perceive that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that poker obviously it's gone through a lot.
I still feel to some extent that we're living in
the shadows of Black Friday. I don't think we've fully
recovered from that. And that's just because the boom was
such a prolific era where we just don't have that
same kind of atmosphere, not in like a you know, hey,
you're at this table having a good time atmosphere, I mean,
like a sort of meta atmosphere for the way the
game is. I would love to see poker be at
the level of golfer tennis. I don't see why it
can't be. To be honest with you, I have some
ideas of what necessary shifts would be. In some sense,
it would be the style of content that Donnie is
pioneering there. But yeah, I don't I clearly don't have
all the answers.
Speaker 2: Well, what do you what do you if you mentioned
the golf, for example, or other sports, what do you
miss in poker that those sports have? Well?
Speaker 1: I do think luxury sponsors is one, like if you
cater to and poker already does cater to higher net
worth individuals, So to me, it's kind of a mismatch, Like,
why is that not happening? Well, it's because there's not
enough viewers to justify the sponsors giving money to the hosts, right.
The platform is hosting content, So yeah, I mean there's
there's certainly reasons for that. What they are exactly, you know,
I can't say I'm not I'm not in that role,
but I also think i'm less sure about this, and
this would you know, relate to what you're talking about
with tournaments especially, But I do feel that poker, probably
for its growth, is slightly held back by being associated
with gambling. It is basically gambling to a very large extent,
but it also has a distinctly different quality, which is
that it's a mind sport. In my opinion, I don't know,
I could imagine a world in which poker sort of
like again extricates itself from gambling, and there'd be pros
and concept there's going to be trade offs to anything,
but yeah, I feel that could potentially be a you know,
positive thing for the growth of the game.
Speaker 2: Do you think we should be allowed to view poker
as entertainment even though it's a zero sum game, which
in a way can sort of be a contrast to
the entertainment side because there's also losers in poker, which
you know, in golf, if you're a loser, you're still
on the tour, you're still getting paid, and in poker
people show up and put their own money down, which
you know, makes it a different kind of entertainment and
almost more like reality TV.
Speaker 1: Well, not only do I think that it should like
people can't like should be able to view it that way.
I think that's actually the best way to view it,
because people play poker for enjoyment primarily, so I don't
see any reason why watching it shouldn't be enjoyable, just
in the same way that somebody plays golf for fun
watches golf for fun. So I think it's actually just
much healthier if it's you know, experienced in that way.
That being said, if we just sort of go back
to the obvious follow up question, which is like, well,
why are tournament's not enjoyable to watch? I enjoy watching them,
but I understand that they don't resonate with a wider audience.
I think some of that is well, I mean, some
of it's based on the fact that, you know, the
format of streams. They're long, and like people that aren't
hardcore fans, they can't sit down and watch streams for
that long. So yeah, I don't know. Again, I don't
have all the answers, but I've thought about these things
because I love poker. I think it's immensely fascinating. I
think it would be cool if more people were aware
of it, whether or not they ever play a hand,
just being aware of it, I think could be cool.
I think there's implications for education and learning critical thinking
and navigate uncertainty that poker offers. I know there was
one guy I researched this a while ago, many years,
but there was a Harvard law professor who used poker
as a means to sort of help his students understand
decision making. I thought that was super cool, and there's
probably more avenues for which that could be effective or beneficial.
But again, I feel it's you know, when poker has
a close association with gambling, which again, it obviously has
a component of gambling, but I think it's somewhat intellectually
dishonest to assert that it's the same as gambling in
the sense that like Blacktacker roulettea craps would be clearly
it's different. In my opinion, I would presume you agree
with that, but yeah, yeah, of course.
Speaker 2: And I also think that we shouldn't forget to state
that like the Marquee events year round draw a massive
viewership totally. It is just that, you know, to use
other sports as an example, the weekly game that's being
streamed doesn't draw this same way the the you know,
the Masters you know, as if you want to use
a golf analogy will draw, which also makes sense that
there's there's sort of a tail off. But the thing
that I find most fascinating is the and we went
into this already, but the higher floor for a cash
game versus a tournament. And I think that's the biggest
difference that we're seeing in recent years, where I want
to say, prior to the YouTube era, the tournaments were
way more featured and way more popular, and then in
the YouTube era, something has shifted to where cash games
by nature attract personalities within the game that make it
super fun to consume because the narrative doesn't change overnight,
it stays the same within the boundaries of that lineup,
as opposed to the elimination factor of the tournament. So
if you're watching because you're a fan of er Liechtenberger
and he busts in sixth place, then maybe you're tuned
out after that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that's fair. I think that one thing cash
games really do offer in that sense, you know, when
a game is being streamed, cash games move a lot faster,
there's less downtime. I think that's where, again, as like
a poker nerd who in the in like the early
sort of boom era, I was like, Hi, I wonder
what these guys would do with like Jack ten offsuit
in the spot or whatever. The stream is great, you
get to see all that, but I'm not sure that
the casual viewer is going to resonate in the same
sense that you know, someone who's a diehard would be.
So I think that the stream, I would guess streaming
is less favorable for tournament views as a result of that.
That downtime is I think probably why people, you know,
they fairly point out like, hey, we're not interested in this,
Like I mean, you see in the comment sections, right,
people are just what was the term you said? Is
a math contest? Right?
Speaker 2: Math contest?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: By the way, I think I think Alex Foxon used
the term first. So I want to give credit, but
you know, it's not in a negative sense because it
just means that people are, you know, well prepared for
the occasion.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Sure, but it's also you need to have a certain
level of poker understanding to get to get something out
of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think that.
Speaker 2: After more than fifteen years in the game for me
myself and having done tons of commentary. I do find
those very fun and interesting, but they become more fun
and interesting when that environment also has a certain level
of personality to it. So you guys could be playing
exactly the same hands, the same exact way, and then
if you add a Jeremy Becker, who is you know,
making a bit of a show or Nigranu is there
just a name to people that come to mind right away,
that same style of play becomes more fun to watch.
Speaker 1: I totally agree, and I do think that I would
say most of the best players in the studio are
quite entertaining, super entertaining, like Foxen's hilarious Soveral absolutely uproariously hilarious,
Winter's hilarious Becker. Obviously, I mean, yeah, there's many people
that are like, very funny and have a lot of personality,
but when you have a stream that's quite long, those
moments and also, I mean, in fairness, I don't know
that the stream is being put on to capture those
entertaining moments as like, I mean, you'd know better than me,
but it doesn't feel to me like the desire of
those PGT final tables is to capture the entertaining moments.
I'm sure that it's nice when they happen, but the
specific goal is not like, hey, let's encourage I mean,
guess it's not really much you could do to encourage them,
but to capture or highlight them. I think it is
more intriguing for probably most of the people that are
watching tournaments to begin with, and it is the chicken
in the egg, right, we're back there. They probably more
so want to see the sick call or the big
bluff or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that the funny thing that ties
into what you're saying is the fact that fun moments
happen on every stream, but there's not the like you
can't plan for them, and they're they're organic, which is
why the short short form version of it will go
viral because that's like funny, and that's like, yeah, compelling,
But the long form format needs to be compelling in
different ways to keep people watching, which, of course, you
deal with the way the game runs, and that's just
sometimes how that goes, and that's fine totally, and you
can't always hit a home run. Yeah, but I find
it endlessly fascinating to speculate on what formats could be
tested and what sort of tweaks. Could there be to
the point where you know, the regular start protesting like
this is no longer poker.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean these are these are interesting points to
bring up. Far be it from me to say I
know the answer, because I don't. I'm not a nostrodamus.
I don't know if he knew the answers. But like
the model that worked during the boom was basically just
to cut it up and make effectively a reality show.
They had these vignettes. I have a friend who have
talked about this a lot with and if you see
like an America's Got Talent or the Voice type of show,
Shark Tank's a good example. You know, they have like
a person, they show a little bit of stuff like
they do in their life, and then they have like
a key moment or two with them and now they're
a character. You might come back to them, but then
you go to like another vignette. I feel that's a
very digestible format of content for poker, and I think
it suits it quite well because for a long time,
my sister in law actually is a reality TV show producer.
I talked to her a bit about it, and I
asked her like, you know, if I'm playing and like
you put on the stream, like, can you get into it?
She's like no. I'm like yeah, okay, I mean I'm
not surprised. And you know, it's the same with people
that are just casual fans of the game. But if
the content, I understand, it's completely different endeavor. You mean,
you have to go into post production and you have
to like go send someone out to like interview them
and get shots of them on the couch or in
their backyard or whatever. It's completely different. That's not lost
on me. But I do think that that approach is
just more well suited for poker because the sport itself,
if you want to call it a sport, a mind sport,
as I think of it, it doesn't really that easily
lend itself to being entertaining from a spectator standpoint if
you're just watching the raw footage. Could we evolve poker
tournaments or poker in general in a way where you
could get like a stadium of fans. To me, it's conceivable,
but we're kind of not really. To me, that's like
a far fetched goal. At the moment. I think just
getting viewership up and having more people be aware of
pokercause a lot of people that I talk to about poker,
because again, I really do make an effort when I
go out in the world and I, like, you know,
meet people and they say what do you do, and
I say, I play poker. A lot of people cannot
tell the difference between poker and blackjack. To them, it's
just the same thing. It's cards you're betting. I just think,
you know, for starters, that would be cool if there
was a distinction between that in just the public consciousness
of humanity.
Speaker 2: Really or we should stream more Blackcheck for that.
Speaker 1: Intuition in Blackchack could be useful. Who knows.
Speaker 2: I mean we we already have those mixed events, so
I hold them plo, yeah, hold them Blackcheck.
Speaker 1: I mean they run bakara tournaments, right, yeah, why not
slot tournament? You can do it all.
Speaker 2: Andrew Luzeberger, thank you so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate it. And we'll have to start Poker Dads,
the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm down.
Speaker 2: There's so many people that we could have on the show.
Speaker 1: One hundred. Everyone's a dad now, yeah.
Speaker 2: Everybody used to be a twenty one year old basement
kid and everyone has children. It's kind of crazy. It's great,
good evolution. Once again, Andre luiz Berger, thank you so
much for being on the show. You guys at home,
please like the video, subscribe to the channel. We've got
a lot more of these coming in the next couple
of weeks, so stay tuned for more, and for now,
thanks for watching.