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