New School Versus Old School
- From: "lawhonac@xxxxxxxxxx" <lawhonac@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
I have just started reading another poker book which really has me
scratching my head. The title of this one is: “Kill Everyone:
Advanced Strategies for No-Limit Hold ‘Em Poker Tournaments and Sit-n-
Go’s” by Lee Nelson, Tysen Streib, and Kim Lee. (This book is a
follow-up to an earlier book: “Kill Phil” by Lee Nelson and Blair
Rodman.)
It didn’t take long for me to realize that this book – and the
approach advocated by these authors – is a different cup of tea. It
suddenly became apparent to me why I’m seeing a lot of loose and
“crazy play” over in Tunica – especially among my much younger
opponents: They’ve all been reading “Kill Everyone” - and “Kill Phil”
before it!
The basic “Kill Phil” philosophy, (as best I understand it), is that
players should play a lot of hands (and see a lot of flops) in an
effort to accumulate chips early. In the very first chapter of the
book, (aptly titled “New School versus Old School”), the authors argue
that players who play the “old school” style of poker – the
traditional “tight” style of conservative poker characterized by
patience and rock solid discipline – are doomed to be losing players.
The reason that “tight” doesn’t work – especially in tournaments – is
because the kind of premium hands that an old school player needs in
order to accumulate chips, (i.e. premium hands like AA, KK, QQ, AK and
AQ), don’t come along with nearly enough frequency to make the
accumulation of chips possible. By very aggressively playing small
pairs, connectors (suited or otherwise), and seeing lots of flops with
just about any two cards; the authors argue that a new school player
will double (or even quadruple) his stack early – and have a real
chance of winning the tournament - while the “old school” player gets
left in the dust. To illustrate the legitimacy of their view, they
point out an example where Alan Goehring, playing from under the gun,
limps in with 6-4 offsuit and gets raised by Alan Cunningham who is
holding the AK of clubs. The flop comes 5-3-2 (a perfect flop) and
Goehring winds up taking most of Cunningham’s chips. This is given as
a perfect example of how you win by playing junk and being
“unpredictable”.
It’s really odd the order in which I read my poker books. The day
before I dived into “Kill Everyone,” I had been reading “Your Own
Worst Poker Enemy” by Dr. Alan Schoonmaker. I think it’s safe to say
that Lee Nelson would brand Dr. Schoonmaker (and his approach to
poker) as very “old school”. Dr. Schoonmaker counsels that good poker
players should rely on patience, discipline, and logical analysis –
rather than “feel” or intuition.
I suppose this “New School” versus “Old School” debate will go on for
quite some time, but it seems to me that there are some flaws in the
new school philosophy. I want to keep an open mind about this until I
have read all of “Kill Everyone” and given Lee Nelson’s points a fair
consideration, but there are certain things which immediately jump out
at me. The first thing is something that Alan Schoonmaker points out
in his book. In order to successfully play and execute this “New
School” style, one must be an incredibly gifted poker player. To play
like Gus Hansen, one must have the instincts and ability of Gus
Hansen. Dr. Schoonmaker points out – probably correctly – that 99.75
percent of poker players do not have the uncanny (virtually
clairvoyant) people reading skills of a Gus Hansen. (I imagine a lot
of poker players who practice the new school philosophy think they’re
Gus Hansen, but they’re really not.) That’s number one: Successfully
playing (and executing) the Kill Phil strategy requires a player with
exceptional abilities. I think Dr. Schoonmaker is right when he
points out that successfully playing this highly intuitive style is
very difficult – and probably very easy to screw up and get wrong.
Another flaw I see is that new school players, as a group, must have
higher volatility. Pushing and going all-in in the first level with a
pair of pocket 2’s means one of two things: You either double-up quick
or bust out early. For every ten tournaments in which a typical “new
school” player aggressively pushes pocket pairs, I wonder how many
times that pair of 2’s (or pair of 5’s) gets called by Aces or Kings
and goes down in flames? What is the difference between this and just
gambling? Also, in the Alan Goehring example cited above, how often
does a player who routinely plays quality garbage – like 6-4 offsuit –
get a perfect flop? I suspect that new school players can run
roughshod over very passive players, but tougher players will make
them pay for routinely playing cards like 6-4 offsuit.
Assuming that you just happen to be an exceptionally gifted and
talented player – like Gus Hansen or the late Stu Ungar – and play
this new school style; that is still no guarantee of victory. I don’t
know if David Chiu is “old school” or “new school,” but he got heads-
up with Gus Hansen in the recent WPT Championship and managed to
overcome a 5:1 chip deficit to win the tournament. I don’t have the
GSN cable channel, but I suppose it will be really interesting to see
if this was a clash between the new school and old school playing
styles. (Maybe some folks on here know which school David Chiu
belongs to.)
I will freely admit that new school players are difficult to play
against, but I also believe that their style is very high risk and
vulnerable to exploitation by very disciplined play. Maybe my view
will change as I work my way through Lee Nelson’s book, but I’m
staying with “old school” for the time being.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New School Versus Old School
- From: Irish Mike
- Re: New School Versus Old School
- From: Flushed
- Re: New School Versus Old School
- From: croupe
- Re: New School Versus Old School
- From: Travel A
- Re: New School Versus Old School
- Prev by Date: Re: RGPLeague2008 - who's in today? 29th June (money added)
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Interesting stat from the US Women's Open
- Previous by thread: OT: Interesting stat from the US Women's Open
- Next by thread: Re: New School Versus Old School
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
