The Fezzik Principle

Way back in 1987, perhaps the best fantasy/melodrama film ever was made. It had fighting, fencing, ships, pirates, torture, and of course, true love. The Princess Bride is a classic, plain and simple. But did you know that you could also learn about poker from this movie? It is true!

For those who have never seen it, one of the characters is named Fezzik. We was played by Andre the Giant and as written in the book, IS a giant. His strength is legendary throughout the world. The hero of the film, Westly (at the point of the forthcoming action is only known as the Man in Black), is pitted against Fezzik in a match of strength. Being no match for Fezzik physically, Westly uses his speed and agility to duck beneath Fezzik's massive fists, get behind him and then jumping up on the giants back and puts him into a choke hold. It is at this point where Fezzik explains why he seems to be having difficulty fighting the man in black and from this explanation, we can learn something about poker. I'll paraphrase here...I looked for the exact quote online, but couldn't find it.

Westly has Fezzik in a choke hold and Fezzik is explaining why he is losing the fight while trying to dislodge Westly. His speech goes something like, "I just figured out why I'm having such a problem fighting you. I used to fight gangs, you know, for local charities." Westly asks why that would make a difference to which Fezzik (as he loses consciousness) says, "you use different moves when you are fighting a lot of people than when you only....have...to worry....about....one (he falls and presumably goes on to dream about very large women).

Now how can this be applied to poker? The other day in the conversation regarding whether tss should move up in stakes or not, someone mentioned that moving up in limits is tougher than moving down. Thus if your normal games is 3/6, then you could always play in a 2/4 game, but may not be able to hack it in a 5/10 one. I think this is a commonly held viewpoint, but one which I think Fezzik points out is incorrect.

Different levels of games have different traits. In the very low limit games (.25/.50 and below), they are generally very loose where it is common for several people to see the flop and showdowns are frequent. By the time you get to the 1/2 level, people are tightening up some, but many people still see too many showdowns. A lot of times 2/4 games are the tightest around (or at least used to be back when there were tons of people working only on bonus whoring) with few people seeing flops or showdowns. 3/6 again changed with games slightly looser. 5/10 is probably looser still, but with even fewer people going to showdown than in other levels.

So, each level has different traits and to be successful, you have to learn those traits and figure out which moves work at various levels. If you learned the game at .25/.50 where there are lots of people in the pot and every hand went to showdown, then moving up to tighter games will be difficult (and this supports the thought that it is easier to move down than up) But the reverse is also true. If you learned to play at the 2/4 level where games are tight and you are normally only dealing with a single opponent or maybe one other, and then drop to the 1/2 or .5/1 game, you are going to get clobbered. Likewise, even if you learned the game at the .5/1 level or 1/2 level and have proceeded to the 5/10 level and are now used to that level, it is MORE difficult to either drop down to the old game or play in a 5/10 game that resembles a 1/2 game than it is to move up to an 8/16 game which plays very similarly to 5/10. This is the Fezzik Principle. You use different moves against multiple players than you do against just one. When dropping down levels or encountering a game that plays like it is a different level, you have to dust off those old moves lest a skinny guy dressed in black jumps up on your back and throttles you.


OK...not really all that revolutionary of a principle, but how many times does one get to learn a poker lesson from a campy movie?

Osric,

You I believe are right on the money. It isnt that one level is easier or not but that each level is different. Last night I was sitting next to a guy who normally plays in the 100-300 game at my casino. He just got hammered at our table (40NL) because it is so much looser. He tried to play tight but under bet his high pairs and wouldnt call raises with med hands that might play well in multiway pots.

Even though I dont win all the time at the 40 game I like the action as I think this is a better game to learn since so many players are in at a time it really tests your skill! He was telling me that the 100-300 game was better because it was more predictable. Not really, he was a tight player and therefore the tighter 100-300 game fit his playing style.

I am also a tighter player but playing at the loose game helps me become a bit more loose as well as forcing me out of my comfort zone to become a better player. I know prefer playing at the 40NL game where hands like suited connectors, big flush draws and the like are more profitable then the off hand Aces or Kings you might get every once in a while.

Inconcievable!

Okay. Not really. O, I can speak some to your Fezzik's Principal about my experience. Despite a recent slide, I rate my jumping from the $5 to the $10 MTT SNG ranks a patent success. The reason for this success has nothing to do with bad beats. Getting bad beat is the long term bread and butter because that means you are getting your money in good.

Wendy and you have both danced around the reason I have been more successful. It is the different strategy that works at different levels. It is not the elimination of bad beats. For me, it's the elimination of bad calls. You can read a table and know an opponent is weak. In the $5, you try to bet them off of the hand and they just won't lay down their pocket deuces when the board shows an open ended four straight, 4 to a flush, and KQJT showing. So when I see this weakness and try to take the pot with my 67 off, they won't budge. In some bizzaro world, pocket 2's in the nuts on this board. So, in one sense it is a good call by them because making the call wins them the hand. In another sense, it is a terrible call because they'll go broke very quickly making that call.

Moving up to the $10 ranks, the players are a little more predictable and won't make the bad call (Again, not bad beat - bad call) as often. So what is the difference - well it depends upon the style you want to play, your skill set, and variance.

Because of the "bad calls" you need to catch more hands in the lower levels. It makes cashing while card dead more difficult, but in the long run you will be profitable if you play a strategy catered to this. The higher level, you can make more plays. You can win without as good of cards consistently.

For me, winning is not quite the ultimate thing. Sure, I need to win more than I lose to give me enough to keep on playing. But I still consider myself in my formative stages. I am trying to learn and get better. Playing ABC wait for hands and beat donks is sometimes fun, but I had stopped learning. Stepping up, I can experiment again with reading people and making plays without being punished as much by bad calls...

Hope that makes sense to you O...

Tss I think there is one difference in what O and Hammah are saying and what you are saying-they seem to be talking ring games and you seem to be talking tourneys.

As to the ring games I agree with O and Hammah and here is why; Todd as you know I had recently switched to cash games from tourneys for reasons I wont get into here, and I started at the .25/.50 level. I had some decent succes and played several thousand hands there. Now I went on a really bad run of beats and decided to rebuild at lower levels like the .05/.10 and .10/.25. While they are similar in style of play, even these levels have different requirements needed to beat the game. I am having very little success at the nickel/dime and dime/quarter games compared to my states at .25/.50. Why? Because it is a different animal and I didn't (althought struggling to) adapt correctly.

I think the tourneys that you are speaking about you may see what you are stating, less bad calls, better level of play and awareness, one that will allow you to bluff more successfully because the others at the table are keen enough to see what you are representing and lay down a seemingly lesser hand. And I would agree with you there as well. You are right about that.

I guess this is all to say I agree with both the Fezzik principal and your statements of better players at higher levels allows for better moves and plays.

Now the question still remains to be answered and I think it is something that only the individual can answer........are bad calls in lower levels a good reason to move up? It depends on whether ring games or tourneys are in question here, and of course your own level of play and maturity. If you are not mature enough to handle bigger swings in ring games then the answer is no; but that may be different in tourneys as the swings are not near as big.............so the great and final answer is............IT DEPENDS!!!!!!!

Bad calls are a reason to move up for one reason only

BAD CALLS PISS YOU OFF AND TAKE YOU OFF YOUR GAME!


If bad calls didnt bother you because you were raking it in otherwise -who cares??? But if they DO bother you then your playing style may not fit the type of game your playing at that level.

Also I was talking about cash ring games. Tournies are another animal completely.

The underlying principle is the same for all of our comments, ring or tourney - you need different strategies for different levels. Either you need to adjust your strategy to the level you are playing or adjust your level to the strategy you are playing.

So, if you don't want to adjust your strategy, then there is a definite argument for adjusting your level (up or down depending).

Wendy,

Disagree. I'm trying to learn a strategy that is more creative. I still want bad calls, but a different level of bad calls. The low level lend themselves to very straightforward wait for a hand and bet the heck out of it style. Once you can do that, they do not necessarily lend themselves well to spotting and attacking weakness - unless of course you don't mind having the satisfaction of knowing - yep, I read that weakness right as you register for the next tournament from the rail...

I went up in level on the limit games because I was so bad I needed a tighter game to have fun and win some $$$

I have played both 20,40,80, 100-300 NL games and the lower the limit the looser and crazier the game. I see alot of the same players at my 40NL game and they seem to really enjoy the "action" as apposed to "boring" 100NL games and above.

I actually find 40NL a harder game because it is less predictable. Most of the time I sit and wait for a good hand drawing or otherwise and do exactly what you just said-I pounce and the players just call call call.

But sometimes I run up against a really really good player that can do this as well as read everyone like an open book. I am striving to get to this level but as anything it is a work in process. He picks his spots perfectly and can bluff or call with the best of someone. One guy at my Monday Casino is like this and I have yet to figure him out. He could easily play in a bigger game but I think the pickings are just too sweat to leave the 40 game.

I am ok with a bad beat in general because in NL I have the opportunity to take control of my own destiny by betting to limit the field or for value. This isnt so easy in a low limit structured game. This sense of control is they key to my happiness at poker. Even with the bad beats, I can feel good about the way I played. In limit games I always felt out of control and completely frustrated that no matter what I did someone was always there to take advantage.

I hope this makes sense?? That's why I cant play limit anymore and try and stick with 40NL or 100-300NL games.

I think you guys need to write a book because nothing I've ever read purports moving up or down in limit to avoid bad beats. I think you may be on to something even though I tend to disagree with that thinking as I've said. LOL.

Please, fill out Fezzik principle poll.