The Fezzik Principle

I think there is some value to speaking in general terms about play at different levels, but I think we need to be careful in assuming that players will play tighter at higher levels and looser at lower levels. While there is little doubt that is true I think it is more important that we be able to identify the styles of the individual opponents we are playing against in each tournament. You are likely to run in maniacs if $5 or $10 tourneys, play with a table full of rocks, or a bunch of calling stations, so you better be ready to adapt your style to whoever else is at the table. Sure, there are more bad calls at low stakes, but if you find someone with maniacal tendencies at in a high limit game then a good player should be prepared to exploit that.

The bottom line is that I agree with the principle that you should be careful about your preconceived notions about play at a certain level and be prepared to employ the appropriate strategy for the players you find yourself against. Play at a level that is comfortable to build your bankroll, but don't leave holes in your game that could cost you in the long run.

I watched the Princess Bride tonight with some friends. I thought of this post and asked the audience (non-poker players) to interpret Fezzik's scene. Basically, I asked, first, do you believe Fessik, that he is struggling only because he has been fighting mobs? Second, do you believe that he would beat Wesley, if he had been better prepared?

My interpretation has always been that the Fessik principle is a very apt poker analogy, but for the EXACT OPPOSITE reason Osric originally picked out. I interpret Andre Giant's line in the movie as a terrible, unbelievable cop-out a giant is using to rationalize his lost to a much more skilled fighter. And I think a poker player that says he can't beat lower limits is using an equal terrible excuse for just not being very good. I don't think if Fezzik had been doing duels the six months prior to confronting Wesley that he would have won, and equally, I don't think you can take a low a limit player and move him to a higher limit and expect them to do better. I think the opposite is true though, if you take a high limit player and move him to a low limit, he will do better. Fighting many people at once is HARD, much harder than fighting one person. Beating 10/20 online, is hard, much harder than beating .25/.5, there is very little mitigating against that. To me, "I'm used to fighting many people...the moves you use are different" = "I need to move up where people will respect my raises."

I can't believe I never commented on this post. Guess it's good I finally got this off my chest.

I too need to implant my paw prints in this epic post (despite the source being Osric) if for no other
reason then Fezzik is Andre the freakin Giant!!!!

That said any movie comparisons aside, it's always been a cornerstone of my beliefs that moving up
so people fold more often, respect my bluffs........etc etc never turns out well in the end. If you're losing
in the micros and low's the only thing moving up to the mids or highs will do for you is make your seat
more comfortable with your newly thinner wallet.

I don't entirely agree with you wags. Having put enough hands in from 25-50 cent tables to 25-50 dollar tables, I can safely that the play at the higher dollar tables is significantly different than the play at the lower cent tables. From a statistical approach (vpip, pfr, cold call, 3b, f3b, etc.) the best players at 25 50 dollar often have similar stats to the worst players at 25-50 cent. That, I attribute to the high dollar tables being about fear. Fold equity is a huge key and the best players are playing without fear, raising more and calling more (in general). At 25 50 cent, there are very few people in the world playing this stake for a living. Their play isn't about putting bread on the table. It's about either learning or having fun or trying to move fun. The fun bunch are the gamblers they are raising and calling more cause they want to have fun.

My point is this: different levels need a different approach and an approach at a low level might work better at a higher level and vice-a-versa. Now all that said, I will now agree with your conclusion. If you CANNOT adapt your approach to win at a lower level, then bringing your fixed approach to a higher level is more often than not going to have disasterous results. In the end, poker at any level is best played by ADAPTING to beat your opponents and as you go higher, in general, your opponents will also be better at adapting to beat their opponents (aka you). In the end, the most important skill is finding tables and seats where you are better than your opponents.

One other thing - I don't think skill level is a directly positive slope as the buy in increases. I find 1-2 to be easier to beat than .5 -1 because of two reasons. First, 1-2 is a popular destination. Recreational live poker players most often play 1-2 NL because that is the most commonly offered stake so the rec players seem to land here a little more online as well, making the level easier than .5 - 1 in my experience. Further, I find 2-4 to be one of the toughest levels because it seems the successful 1-2ers move up here and the level is littered with winners where levels like 3-6 and 5-10 seem to have more bad players.

Oh - I forgot 1 more thing. Another important consideration is the rake. Once you get to .5-1 and above, there is a real chance some pots will max out the rake (generally $3 rake at $60 pot for the popular sites). The higher the stake, the more likely to max out the rake. The more likely to max the rake, the lower the percentage of the pot is that is raked. This in turns means the house is winning fewer big blinds, big bets, whatever you want to measure it as per hand. Since the house is winning less, that means the overall table result is losing less which means it can be more likely you are in the winning column.

AGAIN, all that said, I am NOT advocating you move up in stake for any reason other than you are putting yourself in a winning situation at a higher stake - because your skill has increased or because of a particular situation where your opponents skill will be worse.

Tss,

Do you agree with Fezzik's statement? If you take a good one on one fighter and have him fight mobs for six months, will he be a worse one on one fighter afterwards?

I'm not sure exactly what you are going for here. But to extend the analogy, if you've honed your craft and are an equal fencer to Inigo Montoya, but then you spend 6 months fighting, say, mobs of zombies (inconceivable!) with your sword, and then go back to fight Inigo again (or maybe even the 6 fingered man!), you'd probably get your butt whipped from because of habits you developed that allowed you to defeat your feabler but more numerous enemies.

That said, I'm not sure what bearing that has on poker.

No need to try to guess the relation to poker. Andre the giant says that he lost some portion of his skill fighting one on one, because he's been fighting so many mobs lately. (He wasn't sword fighting. He wasn't playing chess.) Do you believe him? I think we could extend the question... Do you believe he'd have fought better without the mob fighting? And do you believe he'd have beaten Wesley without the mob fighting?

I'm curious about your interpretation of the movie first. It doesn't have to have any bearing on what you believe about poker.

If I were to take it as a serious movie then no, I do not believe he would do better against Wesley and say 10 other guys than he did against just Wesley.

And for this particular skill - fighting by hand - no I don't believe fighting mobs would make you worse at fighting individuals. Eventually there's one guy left in the mob you have to bear, right?

At least we can agree on the movie interpretation. Even Wesley seems stunned, "Why would that matter?" is his reply to the giant. Kind of how I feel, whenever someone tells me why they can't be some fish, "But he never folds!"

I guess the question is just then, when you play higher stakes is it more like fencing or fighting mobs. I agree that fighting mobs requires different moves, but those skills are mostly complementary to fighting one person. Just like I agree with your post that the limits play differently, I just tend to think the skills are mostly complementary. I even think playing heads up, which requires many "different moves" would be incredibly complementary to playing ring games. It requires you to think deeply about ranges, actions and flop textures that should certainly be complementary to a ring game.

At the end of the day, I guess I just think moving up is more like fighting mobs, and you tend to think it's more like fencing.