New book

 

I haven't read this new book by Matt Matros, but with The Mighty Deuce-Four on the cover, it must be good! 

Poker gems, #458

Matt Matros, in Card Player magazine interview, July 11, 2012 (vol. 25, #14), page 34. Deep into a World Series of Poker event earlier this summer, he got all in with K-K versus an opponent's A-K, and lost the massive pot when an ace fell on the river.

There are going to be times when you go from the big stack to the short stack for reasons outside of your control and hopefully you've been through it enough to make a quick mental adjustment, shrug it off and continue to play your best. Having said that, I don't think I've ever experienced anything quite so drastic. Had I won that pot, I would've been the chip leader with about 1 million while second place held only 300,000. Instead, I was left with a below average stack.... I was a little shaken, but I started to look at the positives. I told myself that I was still in the hunt with 30 players left [out of] a massive field. Chances like that don't come around everyday [sic], so I could either sit back and complain about my bad luck, or really try to make the most of the opportunity.

[Matros recovered and went on to win the tournament ($1500 6-max no-limit hold'em), his third bracelet in three years.]

Poker gems, #415

Matt Matros, in Card Player magazine column, April 20, 2011 (vol. 24, #8), page 58.

A lot of players are married to the idea that they can avoid marginally profitable, high-risk situations because they are skilled enough to select only highly profitable lower-risk situations. I also thought this way for a while. It was only when I chose to view myself as an average player, and to be satisfied that I was taking advantage of every profitable situation available, that I became a good tournament player.

What game is this?

Matt Matros, in his Card Player column for the July 14 issue, writes about his starting table at a limit hold'em tournament, event #12 of this year's World Series of Poker:

Another player was upset because at the 75-150 limit [Level 2], his opponent had bet the "max" of 150 and forced him to fold. "So, 150 is the max, right? I'm not allowed to raise him or anything?"

(To come slightly--but only slightly--to his defense, I've long thought that the terminology of "limits" for fixed betting amounts was both wrong and potentially misleading. But this is the first I've heard of somebody actually verbalizing a misunderstanding of the concept.)

This reminds me of all the times I've seen a player sit down at a table and not know what the game is. There are, of course, occasional instances of somebody trying to get to one particular game, hitting the wrong table, and quickly realizing his mistake. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about players who sit down with the right kind and number of chips, play for a while, and then eventually ask something mind-boggling, such as, "Is this limit or no-limit?"

Several times I have jotted down a note to myself to write a blog post about these airheads, but then I get home and can't think of anything appropriate or funny or insightful to say about such situations. In fact, I still can't. I'm just completely dumbfounded that people can buy hundreds of dollars in chips, sit down at the table, play for an orbit or two, and then still not know what game they're playing. Indeed, what can one say about such people, beyond that they are moronic?

Still, gotta give Matros credit for one-upping me on such tales. Buying into a World Series of Poker tournament and not knowing even the basics of the game's structure and rules is a level of mental opacity well beyond sitting ignorantly in a cash game for a while. I remember a couple of years ago there was a guy in a WSOP razz event who apparently thought it was straight stud--or at least played as if did, going for high hands instead of low hands--baffling and/or amusing everybody watching. (Sorry, I can't quickly find the write-ups of his antics.)

I am frequently reminded that people are capable of whole orders of magnitude of stupidity beyond what I expect. As I have said before, the First Law of Stupidity states that there is always more stupidity in the world than you think. The Second Law of Stupidity states that, even after you take the First Law of Stupidity into account, there is still always more stupidity in the world than you think.

Poker gems, #228

Matt Matros, in Card Player magazine column, March 25, 2009 (vol. 22, #6), p. 84.


I believe there are at least a hundred people playing poker today, any of whom would've been the best player in the world 10 years ago.

Poker gems, #5

From Matt Matros, The Making of a Poker Player (2005), pp. 72-73:

The first few months after Yale were otherwordly. I was supposed to be this educated intellectual, but I didn't feel like one. I thought I had wasted four years without accomplishing anything, with my best days behind me. Although this sulking was foolishness, it wasn't foolish to me then. This period was the first of several since I took up the game that poker got me through an upheaval. It's ironic that a game of constant bankroll swings, changing fortunes, and uncertainty would be a stabilizing influence, but it has been. Why? Because I love the game. I love analyzing hands and determining the best way to play them. I love taking money from people who think they are better than everyone else. I love meeting brilliant game theorists and calling them friends. I love the rush of making the final table of a tournament. I love having $2,000 in chips in front of me. I love winning a hand. I love that the next hand is a minute or so away. I love figuring out exactly what a person is thinking.