I just thought I'd try to put together some random thoughts here, including a little bit of what I'm currently working on. So, here goes:

Harrington gives a really great characterization of poker as a game of partial information. With chess and backgammon, for example, all relevant information is readily visible. It's just a question of who actually has a more profound understanding of the current position.

But with poker, you're always dealing with hidden realities that are only disclosed at showdown. He goes on to explain why he thinks Hold 'em is the "Cadillac of poker": It's just the right balance between accessible and inaccessible realities. With 5-card draw, for example, aside from various "other" tells, all you really know is how many cards the player drew and how he bet. With HE, you have a board that can make various hands in various ways, and, as the hand progresses, an increasing number of "known facts"--namely each card that's exposed. Similarly, actually, in 7-card stud, although there are only 4 cards exposed and 3 hidden.

Anyhow, what results is a kind of communication process, in which players make various claims about their hands, truthful or not. A bet is basically a claim to the effect: I probably have the best hand here. And a raise says that you have a hand better than what is normally bettable, etc.

But all kinds of things can happen in this communication process. One thing is the fairly obvious lie--which in poker is called a bluff. And, particularly in NL, players can either under- or over-represent their hands, whether intentionally or unintentionally, through both betting quantities or by raising hands that don't warrant a raise. Well, there are obviously all kinds of variations on how people communicate their holdings here, so I won't even try to go into even a fraction of them.

I am interested, however, in analysing a bit about how I myself participate in this communication process. Interestingly, I've found that one can do quite well pretty much truthfully representing one's own hand while allowing as much vagueness as possible with regard to just which "good hand" one is betting--semi-bluff, set or TPTK, as main examples. That's clearly enough to beat any of the games I've played, and, actually, beat them fairly soundly--at least if you bring in certain reads about how the other players are "communicating." You do need to know that so-and-so is a chronic liar, so that when he moves in against your TP, he likely has nothing at all. Things like that.

Still, I don't think that's really enough to play the game at a higher level. What I'm working on now is more like making statements designed to provoke responses that will let me know what my opponent has, and that's a very different focus. In a cash game, at least for the moment, I have no intention of doing anything at all except check-fold on a hand that has essentially no potential to win at showdown. But, once involved in a hand, I think it's worth making your bets, raises, and checks in such a way as to gain maximal information about your OPPONENT's hand.

If you can actually do that (and I think it's extremely difficult--from what I've seen, really only the "greats of poker" seem to be able to do it on a regular basis), then you can make a lot of departures from conventional wisdom particularly on the river, where imo the goal should really be knowing exactly what your opponent has (down to at least the relevant facts) as well as how he's going to respond to what kind of river bet.

Anyhow, just some food for thought...

P.S.: I also think making these kinds of river plays pre-supposes having a good deal of mastery over how to represent your own hand accurately. A lot of players try to get involved in emulating Gus Hansen without having a firm grasp of the basics, which are already fairly complex in this game.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond.

When I was playing at the Taj, players literally telegraphed their hands to me by certain tells. While I can't imagine a player like Phil Ivey doing that often, I mean, can anyone actually beat Phil Ivey?

One thing is for certain. This higher level of poker you speak of is not possible to reach while playing online (at least the way current online sites are setup.) There is a reason that Angel only has a handful of live losing sessions but many big wins. He is at that higher level.....but make him play online and he loses much of his advantage.

I think a good book to read about the Philosophy of poker is Zen and the art of Poker. Poker games go in waves and you need to ride the waves. Yesterday I was crushed on every hand that I played. Today I hit my hands and I made a killing on quad jacks.

If yesterday I had recognized the downturn was inevitable I could have save some bucks and be ahead today.

Zen covers this. The ebb and the flow of the game from session to session and during the session.

Someone told me several years ago that the primary goal of poker is not to lose too much. Pull back on your bad days and push hard on you good days. Learn to recognize the signs of an upswing and a downswing. Then react accordingly; like the art of war.

I have noticed a correlation between early bad beats and a bad day; at least for me. The bad beat might put me on tilt and I don't know it. Even though I think I am making good decisions I might not be. Only late do I realize that it was a bad play. Yesterday I had top two crushed by a flopped set of Aces.

The last hand I played yesterday was AA. I was UTG and happy as hell to finally get a good hand. I had lost with KK twice and QQ once.

I just limped hoping for a raise. The next player called as did the BB. The flop was Q high with two small . In the back of my head I knew that I was running bad and was likely to lose this hand. I wanted to get some of my lost chips back so I bet the pot and the next player called. The BB also called. I then surmised that the BB had flopped two pair and the LHP was on a flush draw.

The Turn was the now I had a set but there was a flush out there. My action should have been to check but I bet and was called by both. The river was a blank and I was committed to the pot. I had $9 left and called the LHP bet. He had .

The BB said he was on a FH draw. I told him I had AA.

I played the hand wrong and lost more than I should have. I should have raise preflop and then only the LHP might call. I am sure the BB would have folded. Then on the flop I had to bet so much that the LHP could not call with his draw. I knew that the had the flush on the turn. I lost $40 on that hand where I could have lost less.