As I mentioned to a few of you in Slack, I've been in a bit of a poker rut the past two weeks. No big losses, but a distinct feeling that I had lost my edge, and was haplessly searching for a winning game that had become elusive.
I finally fell back into my groove last night, and as I did, I realized something of a universal poker truth. As subscribers to CLP, we're all trying to improve our game by listening to Bart. IMO it would be fair to say that collectively CLP has made a profound difference in our skill level at the table. I know that's been the case for me. However, IMO it's also fair to say that many of us came to CLP as already winning, or least already competent players. In that regard, there are usually one or two things that each of us does exceptionally well to gain our individual edge, and it's different for each person. Whether it's being an expert at exploiting opponent tendencies like @thehammah
, employing selective aggression like @pokertime
, or the otherworldly hand reading of @bart
, each of us has something unique to offer that's difficult to replicate.
As we work to implement core winning elements like thin value, bet/folding, and barreling specific types of boards, I think it's vitally important that we don't lose what makes each of us effective in the first place. In other words, as much as we study and put CLP's strategies into practice, none of us is going to become Bart Hanson. He has a special talent to piece together several pieces of a puzzle in a short time to create a clear picture. We can improve our ability to do this, but we can't replicate it fully. When we abandon what we do well in the service of that goal, we're destined to have mixed results. My realization was that in order to continue an upward trajectory, it may be most effective to use CLP to build on our foundation of a strong game, rather than necessarily use CLP to replace the foundation itself. Interested in others' thoughts.