: Nice, I've always respected your play.

What path did you take to get to where you are and how did you start out? i.e. did you grind up from the low limits and how long did that take you. Also what do you feel was your toughest limit to beat as you were moving up and why. J-man: I started with sitngos. I played them for 1.5 years. I started with $50 at $10 sngs (which is too high). I lost and redeposited $50. I found HPFAP by Sklansky and then found 2+2. I slowly moved up, playing $30 sngs for a loooong time. I actually was way overrolled for them and made the leap from $30 to $100 for some reason. A while later I was doing very well at the $100s and $200s when Party started running $1k-$5k tournaments. I took a couple shots at these and ran very well. Actually, I realize now that I ran pretty well for the first 2 years I played poker. Had I run normal or badly, I might not have redeposited again and again and might've never gotten to the point I'm at now. Anyways, Apathy told me that I should try cash games (He played sngs with me for a while) so I sat down at 5/10nl to try my luck. I had no idea what I was doing. There's very little postflop play in SNGs. Luckily I was a huuuuuge nit from playing SNGs, so I actually made some money since there were so many stations on Party Poker at the time. I started to read the cash forums and study more. I also hired coaches. I was coached by whitelime briefly, Tommy Angelo, and a well known tourney player who doesn't like to be talked about. The coaching helped me a lot. It mostly got me to break outside of the box and realize that rules and formulas weren't the best way to play deepstack nlhe. (SNGs they are) I started beating 5/10 for about 5.5pt over a good sample size. I had trouble with 10/20 for a while adjusting to aggressive players. Eventually I moved up and could beat 10/20. Right around before PP closed to US players, I started playing on FTP and UB. I had terrible BR management. One time when I had an 80k roll, I played 25/50 and 50/100 on UB with 15k in my account, ran it up to 105k, and then lost it all over the span of 2 days. That summer, which was the summer before last, I lived in Vegas with who you might know as the SIHBs. I learned so much that summer. OMG I learned so much. Talking to people about poker who know what they're talking about is amazing. Watching them play and discussing every possible line you can take. It improved my game so much. Around that time I took the occasional shot here and there at 25/50 on FTP. I found one huge fish who loved to play me. I ended up playing him at 50/100 and ran terribly. I remember one hand where I reraised his minraise to 900 with KQo. He called. I bet like 1400 on the flop of 632r, he called. Turn 3o, I checked. He potted for like 4800 or whatever with 4500 behind. He was floating flops a lot and playing.... basically I was sure he wouldn't play a strong hand that way. I shoved for his last 4500. He tanked forever and called with 1 sec left and KJo. Valuetown!!!!!! J river. That was the same night that good2cu got owned by Wayne Newton at the Bellagio at 25/50. It was actually a funny night. I lost about half my roll that summer, mostly to that one fish. Overall though, it was a great summer. I improved so much. I stepped back and grinded 5/10 for a long time. I won a bunch and slowly moved up. The next time that I took a shot at 25/50 and 50/100, it stuck, and I played big ever since. That was a little over a year ago I think. I've had up and downs since, but nothing else super notable in my journey to where I am now. That summer completely changed my future in poker. I had all the skills naturally, but it took meeting the right people to bring them out IMO. All of the guys in the house helped me a ton. Meeting Tom (durrrr) was a huge part of my move to high stakes play. He opened my mind to thinking about situations completely differently. I remember one time when he was discussing a hand with h@ll in front of me, where he had something like weak top pair and was facing a big river bet. He was like, 'I think a call is better than a fold' and I thought to myself, 'yeah I

agree' and then he said 'but I would shove' and I exploded. I realized that you should think of every possible option you have in nlhe. You usually have a ton of them. I also met Dan (Unarmed on 2p2) that summer. He lived in the house and coincidentally met a girl the previous year who lived in Madison, WI, where I live. He moved in with her, and we hung out a lot. He would come over, set up his laptop on my 3rd monitor, and we'd play for 8 hours and talk about hands. I know Dan is fairly unknown in the poker world, and he's 'only' a 10/20 player, but I can say without a doubt, Dan has taught me much more about poker than anyone or anything else. If you are near someone who plays poker and is smart, spend as much time around them as you can if you want to improve your game. Q: List some of your poker "epiphanies" that you have had over the past several years. what do you think your best strengths are as a player? your weaknesses? JMan: I'll probably miss a bunch of epiphanies I've had. Maybe if I searched through my old posts it would help, but I'm trying to get through these questions. I'll come back if I think of anything else. I just posted about the time that durrrr made me realize that you have more options than you think you do. Thinking outside the box, turning made hands that are good enough to call into bluffraises that turn out to be even more profitable, cbetting 1/3 pot in a rr pot, etc. One thing that occurred to me at some point was how to use your style/image and balance your range accordingly. I started out being pretty nitty before realizing that I could use my image to bluff. Then I started to get called down. I got angry, like 'I'm so tight, how can they call!?!' before figuring out what my ranges really consisted of in certain spots. I was a nit and not making thin 3 street vbs. So when I bet 3 streets, I had two pair+ and bluffs pretty much. If you are a player who doesn't make very thin value bets, you have to bluff less, otherwise your range will be weighted heavily towards bluffs when you're pounding on the pot. It made me think about how I can create an image for myself. I made a post once in HSNL about a thought which helped me a lot. It basically was the idea that every time the action is to you, it's an opportunity for you to make the perfect play. Thinking about poker that way is great for your game. Lastly, I've realized that working out regularly helps your game more than you might think. I highly recommend it. Strengths? I think I have as good a mental skillset for the game as possibly anyone. I think the three most important areas of intelligence in regards to poker are logic, probability, psychology. They actually are pretty close in order of importance, and change depending on game structure.I think I excel in all three of those areas. There are players who can calculate probabilities better than me, but almost all of those players don't understand people as well or have as firm a grasp on logic as I do. Many who are strong in player psychology are very weak in the other areas. You get the point. I don't think that I'm the best poker player in the world, but I think I could possibly have the best mind in these areas combined. I think because of this, I'll always be successful at poker since these are things that are more naturally occurring than teachable.

Weaknesses I think my main weaknesses are personality based. I'm an underachiever. I'm lazy. I can't do any hard work unless I'm extremely interested in it. Luckily I'm interested in certain aspects of poker, so I'm able to work on it. However I don't spend any time going through PT, checking my hands for mistakes, going over hands to take notes on players, calculating my equity vs. ranges of hands (except when I have to write an article about it), etc. I also don't have the right overall personality for poker. I'm a very passive person by nature. I don't like to cause trouble or upset people, and I'm very non-confrontational. I absolutely believe that your personality affects the way you play poker. It took me a very long time to push my level of poker aggression to the point it is at now, still a bit lower than it should be IMO. I also am very indecisive in real life. I'm afraid to make a mistake and I always fear the worst might happen. This translates to me misplaying hands, erring too far on the side of minimizing losses and not enough on the side of maximizing gains. If I reraise AQ and get called, cbet A98r flop, and the turn is a J, my first thought is '****, what if he has AJ or QT?!' A lot of times it causes me to play the hand much more passively than I should. My default move when I get scared like this is to call a lot, hence my reputation. I have to be focused to catch myself and use my logic to overpower my tendency to shut down and play from behind. I guess another one of my strengths is that I'm self aware. Some more strengths/wekanesses I thought of: I do get upset when I lose a lot, like most people, but I almost always wake up the next morning and am 100% fine. I don't know why it happens to me, but I'm very thankful that I can do it. I'm also not as overconfident as most players (I guess this is just my opinion obviously, but I'm right). This is kind of a strength and a weakness. It makes me get upset with myself easier because I relentlessly question myself as a player when I lose. It's bad to lack confidence when you play. On the other hand, since I question myself a lot, I often improve my game and don't go on autopilot very much. I see a lot of players, once they reach the top, just assume that they have it all figured out and seemingly stop trying. Q: Simple situation but I just wanted to address the logic behind 3betting a hand like KQ or AJ pre-flop against a normal TAG without history - is playing a big pot OOP against a normal TAG's 3bet calling range going to be profitable with these hands? (not implying it isn't necessarily) As for flop - doesn't c/raising and jamming turn if he flats let him play his top pair or overpair hands perfectly against you? Whereas bet/3betting isn't great since he will likely be commited with any hand that raises your donk unless he's bluffing or messing around with mid pair or something. JMan: Against some players, you're 3betting to get them to call with worse hands. Against some, you're 3betting just because they fold a lot and you'd rather take down the pot or find out you're behind than play a hand OOP (Also these hands strengthen your 3betting range so it isn't just junk and monsters). Against some players who 4bet a lot with a balanced range, and don't call quite light enough, it's better to call hands like these.

As for the flop, you're thinking about it wrong I think. You're thinking that he's gonna play his overpair perfectly. You're right. It's pretty easy to play an overpair in spots like these. You aren't gonna make money very often with a draw OOP v an overpair. bet/3betting and c/r'ing (c/c too) are to get money out of (or fold out) other hands in his range. You're trying (with the more aggro plays) to either get it in with worse draws, fold out as many made hands as possible, or get it in flipping. You might opt to c/c against some players who will either define their hand on turn and let you bluff the river often, or who might rep the flush and bluff off their stack if it hits. Q: Why did you seek out coaching with Tommy Angelo, and what was it like? JMan: I decided at one point that it made so much sense to get a coach. I realized that I might be playing poker for a long time, so a slight boost in hourly rate would end up being a ton of money. I made a post in hsnl (i think) saying I was looking for a coach. EL D basically said Tommy /end thread. A couple people agreed and I went with him. The experience was overall very very good but not at all what I expected or thought I wanted. It sounds like a line from a movie, but I like to say that Tommy didn't teach me the things I wanted to learn, but he taught me the things I needed to learn. A lot of people don't get the most out of coaching because they ask the wrong questions. I think a program like Tommy's, where he sets out a lesson plan and tells you what he knows you need to learn is much better. I know I've written about the experience in detail somewhere. If anyone can find it, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise remind me later in the thread to look for it somewhere. Q: What do you think you do better (in poker) than anyone in the world? JMan: Call? I don't really know tbh. I guess just the things I listed in response to jfish's questions about my strengths. Actually, I have one. I think I can understand and adjust to players very well. I can figure out how they think, and logically deduce the way to counter it pretty quickly. Actually, here... I've written a bunch of 'unreleased' stuff for a project I was working on. This is part of a series about adjusting to specific player types (this one is adjusting to the bad lag) "I teach improvisation, and one thing that I've leaned from improv that carries over nicely to poker has to do with character work. When developing a character, you have to get inside their head. A character is much more than an occupation, hobby, voice or posture. The most important thing to think about is a character's motivation: what that person wants. In poker, every player has personal motivations. They're more than the hands they 3bet preflop, their bet sizes, or how well they understand pot odds. Through watching their play, you can get a general feel for what they want, what they fear or worry about, what they are comfortable/uncomfortable with. Most importantly, you get a feel for what they want, at their core. From there, you can better understand how they will react in certain situations and why. These are generalizations, but are true for most people who play these ways. You can find out more specific details about a player's personality by paying attention. For instance, in the most simple sense, a nit is afraid of losing a lot of money with the worst hand. They're uncomfortable in big pots with marginal hands. They often fear coin-flipping for

a lot of money. The loose passive player usually plays for fun. He wants to see flops and wants to showdown his hand. He wants to see if the cards in his hand can match up with the cards on the board, or if they're good enough to rake in a pot. He wants to see your hand. So let's talk about the bad LAG. The Bad LAG wants to win THIS POT. RIGHT NOW. Anytime he gives up on a pot it's because he's holding himself back. He likes to gamble, and usually doesn't mind getting his money in without proper odds. He often (but not always) has pride issues, meaning he wants to show you how big of a man he is. If he trash talks, you can be especially confident that he has pride issues. This means that he very badly doesn't want to be bluffed off of a pot or miss an opportunity to bluff himself. It also means that if you have any history with him, whether you won a big pot, showed a bluff, got bluffed by him, really anything, he's more likely to bluff you or call you down light. So those are his main character traits. What else does he do differently?" Q: My Q is how do you decide optimal bluffing frequency, i read your "gbucks" article and im trying to employ a few of the concepts into (50nl and 200/500nl live ) my game but i just wondered how you decide how often you are gonna bluff particular opponents? I tend to bluff a lot of rocks using a game theoretic style, ( betting pot sized 33% air, 67 % nuts) and at the mo got mixed results, tend to get looked up real light - which can be good ) So my question is, what are your river bluffing ranges (im assuming ~0% to ~45%), how do you decide how often an opponent is bluffable and how do you ensure your bluff/nuts ratio is randomized against tough opposition to make you inexploitable? JMan: The truth is, as much as I hate it and as unelegant as it is, against 99% of opponents, you don't have to worry about balancing your bluffs that much. You should look at every hand individually. Sure you should think about your range, but only what you opponent thinks of it. Not your true range. You should think about what kind of hands your opponent might have and how likely he is to fold them. Game theory is important to understand, but not so useful in practice (in most games).Just make sure you aren't using game theory to justify bad plays. If you bluff a river against a station, don't think after he calls with midpair "well he's an idiot and I'm making money in the long run since I bluff there 10% of the time" You are making money in the long run if you bluff 10% of the time there. You probably would make more money if you bluffed 2% Q: Do you agree with the idea that 1 or 2 tabling higher stakes will help your growth as a player better than multi-tabling medium/lower stakes? JMan: Yes, less tables definitely. Especially with another smart player watching you and discussing concepts. And especially HU tables. Higher stakes, not really. It might make you a bit more interested, and the competition will be a bit tougher, but you might not play your best. You can learn a lot about the game 2 tabling fish hu though. Q: What dictates your decision to quit/go on with any given session? JMan: The one thing I learned most from Tommy Angelo, is how awesome quitting is. You should pride yourself in making a good quit. I really mean that. When I'm playing and

make the decision to quit, I'm very happy with myself. The two real reasons to quit are if playing is -EV financially or -EV emotionally. I know the latter isn't a real thing, but I use it all the time. Basically, if for whatever reason I think I'm not a favorite (or a very small favorite), I'll quit (Ideally). Or if I'm unhappy or stressed out by playing, or would be much happier doing something else, I quit (Ideally). Reasons you become -$EV should be obvious, and you should realize when you are unhappy. Most pros love the freedom that poker gives them but it becomes a very restricting job actually. Much more consuming than a real one. For me at least. The problem is that we think of things in hourly rate, and we can work pretty much whenever we want. I hate it so much when I'm out with friends and just having an okay time and I think to myself "I could be working now. I wonder how much money this is costing me." Or when I weight the decision to go hang out with friends against the decision to work. It's not like I'm starving. I can afford to take some time off and be a person, but it's so hard for me, and I'd imagine, for some other players. Q: Why "OMGClayAiken"? JMan: When I started playing, so many people had macho screennames like bignutz69 or whatever. I think being macho is retarded. Actually it's much worse than retarded. Being retarded is cool with me. Anyways, I made OMGClayAiken because it was not macho at all. I liked the idea of arrogant macho dbags guys losing money to OMGClayAiken. Q: If you were to 4-table 0.5/1 6max (mostly seeking out full tables, so no HU etc) on full tilt or stars for 10k hands, what do you imagine your stats would look like? vpip/pfr, maybe WWSF and aggression numbers or something if you have an opinion on those. Your goal is to maximize your winrate, maybe you're doing a propbet of some kind. Does the answer change significantly if you change it to 0.10/0.25? To 3/6? JMan: I don't mean to duck this question, but I'm really not the guy to ask. I jumped into nl cash from SNGs at 5/10, and never played below 3/6 pretty much. I'm also not that much of a stats guy. My guess for low low stakes, is that I'd play something like 28/10. I would want to play more hands because I can outplay people hardcore postflop. I also would want to keep pot sizes small so I have more room to work with once I can put them on a hand. I don't recommend doing that, and I'm also very unsure if I'm right. Q: Planning to ever quit poker? Any other aspirations? JMan: I've thought about this a lot. Most people have dreams/aspirations...things they'd really like to pursue. Being an actor, writing a book, traveling the world. Most of them can't pursue their dreams because of their real jobs or families or financial situation. I'm lucky that I have the freedom to pursue a dream. I've had some from time to time but none that have really stuck with me and made me think 'man, I really wanna do this.' I've decided that poker is too good of an opportunity for me to pass up right now. So I'll play

for now. That's all I should really worry about, imo. Hopefully I'll make enough money so that when I do figure something out that I really want to pursue, I'll be able to do it. The short answer though, is that I don't want to play poker my whole life, no. It's okay for a job, but I don't really enjoy it usually. Q: Was there a saying/quote/maxim that changed the way you view the game? JMan: I can't think of one specifically. Tommy has a bunch of cool 'Tommyisms' on his website: http://www.tiltless.com A couple that I remember (paraphrased): "Saying position is important in poker is like saying distance and direction are important in golf." "It can never be that wrong to not play" Also I know some poker writer said something like "Think of what your opponent wants you to do, and then do the opposite" Q: i know we've heard the thoughts of many different players on this subject, but i'm interested in what you have to say regarding the difficulties one faces during rough downswings; confidence issues, tilt, emotional effects, etc. JMan: I think this is a huge part of poker. Almost everything there is to say about emotional aspects like this has already been said. Definitely read everything that Tommy Angelo has written on it. It's been said before, but it's so true: It's easy to play when things are going well. How a player deals with a bad run is what defines him as a poker player. The most important thing is the be honest with yourself. Admit when you aren't focused or playing your best. Take breaks all the time. Get outdoors if you can. All the time means every 90 minutes or less. If you're afraid of losing your seats, take 3 minutes and walk into another room, do 20 pushups, go to the bathroom/grab some food, and come back. Taking time off when on a downswing is always a better idea than you want to admit. Getting away from poker for some reason usually helps you get your confidence back. As far as tilt, everyone tilts. Some more than others. The edge in many high stakes games shifts from one player to the other based on the way the match is going, and how well they each handle losing or winning. Yes some people tilt when they win. Be willing to quit games when you find yourself tilting at all. Most people tilt by going on autopilot and don't realize they're tilting. I think it's probably possible to stop most of your tilting. It's very difficult though. Understanding that you tilt, and being able to identify it and quit is your best bet by far. Also don't play tired, like I am right now, unless there's a very big fish in the game. Q: How specifically did you move up in stakes(from say, 25/50 to 200/400)? taking ~5 buyin shots, having people buy action of you to start off, adding in one table of the new higher limit to your normal setup, go on a sick heater and just ride the rush all the way to the top? i

always thought hearing these types of stories was interesting. JMan: Yeah, the part I left out was what happened once I moved up to 50/100. The truth is I don't really remember. It was a lot of bouncing back and forth between 25/50 and 100/200, then back and forth between 50/100 and 300/600 and in between. I remember all of my biggest losing days, but not many of my biggest heaters. I think for the most part I ran normal. I mean, my first shot I lost half my roll, and then my next shot went better. I was just lucky to run normal since I started by playing 50/100 and 100/200 on a 10bi roll. I would never risk my whole roll on shots like that, but I'd put 1-2 bi in play and then move back down when there was a really good game. Q: In playing the highest stakes, aside from the rare and egregrious fish, what are some subtle distinctions between winning/marginal/losing players? Jman: Adapting to opponents is a big one. Some players just 'play their hand' too much, since that's what they did when they 10 tabled 3/6nl. The better players change every part of their game based on the table and the players they're up against. I also think that a lot of medium-good but not great players probably undervalue betsize/timing tells. Especially against weaker opposition. Q: Also, do you believe that some inherently winning players (that is, with the skills to win) end up losing longterm, and vice versa? Or is the proof entirely in the pudding? Jman: I'm not sure which of two interpretations of this questions you're asking, so I'll try to answer both. Some players are smart enough and work hard enough to win, but lose because of 'soft skill' leaks. Things like game selection, BR management and tilt control. It definitely happens. On the other hand, there are a lot of medium strength players who are successful because they don't have those leaks. It probably is wrong to call them medium strength players because they have higher EV than some of the 'better' players. The other way I take your question is as a question about the players you see in the biggest games or in highstakes db as the biggest winners/losers. In the long run, the best players will always win, but I think most people have no idea at all how long the long run is. I wouldn't trust 3 full years of data on highstakes dbs to tell me who the best and worst players are. Q: Looking back what are some things you would change or stress for someone looking to get to your level to do or not to do? Any mistakes you made a lot that took you a few times to learn? JMan: I definitely made some BR management mistakes. I talk about them a lot, so it probably sounds worse than it really was. Realistically, it wasn't THAT bad. I was never at risk of losing everything. The best thing I ever did for my poker game was meet other people who played poker. My poker friends and coaches helped me move up 3x faster than I would've on my own. I'd also recommend trying to eliminate autopiloting. Too many players can't make the jump into bigger games because they don't know how to think for themselves. They just play a TAG cookie cutter style and think it will continue working because they crushed the lower limits with it.

Q: At what point do you feel playing "abc poker" does not cut it anymore? JMan: I can't really name a buyin level that it stops working. Basically, as soon as your opponents are smart enough to realize what you're doing, it's no longer effective. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you have to play 30% of hands preflop and c/r every river. You can be a winner in the biggest games playing 16/14 if you want to. You just have to mix up your play and balance your ranges postflop. Q: What do you think of leading into the pfr? I feel like I can comprehend general theory behind it, but I just haven't really worked it into my game, and I feel like I should be "able" to do anything. If you'd like to just answer your thoughts on it, or your thoughts on balancing (i.e. if I always CR with big hands and bluffs, how okay do you think it is that I'm only leading like 1% of flops, and half of that 1% is a misclick?), as opposed to actual theory of board texture and player types, I will forgive you. Additionally, feel free to ignore multiway pots and pots where your relative position dictates leading, and just focus on HU pots in button/bb or even just HU in general. Jman: Really good question. The truth is I haven't figured it out yet myself. I think leading into the pfr is will become a much more common practice in the future of poker. I think it's the next 3betting light, c/c lead turn, fastplaying sets, or c/r rivers. Each goes in style at one point and then people figure out more about it. The reason I think I can't figure it out yet is that so much of the value of the play has to do with how your opponent will react to it. I don't really have a good idea of how people react to leads. Some people spazzraise any two, some completely shut down and give up on the pot, and everything in between. I'm probably afraid to try it more because I usually won't know how to react when I get raised, or called, since the lead evokes such a wide variety of reactions. It puts me in a spot where I have to do a lot of guessing, whereas I usually feel I have a very good grasp of how my opponents play their hand ranges in more standard spots. The easy way to avoid that is to only lead strong draws, monsters, and air. That way your decisions are easy and you don't have to fear the unknown. However, I think that optimally, leading a much more well balanced range is best. I just need to figure out how everyone will react to it first and make sure they'll do what I want them to. One thing to think about is how often your opponent will cbet flop if you check. If someone cbets way too much, I would just let them do it. No good reason to lead into them, unless they react in a way that makes the hand much easier to play. If someone rarely cbets, I think leading is a much better play against them overall. Also think about players who lead, what they lead with. If, for instance, someone leads all their draws and two pair hands, but checks their sets, air, and weak 1pr hands, you can cbet MUCH more profitably against them since their range is much weaker once they check than the range of someone who never leads. Krantz: Why do you think this (3-betting too much HU) is a leak? In a grander sense, how do you value the creation of a unique image in heads up matches?

JMan: Against someone who knows what they're doing, there are only so many hands you can profitably 3bet imo. Otherwise you're putting too much money in with the weakest hand OOP. Sure you'll take some down preflop and some more with cbets, but the times you don't take pots down, you'll lose a decent amount of chips. I suspect that most ppl get carried away with 3betting because of the mental reinforcement of winning most of the time when they do it. Winning the most post does not equal winning the most money. As far as creating an image, you have to know what you're doing, but it's awesome when you can. I usually like to start by playing hands the way I think is most +EV, and then evaluating what my image is. However, I've definitely gone into a match trying to create a certain image from time to time. I usually like to do it when I know my opponent has certain leaks. I create an image to help reinforce them. So, if he calls to much, I try my best to make it look to him like I'm bluffing all the time. Then I just valuetown him later. Sometimes I'll make what I know are -ev bluffs in smaller pots for the +EV later. Stuff like that. Q: Can you describe the biggest differences in your game moving from mid stakes (2/4-3/6) to high stakes (20/40+)? JMan: I started at 5/10nl. Check out my poker story somewhere on the 1st page. I guess the biggest difference is that I bluff much more now. However, that's as much of a response to my opponents changing as it is to myself growing as a poker player. I think the main thing is that I think much more clearly about hand ranges. At first, I kind've played my hand more than my opponent. Now I approach every hand thinking about the hands he might have, and the best way to play against each of them. Also, I see a lot of players justifying plays they make, saying that they are trying to create or maintain a maniacal image. The plays they make aren't bad, but the justification is, especially since most of them go on and continue bluffing. They should be making the light 3bets and big bluffs, or whatever they're doing, to max their EV in that hand, and to keep their ranges balanced. They do the same thing in the opposite direction, trying to maintain a solid image. For the most part, I think you shouldn't try to create a certain image. You should just be able to realize what your image is and play off of it. Q: To what extent do you think you will be successful in life given your laziness? JMan: This one is kind've a vague question. It depends how you measure success. I suppose though, in all ways you might measure it, I won't be as successful as I otherwise could be if I had more motivation. I don't think there is a whole lot I can do about it though. I know a lot of people think lazy people are kind've pathetic, but I don't think it's as easy for me to be motivated to do things as it is for most people. What I mean is, I don't think it's as much my fault as most people probably do. I think a lot of laziness is just part of the personality that you are born with. I've always been the way I am. Was always bored and unable to focus in school. Besides having the tendency to be lazy in my personality, it was reinforced throughout school.

I never did any work in school, but always was an A or B student just because the work was easy. I remember getting a mini lecture from teachers almost every year, "You know, Philip, you did fine this year, but things won't be so easy in 3rd grade. You're gonna have to start working harder." "This won't cut it in Middle School" "You're not gonna pass High School classes without doing the work" It probably is a bad thing that I've been so lucky, because perhaps I would've been forced to learn to work hard. Every year I didn't try and every year I was fine. Everything has always worked out for me, so I just kind've expect it to. I mean, I was a Philophy major with no plan for my future (which didn't worry me at all) and then poker came along. I guess that brings me back to your question. I became a little bit obsessed with poker. I have an obsessive personality, and a competitive one. So I wanted to be the best. I still was too lazy to do work I found boring, like analyzing equity in spots, etc, but I found reading poker books and forums, and thinking about the game fascinating. And playing and seeing myself improving and making money was amazing. So, I think I'm able to do 'work' if the work interests me. So I believe that if anything that comes along that I really badly want to do, I'll be interested in learning about and working at it. Q: is your world view currently almost entirely selfish? (when i am realistic, mine probably is at the moment but that could easily change). JMan: I guess I'm fairly selfish. I don't think more than the average person though. Hmmm. Tough question. I definitely care about other people. I have a a few very good friends, and of course family members, who I probably care about their wellbeing almost as much as my own. Other than that though, most of my actions are motivated by self interest, though I think that's normal. I do a lot of seemingly selfless things. I'm non confrontational, and a bit of a pushover, so I let other people get their way a lot. I don't do that out of caring for their happiness, but for my own comfort. I think I'm a nice and friendly person. I help friends out all the time with their problems. People end up coming to me for advice a lot, and I always try to help. Part of it is because I want them to be happy, but a lot of it is because it makes me feel good about myself. Is that selfish? I definitely have a problem with selfishness when it comes to poker. When a good friend of mine makes a big score, it's tough for me to be happy for them. Well, it used to be much tougher than it is now. Basically, I can be happy for a friend if they do well as long as they aren't doing better than me. Then I get jealous. Especially if I think I'm more deserving. Luckily I do pretty well now, so when one of my friends final tables a big event, he can triple his roll and I can still have more money than him. Then I can be truly happy for him. I know that's pretty lame of me. I'm not sure how to fix it though. Q: given that you are smart, logical, and understand people well, you should be able to

achieve anything you want in life; what would you consider the most awesome possible thing (for you) that you could achieve (but may not, through your own apathy)? are you happy living a life of upper class 'moderation' or do you want to do anything that you would personally consider 'significant'? when i say awesome btw i don't mean awesome to other people, i mean for you personally. JMan: My main life goals are to not have to worry about money, have good friends, and start a family/be a good father. It would be cool to be completely filthy rich, but I'll be fine with being in the upper middle class. Looking back it looks like you didn't really ask about money I think. But there, I answered anyways. I like writing. Maybe I'd like to write a book. One not related to poker would be cool, but I don't know yet what about. I'm still young and idealistic, so I have dreams now and then. I'd like to write movies and TV shows. Probably TV shows since I'm more into TV than movies. I used to think that I wanted to be famous. But being an R level online celebrity has made me realize it's probably not as cool as I thought it might be. As far as doing something significant, I dunno. I think there are a lot of problems with the world, of course. I always kind've assumed that anyone in a position of power knows what they're doing. I've started to realize that a lot of people who make decisions aren't all that smart, just because most people aren't. The general public has no understanding of a lot of important concepts, mostly logic and probability related. It completely blows my mind that anyone making huge decisions doesn't understand logic and bayesian probability in and out. I just wrote out a few paragraphs about government before realizing that I dont know **** about government and I'd sound stupid. The basic idea is that I believe the public needs to be better educated in order for a lot of things to work better. I was always interested in education. I think I might've ended up teaching if I hadn't found poker. If I were to do something significant, (I think this is what you mean) it would have to do with rehauling the public education system. I took a pretty cool class on philosophy of education once actually. I really enjoyed it. Anyways, I'm not sure how I could possibly achieve it, but I am pretty sure that if I were put in a position to change public education, I would definitely change it for the better. As for working to achieve something like that, I'm sure laziness would get in the way. As well as the fact that I'm a college dropout gambler who none of the public would respect as an authority on anything. I think I mentioned in earlier posts, but the opportunity I have right now with poker is too good to worry about anything else right now. I think what I should do know is work to make as much money as I can, so that when I have the drive and opportunity to do something else, I'll have the freedom to also. Q: My question is about the stakes you play. Yours and mine mentalities have seem to diverted. You seem to be constantly trying to throw yourself into games you are barely rolled for. I used to be this way, but in the last year or so I think I have lost that need to play as high as i think i can play. Lets call it "gamble" I still enjoy poker but the first day i lost 100k i think really got to me. What is it do you think that constantly makes you want to play as high as you can? You said you really should play lower, but what do you think contributes to you always playing higher...is it ego to show you are best at the highest level, is it because losing and winning 10k or whatever a day at 25/50 no longer excites you? or is it something else altogether? I would like to regain that mentality of going for it in terms of higher stakes, and i think your answers might help me reflect on it. JMan: I don't gamble as much as I used to. My roll is bigger now, and I still grind 25/50 quite often to offset the bigger games I play in. If I'm running bad and there is a good big game, I sell action from time to time.

I guess there are a couple reasons I'm drawn to the bigger games. One is that I'm a competitive person. I want to be the best in the world, often times more than I want to make money. Another reason is that though, money. I think my hourly rate in most of the bigger games is significantly higher than my hourly at 25/50. The swings that come with it are enormous though. That's the drawback of course. I'm willing to accept the fact that I have very little control over the short term in return for my average EV to be higher. In the short run, it totally feels like I'm just gambling. One thing I caution you against if you move up, is to lose sight of the basics. At times, because of the crazy swings that I have no control over, I think that my decisions don't matter. I just autopilot and wait to run good. Don't forget how EV works, and that the reason we play the game is to max EV, which will see results from in the long term. I guess that was more of a note to myself than you. Q: Could you talk a little bit about how you go about balancing your range from a strategic point of view? (perhaps in 3bet pots oop, for example?) I feel like when people try to talk about balancing or playing unexploitably against good players it's mostly an exercise in assuming/talking out of their ass/trying to sound cool thinking they balance or "mix it up" because in their head they say "well i'm capable of checking back TP here" or "i fast play a set and draw so therefore i'm balanced" -- but I'm wondering if there's something specifically you do, either by the math of it or by analyzing hands later and consciously saying to yourself "although I have hand X here, he can put me on hand A, B, and C as well and based on the pot odds I'm offering him he's ****ed if he calls or folds" If you do stuff like that, how do you go about organizing these thoughts and the math? Also how often are you going through this line of thought at the table? JMan: I don't crunch numbers as often as people probably think I do. I think I am good at doing some rough math in my head on the fly, as far as hand combos and ranges go. Lemme think about my thought process... So, in any situation, my first thought is what I'm trying to accomplish with a play (a bet, ck, raise). So I decide, let's say, I want to get my opponent to call a river bet (because I have a strong hand that I want to get value from). If he's gonna call a river bet, that means he has to think he has the best hand often enough to justify a call. So then I think about what hands he might have. If he has marginal made hands a lot, I have to make him believe I'm bluffing, since he can't beat a value bet. I think about what hands in my (perceived) range I might bluff in this spot, and what my bluff size would look like (in his eyes). Then I bet that amount. If I know my (perceived) range is completely full of strong hands, I decide not to VB as thin. If I think he often has strong hands, but my hand looks very made, I'll often try to make it look like I'm value betting a worse hand (by considering how he thinks I might play 2nd pair top kicker, and doing that) If I'm considering bluffing a river, I make sure that I can credibly rep something. I make sure that it looks to him like a large part of my range in this spot consists of legit hands. I often over think things and don't make a bluff just because I know that I wouldn't play many legit hands that way.

I agree with you that people overuse the excuse of "that's a terrible call vs. my range" to justify bad plays of their own, and to sound smart. I don't try to put my opponent in spots where he can't make a right decision vs. my range. I try to get him to make the wrong decision for my hand. I am, however, very very careful to never take a certain line with only one kind of hand, unless I'm playing a complete fish. This is more of a weird obsessive compulsive thing with me. I know good players that only check shove flops after 3betting with their draws. It tilts me so hard knowing that they do that. Q: I'm mainly a 200 and 400 NL player and lately I've been thinking a lot about the concept of turning a "made" hand into a bluff. Example: I call a raise OTB with QThh vs. a 24/17/3 solidish player who raised UTG (I figured blinds would come along because they were extremely donkish). It got HU and I called a bet on a Q93r board. Turn was a T, putting out a FD. He led 25 into 39. Is a raise here for value or a bluff? Normal stacks, 200NL. He should see me as a winning TAG, and I believe he does because he doesnt play me HU. JMan: Mmm, against almost everyone this is a value raise. Turning top two pair into a bluff is something that should rarely be done, and would require him folding a hand better than top two pair. Do you expect him to fold a set of 3s if you raise? Q: The above might not be the best example, but maybe you can elaborate on the whole idea of where and where not you should turn a made hand into a bluff? Or do we think too early that we are turning a made hand into a bluff? I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding this idea, especially within SSNL. JMan: If you're against a tight solid opponent, and you realize that your made hand no longer is good enough to merit a call (or it does but a bluffraise has more value) you can choose to turn it into a bluff. The reason it's a good play on certain boards/actions is that good hand readers will put you on a made hand, and realize you can't have air. Then they can make a big fold. I remember a bluffraise I made deep in a WSOP event. Kristy Gazes opened in the HJ, we were prolly 50bb deep with antes. I call in BB with T7s. Flop Q75r I check-call 2/3 pot. Turn 6. I check, she bets like 1/2 pot. I know she's a solid player, and doesn't have a wide preflop opening range. Basically I think I'm beat by QJ or so almost every time. So I can't call my midpair. Since I figure she's smart and a decent hand reader and doesn't know me from an average tourney player, I raise to about 2.75x her bet, and she thinks and folds. She has to assume I can't call the flop with air, and that I won't raise with worse than QJ for value. She probably puts me on something like a set or 76/98. Make sense?