First, Happy New Year. (Insert cheap paper horn noise here).

I was going to write about some cool A-K hands I played, but I just noticed this and it annoyed me. What better place to vent than to you fine folks who take the time to visit my site (thank you).

I was visiting the Card Player website when I saw this poll:

What do you do when a player disparagingly accuses you of playing tight?
Tell him to mind his own business
Deny it
Attack, accusing her of playing just as tight
Leave the game
Tell the dealer to ask the person to quit criticizing you
Call a floorperson over and request the criticism stop
Get up from the table and quietly tell a floorperson you object to being criticized
Get up from the table and tell only the shift manager you object to being criticized
Ignore it, or change the subject

I was shocked. Is it really so awful to play tight that if someone “accuses” you of it that you need to find a response? 71 percent said “ignore it” but that still implies there is something bad about playing tight.

Accusations of not sinning go way back to peer pressure in high school (maybe earlier these days). Being “accused” of being a virgin, of not being cool and smoking, even of being sober, seem to require apologies and explanations.

I was hoping when people became adults, that they could put this being somehow guilty for not being stupid behind them. But here is this poll, where the assumption is that someone telling you that you play tight is disparaging and you need to react. (17 percent said they tell the accuser to mind her own business.)

I know this is only a question, but the assumption behind the question is what annoyed me. To me it sounds like the following: “You are eating in a restaurant. One of your fellow diners disparagingly observes you are eating a balanced nutritious meal and avoiding the huge desserts. How do you respond?” Does this make sense?

Playing tight is winning poker. Being accused of winning and playing well is not disparaging, even if all of the cool kids are gambling.

And a reasonable response is to smile at the “accuser” and say something like, “Well, I’m just not as adventurous as you. I really admire how you play nearly every hand, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.”

A advertised (in the forum), today I wish to discuss MUB. This is a term which, as far as I know, was coined by Roy Hashimoto and Lee Jones and first presented in Lee’s first edition of Winning Low Limit Hold’em.

It stands for “Monsters Under the Bed” and relates to the childhood fear that, when alone in the dark, somehow there may be monsters hiding under the bed waiting to do unspeakable things to small children. In poker, it refers to players who constantly give their opponents credit for having a huge hand, or at least play as if they might.

Of course, in poker there are times when there actually are monsters under the bed, and your opponents do in fact hold something terrible in store for you. Luckily, the consequences are not all that bad, you just lose some money. Nevertheless, many players play as if there were monsters under every bed, and therefore play with excessive timidity, calling or folding to every raise, checking whenever a scare card hits the board.

In no-limit, a monster can bust you, and you do need to tread somewhat carefully. But in limit, MUBing is the enemy of winning. Limit hold’em relates to volume. If you will win in a certain situation more than 50 percent of the time, you need to be betting. O f course, since poker is a game of incomplete information, you cannot be sure exactly what the current conditions are, or whether you will will actually win or lose.

Risk-reward is part of the game. You cannot expect substantial rewards if you are unwilling to assume the risks. In a 20-40 game, you may bet hundreds of dollars per hour in an attempt to win $40. If you decline a number of positive expected value (+EV) situations because you may lose, or your opponent may raise, or he may hold the nuts, you cannot expect to prosper. Sure you may win a bit, but you are limiting your wins by fearing defeat.

There are two elements working against you. The first is Prospect Theory, about which I wrote with co-author Dr. Rachel Croson. You can find these columns here. Among other things, these columns state that for most people, the pain of a loss is greater (typically by two to 2.5 times) than the joy of an equivalent gain. So if you bet and lose you feel much worse than if you bet and win. This effect, which is admittedly difficult to conquer, keeps many people from playing properly.

The second is a related fear of looking and/or feeling foolish. For some reason, players who bet and lose, especially in position when they could have checked but instead re-opened the betting, feel like they must have made an error. Subsequently, they check more often to avoid this embarrassment. But just because they lost does not mean they were wrong. It means this time was one of the times they lost. But if in same circumstance they were likely to win 60 percent of the time, the fact this this was one of the 40 percent is nothing more than happenstance. If you know when you bet that you could lose sometimes, and you did lose, than this should not be a jolt, or convince you to soften your approach to the game.

So one of the keys to winning poker long term is the ability to forgive yourself, even if you were wrong, but particularly if you just happened to lose. You call a bet on the end from a player who bluffs a bit too often. He has a hand and wins. Were you wrong? Should you have saved this bet? Probably not, but you need to put it in perspective…you made a good cal and it did not work this time. Next time it may (or may not). Your opponent may have a great hand, a good hand, or a weak hand. Great hands are rare, and if you play as if they are always present, your mind is cheating your bankroll out of substantial profits.

I want to take a moment to wish all the visitors to this website a very happy holiday. I hope you are/have been enjoying the season, and continue to do so.

The Thought below contains numerous suggestions for setting poker goals. It includes rigorous self-examination. Some people could use a little help. If you know someone like that, perhaps I can help.

I offer lovely gift certificates for lessons. They are redeemable on mutual availability, but I always move Certificate holders to the top of my priority list. Barry Tanenbaum Gift Certificates make wonderful (though somewhat expensive) stocking stuffers.

There will probably be a lesson price increase sometime in 2007 (do not hold me to this, but it is not a scare tactic. I expect to increase my hourly rate after the book comes out). Certificates purchased now are valid for one year and are good for the number of hours purchased regardless of any increases.

So give a loved one the gift of me! As always, first hour satisfaction is guaranteed or you get a full refund.