Today we will talk about setting New Year’s goals. This Thought is in response to a question by Muskoka, who asked the question on my Forum.

Before I get to that, the forum registration has increased to 161. Some of the increased membership is because I mentioned the forum in a recent column. Welcome to all of you newer members. Please feel free to post questions and answers. Last week I put s couple of errors of my own (look just below this entry) in part so you could see that we all make mistakes and the only real error is to fail to use them to learn.

Setting poker goals in an interesting issue. It makes little sense simply to say, “My goal is to make more money” or even, “My goal is to move to a new limit.” The question is how to do this.

I suggest you look at two things. First is the process of winning at poker. Some of this a strategy and some is other stuff (we will get to it). The other thing is self-assessment. You must be able to look critically at you and assess where you need improvement.

In strategy, perhaps you discover you are paying off to many bets on the river. Perhaps you keep finding yourself with the second best hand (say, kicker trouble). Or maybe you fail to raise often enough to either build pots or eliminate opponents. Do you bluff enough? Change gears? Respect opponents play and raises? Here are two examples for me: In 2006, I stayed in too long on occasion when I should have gotten away from hands. I did not bluff-raise enough. I ignored some strong gut feels. i will work on these.

There are dozens of strategic points during a hand. Figure out which ones you’re weakest at, and focus on them.

OK, the other stuff. Maybe you lose focus, play tired, drink too much in casinos. Maybe you stay in bad games chasing losses. Maybe you play on line but watch TV, and send e-mail at the same time. Maybe you hate bad beats instead of loving them. Maybe players can put you on tilt by talking, singing, slow-rolling you. You can understand these issues and set goals to eliminate or minimize them.

Back to the table. Do you read hands well? If not work on that. There are methods to improve this. How well can you characterize opponents? Do you trust your reads? If you make a big laydown, does it bother you? If you get caught bluffing, does that trouble you? If you toss the best hand away, do you let that affect your play? Can you play the same winning as losing? Can you tell whether the game is good or bad? Do you watch for opportunities to get into better games, or do you take the first seat offered and sit there all night?

If you can recognize these things, you can set goals, be more aware and work on them. Improvements in these areas will add to your potential win.

Some other thoughts: on his website, Barry Greenstein rates the worlds best players. You may want to look at his brief criteria. Also, my friend, Dr. Alan Schoonmaker has studied the subject of goals extensively and written several columns about it. You can find the beginning of one such series here.

Noted author Lou Krieger used to write an annual column stating his goals. He was kind enough to mail me some samples. I include it here (the layout may be poor from the copy/paste into this format, but the words are the important thing). I thank Lou very much for allowing me to use this.

ON STRATEGY: NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS, 1999
by: Lou Krieger

Another year has quickly passed, and it’s time for my annual New Year’s resolutions, along with an invitation for you, the reader, to adopt some or all of them as your own. Here’s my third annual report card, self-assessment, and list of goals I’d like to achieve in the coming year.

Learn Another Game (Grade B): I gave myself the same grade last year. I’ve continued playing and writing about 7-stud/8, which is still a relatively new game for me. There are usually 7-stud/8 games at Hollywood Park and the Bicycle Club — casinos I often frequent — and my choice of games usually depends on which appears to offer better winning opportunities. In the past six months Crystal Park introduced a $20-$40 R.O.E. game. It’s a “mix” game that alternates between Razz (7-card stud played for low, with a 5-4-3-2-A the best possible hand) Omaha/8, and 7-stud/8. The game changes every half-hour with the dealer rotation. Playing R.O.E. has afforded me an unbridled opportunity to hone my skills at three games simultaneously.

R.O.E. has shown me that some players can be very strong in one or two of the games, but extremely weak in another. This creates winning opportunities that simply do not exist when forced to confront these same players at their best games. What amazes me is that players who fall into this category almost never recognize their limitations. If they are strong in Razz and 7-stud/8, but weak in Omaha/8, they seldom see or acknowledge their Achilles heel, and almost never assess their results on a game-by-game basis.

Being a jack-of-all-trades really pays off in mix games. A good mix game player is like a decathlete who is seldom world class in any of the individual events, yet good enough in a combination of sprints, middle distance, hurdles, jumping, vaulting, and weight events to wind up on a Wheaties box and be regaled as the “world’s greatest athlete” if he wins Olympic gold.

I’m certainly not a gold medallist in R.O.E. Not by any means. But I’m pointed in the right direction, and I try assiduously to learn something new about these games each time I play.

For 1999, I resolve to continue playing 7-stud/8, along with R.O.E., and to continue writing about them in this column. I also plan to play more pot limit poker in the coming year — something I planned to do in 1998, but didn’t. My sole experiences with pot limit were a few tournaments, and a small pot limit game at BARGE. I enjoyed them, and will look for situations where I can play ¾ and learn ¾ while not hurting myself too badly in the process. I’ll keep you apprised of my progress.

Never Go On Tilt; Never Play Less Than My Best (Grade B+): This is a recurring resolution — as it was last year, as it is this year, and as it will be in future years. I graded myself a B+ in 1997 and 1998. I’ve achieved my personal goal of not going on tilt, and I seldom played at less than my best. My emotions were under control and I avoided my personal bugaboos: playing too long, and playing when I’m tired. In 1999 I’ll do just as I did in 1998. When I become tired I’ll go home, go to a movie, or do something enjoyable that puts substantially less money at risk than poker.

I’m fortunate in this regard. I live in Long Beach, California, and I’m 20 miles or less from The Bicycle Club, Crystal Park, Hollywood Park, Commerce, the Normandie, and Hawaiian Gardens. There are more tables within 20 miles of my house than in the entire State of Nevada — and as many readers have pointed out in letters and e-mail — I’ve got more tables within a 20 minute drive than they have within a 1,000 miles of home. The point is this: For me, there’s always a game available. Anytime, day or night; it doesn’t matter. Given that availability, there is no reason to ever play at less than my best, since I can leave with the certainty that a game — more likely, a whole bunch of games — will be there wherever and whenever I want to play.

Narrow the Target (Grade B): I was a grade B in 1997 and I’ve awarded myself a “B” again this year. While I’ve continued to narrow the target, I believe that this is the area where I can make the most improvement in my game.

While I’ve worked to become even more selective about the hands I play, room for improvement still exists. Think about it. If I learn to either release or refrain from playing one additional losing hand every six hours — surely a modest improvement — I will save, on average, $120 in a $20-$40 game. While this may seem like a small improvement, it has huge financial ramifications. Avoiding a loss that averages $20 an hour will plug a major leak in my game.

I’m not certain how many hands I’m playing that I shouldn’t, but I am bound and determined to avoid playing hands that appear to be money losers. After all, the money you don’t lose, you don’t have to win!

Last year I resolved to limit the number of times I put myself in speculative situations where the risk outweighed the reward. I’m going to redouble my efforts this year. In fact, this will be my singularly most important resolution for 1999. I’ve reached the point where I think my technical skills are pretty good, and I believe I can increase my profits much more significantly by avoiding losing situations than I can by adding any new, fancy plays to my bag of tricks.

Model Successful Behavior and Play (Grade A): This is another of my continuing resolution — and one that has never given me any trouble. I gave myself an “A” the last two years, and an “A” this year as well. I will never settle for less.

Because I’ve written two books and am a columnist for this magazine, I believe I have an image to uphold. I realize that a public persona does not seem to deter boorish behavior from other well-known poker players — or highly paid professional athletes and celebrities for that matter — but this is very important to me.

I love poker. Like many others, I function in the poker community and a number of other communities as well. While one seems to run into an abundance of ill-tempered louts in card casinos, I’ve also found poker players to be incredibly generous, bright, and among the most vibrant, interesting people I’ve ever met. Many of my closest friendships were initially made at the poker table. I want to give something back to the poker community, and the easiest and best gift I can bequeath is to live always to high and honorable standards.

In fact, if you choose to adopt any one of my resolutions as your own, I would urge you to adopt this one. If more of us pledge to play at the highest and most ethical standards we can, the poker community will be a better place for it.Keep in Touch (Grade A): Once again, I have corresponded with well over 1,000 players. I am regularly in touch with players in Australia, Canada, England, Switzerland, and South America, and I love it. In addition, I am a regular reader and contributor to the Internet newsgroup, rec.gambling.poker. It is a forum I’ve enjoyed immensely as well as a place to continue expanding my knowledge of poker theory and strategy. As long as these fingers can dance along a keyboard, I’ll respond to every e-mail and letter I receive.

If you have any unique New Year’s resolutions of your own that you’d care to share with me — or if you simply want to adopt one or more of my resolutions as your own — please let me know.

Best wishes for the New Year. I hope 1999 brings you glad tidings.

# # #

I played two hands poorly the other day. No I’m not proud of this, but they may have some educational value.

On hand one, my plan (I always plan) was OK, and then I suddenly changed my mind. Here s the hand:

A decent player raised from middle position in a $30-$60 game. I called from the big blind with 7d 5d. I don’t always play this sort of hand, but I need to strike a balance between folding and playing so people (like me) do not make frivolous preflop raises because my blind always seems to be for sale. I don’t mind playing a few extra hands against average to poor players. This one was average. It was my first hand of the night and I like to establish a playing image.

OK, so the flop hits 9d 5h 4d, which is as good as it gets for my hand. Now I have to decide how to play the flop. Because I can already beat overcards and my hand is a favorite against many pairs as well, I do not want to bet out and get called. I would not mind a fold, but if he has overcards he is a pretty big dog and I want to get at least one bet in. If I knew he was aggressive, I would go for three bets, but I decide to check-raise. He quickly calls.

The turn is an excellent 6d, completing my flush and even giving me straight-flush redraws. I like this, so I bet. He checks his hole cards and raises. I assume from this that he has a big pair with a diamond, but it is possible he has a big flush and is doing a false tell. I can three bet here, and probably should. I decide instead to call the raise and bet the river if a diamond does not show up. This way I will get three big bets, and I can either fold or call on the river if a fourth flush card comes.

Now the river was the ace of spades, and inexplicably I checked. Something flashed in my head that he had the ace of diamonds and would bet so I could check-raise. I checked. Not surprisingly he checked behind me and showed me two jacks with the Jd after I turned over my flush. I looked like a meek scared player, which I am not.

This hand had many interesting choices, and I chose poorly several times. It was the first hand I was dealt, which may explain it a bit, but mostly I just played poorly, especially the indefensible check on the the river.

Here is hand two, in which the ace of spades also plays a prominent role. Everyone folds to me on the button, and I open-raise with black aces. It’s always nice to see aces in the steal position, since no one ever really give you credit for a real hand here. SB three-bets (just like it says to do in my columns) and BB calls. BB is a pretty good player, and I am surprised to see the call here. I reraise and everyone calls.

The flop is a very lovely Ks Qs Js, so I have an overpair and a royal draw. Check, check to me. I bet and both call. Turn is the 4s (this must be my day to misplay flushes) and both check to me again. I bet my flush, SB folds and BB check-raises! What is this?

He is not a wild player or a bluffer. I figure he either has a set of something and is testing me, or he has a straight flush. I cannot see him check-raising with bare ten of spades, though it is possible if he thinks I will bet the turn with, say, two pair.

Again, I decide to call. I am very leery about this raise. The turn is a spade 2, putting a flush on the board. BB bets. What should I do? It is fairly close between a call and a raise. The problem, as I outlines in my column on “Dangerous River Raises,” is that if I raise, he will know I have the ace of spades and probably not pay me off, but if he has me beat he will reraise.

I give some serious thought to calling but decide to raise, which I still think is an error. Of course, he raises back. Now I really fall from grace and call! I can’t believe I played that poorly but I did. Bad river raise and a just awful call. True I did not know this player, but he seemed rational enough and had not done anything out of line even once in the two hours we had played together.

OK, that’s it for today. I generally play well. Promise. But some times, I mess up. Everyone does, though they rarely publish the boo boos. And these were among the worst I have done for a long time. So if you make a mistake, forgive yourself, remember even pros do, and just go to work to play your best on the next hand.

I have been working on the book. There will be a lot of original material as well as as some old reworked columns.

Here is the beginning of a chapter on tells that I am working on now. Again, I have no idea if it will even be in the book, or in its current form. I rarely write about tells bacause I figure my audience wants strategy stuff. My closest advisors have let me know that because my book emphasizes reading opponents and situations, tells are too important not to mention. So I am working on something. Here is the start:

Tells

I have always found it much easier to beat people I can see. My success rate live is better than my success rate on the Internet. One key reason is the live opponents offer numerous tells.

Some players say that tell play is overrated, and perhaps it is. Observing betting patterns will gain you far more knowledge of your opponents’ habits and holdings than watching their breathing patterns will.

Nevertheless, opponents’ demeanor, attitude, posture, movements, and appearance can provide information that will win or save you money.

I can’t be comprehensive here, but reading the opponents is a key part of the methods I am promoting do require that you pay attention. I will cover some tells that I use, and perhaps are not that well known in the literature.

Appearance tells. Sterotypes work. That’s why they become stereotypes. They don’t always work because people are individuals, but if you little to go on, trust stereotypes until you see evidence to the contrary.

Because most of these are well known, I will not go into detail. For example, everyone understands, “The older the player, the higher the kicker,” is generally true. Some young players are very tight, but most can’t resist the temptation to mix it up, make action raises, steal with any two, and execute other highly aggressive plays. Some oldsters play this way, too, but most have learned the “value of value” and wait for hands they have learned are proven +EV or better.

The clothes make the man. Meticulous dressers tend to play conservatively. Players who don’t much care how they look frequently are less cautious about how they play. This tends to apply more to men than women, because most women in a cardrooms dress nicely and with care regardless of how they play.

Look at accessories, particularly wristwatches. People who wear watches that cost more than 10 racks of chips are far more likely to call a river bet than players with watches that cost far less than a buy-in. Jewelry would be a similarly reliable tell if you could do appraisals on the spot.

Demeanor tells. Look at how comfortable people are at the table. I have changed games because several players in my game were too comfortable, feeling too secure in the cardroom element.

I do not mean just identifying novices, though that helps. I mean players who have no tension about their plays or results. People who can take everything is stride, who do not get a little upset about beats, who don’t agonize over the occasional decision, and who pay attention effortlessly are dangerous. You must distinguish them from players who are just there for a good time and don’t care much about their surroundings.

Talk to the players. Ask questions.

First, this the friendly thing to do, and it’s more fun than just sitting there like a puma in the tall weeds waiting to pounce. Second, players will tell you things that may help. How are they feeling? Why did they play the hand that way? How high do they generally play? If they are from out of town, where do they generally play? What do they do for a living? How long have they been at the table? Winning or losing for this trip or session?

Having an idea where a player plays, how long he has been playing, and whether or not he is stuck or not may prove to be helpful, but it sure can’t hurt.