Among the advantages of being granite is the fact that you are generally in a hand with the best of it, so the odds are in your favour to win. Consequently, your table image is that of someone who only plays good, solid hands and therefore your raises, and especially re-raises, are to be respected. There are all kinds of downsides to this, however, not least that playing such a safe and solid game is way too predictable for your opponents, who will be able to put you on a hand correctly. Therefore you are unlikely to get the action you require when in possession of a monster.
Typical scenario: I get dealt a big pocket pair in early position. I raise the standard three times the big blind, confident that one of the table maniacs will come over the top and give me an easy double up. But no. The table folds instantly. It's like watching one of those attempts to break the world record for toppling dominoes: as soon as one mucks they all do. They can't get out of the way quickly enough.
I am a rock-solid player, you see, the oft-mentioned granite if you will, which is why I was mightily surprised this week to be called an "addicted gambler in denial" on a poker forum. It started when I broke my golden rule and posted a particular hand history on said forum. Not, you understand, a bad beat story. As we all know, the first rule of poker is never to tell a bad beat story. No, instead it was more a gentle musing, pondering even, as to why a particular player, knowing I am a rock and rarely bluff, called me down for all my chips with nothing but ace high.
In fact, I had a pair of queens, he hit his ace on the river, and bingo, I was out. But that's not remotely my point. I wrote the post trying to elicit a response as to why a player would call a known granite on every street with nothing but ace high.
Worryingly, I did indeed get a few responses from players who I have played with enough for them to recognise my pattern of play. The general consensus was that in this instance, you'd have to be borderline insane or possess the gambling acumen of Paul Merson to have stayed in the hand until the end. There was a maverick suggestion that my opponent was partially sighted and may have misread his hand, which, even if said in jest, tells you all you need to know about my table image. It hit me then that my abc poker was public knowledge and being analysed on a public forum was literally giving my game away.
But then the "gambler in denial" post appeared. I actually had to think about it for at least a second. After all, if I was in denial I'd hardly admit it, would I? But the truth is I am so far from being a gambler that I practically refuse to get my money in a hand unless I'm at least a 70 per cent favourite. Fifty-fifties give me the complete heebie jeebies, I have to walk away from the table every time I'm all in and don't even get me started on the thought of sitting down to a game of spoof. Brag? No thanks. A game of sheer bravado, of which I possess absolutely none.
My problem is not that I gamble too much but that I don't gamble enough and in an ideal world, I wouldn't gamble at all. In other words I won't play anything unless I think I can win, and have no time for games of pure chance. Gambling is a mug's game.
Rest easy, parents! I'll be forming my own self-help group shortly, if anyone wants to join: the snappily titled PPWDWTGA. That's "Poker Players Who Don't Want to Gamble, Anonymous".