|
I think it's something I struggle with sometimes -- admitting to myself if I suck at something. I think a lot of people do too. Nobody wants to suck at something, so rather than admit to themselves or others they suck, they become delusional and try to convince themselves they don't suck at it, or are experiencing bad luck, or whatever other excuses which are conveniently available. They might even put on a facade to mask their deep down insecurities about whatever it is they might suspect they suck at, but are still living in denial over.
The crime isn't sucking. The crime is the denial of one's suckitude. If you can admit to yourself or others when you do suck, then there's at least hope you can improve -- or if improvement is not possible then at least you're able to consciously make a choice to avoid putting yourself into situations where it's highly likely you're going to suck. It's obvious that in the real world, someone who doesn't know everything, but understands what they don't know and how to learn it, is going to be more successful than someone who might be pretty brilliant, but is too blinded by their brilliance to be able to see the times when they're off.
In some regards, I'm a very modest person. In other regards, I'm very full of myself and think highly of my abilities. I guess it's one of my casual resolutions for 2009, that I'm going to work on identifying more of my weaknesses, and devising ways to improve -- in all facets of life.
For example, in poker (since this is a poker blog and I'd rather talk about poker than my real life which I mostly keep out of this blog), I'm beginning to identify that perhaps the last month or two I've lost some of my killer instinct and tenacity and I'm no longer the benevolent, rowdy mayor of Valuetown. I'm trying to fix that, and here is one hand where the me of a month ago would've won less money:
PapaWarbucks: posts small blind $100
kikiriki: posts big blind $200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to PapaWarbucks [7d Ah]
SpottyDottie: folds
Zzeigler: folds
str8flushin5: raises $200 to $400
PapaWarbucks: raises $200 to $600
kikiriki: calls $400
str8flushin5: calls $200
*** FLOP *** [7h 8s 4c]
PapaWarbucks: bets $200
kikiriki: raises $200 to $400
str8flushin5: calls $400
PapaWarbucks: calls $200
*** TURN *** [7h 8s 4c] [8d]
PapaWarbucks: checks
kikiriki: bets $400
str8flushin5: folds
PapaWarbucks: raises $400 to $800
kikiriki: calls $400
*** RIVER *** [7h 8s 4c 8d] [9s]
PapaWarbucks: bets $400
kikiriki: calls $400
*** SHOW DOWN ***
PapaWarbucks: shows [7d Ah] (two pair, Eights and Sevens)
kikiriki: mucks hand
PapaWarbucks collected $5395 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $5400 | Rake $5
Board [7h 8s 4c 8d 9s]
Seat 2: kikiriki (big blind) mucked [2h 2d]
Seat 3: SpottyDottie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Zzeigler folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: str8flushin5 (button) folded on the Turn
Seat 8: PapaWarbucks (small blind) showed [7d Ah] and won ($5395) with two pair, Eights and Sevens
A month ago I probably end up check-calling the turn and river, which would've resulted in $400-800 less won depending on if he bets the river too or checks it behind. I am going to get back some of that "well you might be beating me but efff it I also might be beating you, I'm putting more money in" attitude that makes ya a force to be feared at the table. Obviously the point isn't that I won an extra bet or two, because sometimes he does have me beat and I lose -- it's a pretty marginally close spot either way. My self-reflecting has concluded simply that I've lost some of my killer instinct, and am not the one at the table who's controlling the flow of the whole game. And the point isn't to say "look at this hand, don't you agree I dominate?" I just wanted to show that I identified something I can improve on, and am actually trying to make the progress to 'fix" it.
And finally, two songs I heard in the last few days for the first time in years that I had forgotten how solid they are (Goo Goo Dolls "Here is Gone" and The Vervepipe "Freshman"):
|
