I've recently been reading "Inverting the Pyramid"...



Which is a book, as the sub-title says, that is essentially about the history of tactics in football. It's somewhat of a sluggish read - I expected it to be more of a Moneyball thrill ride, but instead it contains a million different Eastern European and South American names that, frankly, are impossible to pronounce. The story isn't really woven well - it probably would work better as a textbook. Regardless, it has served it's purpose, and I've found out why various countries played various formations, how conventional lineups changed, and who the innovators were. (And what led them to the said innovation!) And a thought occurred to me.

The concept of "Dynamicism" applies to many fields - in Chess, for example, a player who is thought to be dynamic may avoid some moves which dumb down the position (like trading pieces) in order to create a more confusing/complicated position. In Football (the real football; "Soccer"), a dynamic player is one who is, in a sense, able to create "something" out of "nothing". (Rather than slow buildup, a player who can carve the defense, beat people off the dribble, and rip a great shot after such a fancy display, like Lionel Messi, is a demonstration of a dynamic player in action)

Sometimes the lure of dynamicism replaces what could be a simpler, more effective, strategy. It's almost as though winning pretty replaces the simple fact that the games are played to win. In basketball, fans "ooh" Kobe's turnaround jumpers, but his eFG% on those particular plays aren't really that hot. Those aren't the plays that generate the Lakers' edge over other random teams, and yet those are the plays which garner the highlight footage. They simply look the best.

In poker, this is common. The player who makes the amazing hero call, wild bluff, or incredibly thin value bet is often credited for his genius, his creativity, his dynamicism. And sometimes the plays are incredibly good - although perhaps unconventional, they are things that should be conventional, only because they are grounded in theory. But there are also many plays that are praised and gawked at, but when you actually boil it down, are pretty fucking terrible. In other words, an individual has sacrificed the bottom line (perhaps not even knowingly!) in order to provide entertainment. It's not enough to win, they also have to impress while doing so.

No real point with this blog, other than to jot down a view on various styles that can succeed. In the past I've tended to side with dynamic play, almost out of loyalty. My friend JC Moussa, for example, is a very good high stakes player. I also think his style is the complete opposite of dynamic. I pretty much know how he's going to evaluate a hand, ("fold") and yet at the end of the day... He's still really good. Maybe dynamic poker is overrated?

One final comment - I went to Foxwoods last week from Tuesday to Thursday. The game plays 10 handed there, dealers do not collect their own tips (but will in a month or so), and there are many regulars, most of whom act slowly and tightly. Apparently one of the regulars (an older Asian man, Alex told me he's there often but probably doesn't lose much - it's impossible to think this guy is a pro who wins) late in the night leaned over and whispered to Alex, "Does your friend [me] have a gambling problem?" Alex responded "Uh, no, why?" And he said, completely seriously, "He has played every hand, I haven't seen him fold before a flop yet". Thought that was funny...