Episode 65: Ryan van Sanford

20 thoughts on “Episode 65: Ryan van Sanford”

1. AB with the Charles Barkley reference! This makes me irrationally happy. You should have stuck to your guns since it was indeed Sir Charles.

   Next time the idea/reference comes up, a la Mike Wilbon or Tony Kornheiser, you need to say, “I believe I had that!” which is the proud chest-puffing phrase of choice anytime a quote, fact, reference, or prediction proves to be the case for said sportswriters-turned-pundits.

   Also credit to following haralobob, who is, by all accounts, the man. He should be the man in TP-nitcast circles on account of a) being Canadian (Winnipeg) b) having an undergraduate degree in philosophy (graduated) c) building an 80k bankroll from sportsbetting and putting it all on a 8 to 1 shot at the start of the 2000 season (that LAL would win the title– probably the best gambling story I know) d) using big data in smart ways and owning the LV sharps and everyone else in his market. I guess b) is the only nitcast worthy point. But when you bet 100k a game its hard to be nitcast approved.

   • Haralabob interview please!

2. I liked this episode. A few random thoughts:

   1. “Intentional misclicks” on raises are a sub-genre of a whole host of related deceptive tactics: limping when someone has already raised, calling short as if you thought a bet was smaller, calling larger as if you thought the bet was bigger, etc. None of this strikes me as below board, but all of it seems (mostly) pretty silly to me. And while it’s not an angle in the negative sense, my guess is that works mostly to the detriment of inexperienced players, which means routinely employing it probably will give you a reputation as an angle shooter. Even more so for things like technically calling your hand correctly, even when it just means playing the board. Is that really how you want to get the money? Maybe some people. Not me.

   2. I shudder to think what I would have done (or what I would have believed about myself) with a $20k tourney score under my belt at age 19. But then again, I’m pretty sure at age 19 I had no idea what a backer was. Scratch that, I definitely had no idea. My how the world turns.

   3. I will always think of Turning Stone as my home cardroom — I was a senior in college 20 minutes away when the poker room opened in 1999, and have an overflow of fond memories for the place. A lot has changed there in 15 years, but three things certainly haven’t: you will probably never see so many people playing poker that you swear aren’t old enough to drive a car as you will at the Stone; you will probably never see so many people bought in short (like $60 in the $1/$2, $200 max NLHE game) in the low stakes games as you will at the Stone; and you will *never* reek of smoke leaving any casino in the US like you will leaving Turning Stone (the poker room is smoke-free now). It’s as if it’s still 1999 (or 1979) in that place!

   matt

   • I like this post.

     FWIW I think that “intentional misclicking” is somewhat different from putting out $100 instead of $200 to call a bet of 20 red and one black. It’s a bit hard for me to articulate why the distinction is important, but the distinction itself is: if you’re doing something more with your play than could be expressed by writing the action on a piece of paper, then you might be angling. If not, it’s hard to see what’s wrong with the behavior. Sure, betting T10100 instead of T1100 might be the result of a mistake, but it might not be, and overbetting is a pretty important part of the game.

     I’m sure there are exceptions to this rule, and I do think if you’re doing extra things to make it look like a misclick you’re probably in unethical territory, but it’s hard for me to agree that betting T10100 is unethical just because people often bet that much accidentally.

     This all reminds me of the time I put out 1 green and 3 reds out instead of 4 reds to call an open to $20. The greens looked surprisingly like the reds–they had red markings, and the reds had green. (The story ends with my calling a 4-bet with 65o against a Walter Sobchak lookalike and jamming over a flop bet.)

3. It was an absolute pleasure and I look up to Andrew and Nate as two people to learn from a ton. Capital V.

   • That’s very kind–it was a pleasure for me, too. I hope you’ll stay in touch with us.

4. Wow. I’m honored to be allowed into their circle after hearing how long it took Nate and Andrew to become friends. I kinda feel bad now that I just rolled up on Andrew at his break during the WSOP and barged my way onto his cousin’s and mom’s couches.

   That said, if I’m ever in Somerville, I will be on the look out for some pictures of Baby Nate. When I see Ryan, I’m just gonna ask to see his license.

   Great interview Ryan. I am glad to see one of the good guys getting a win. Inspirational man. Keep it up. I wanna be like you when I grow up.

   Sean, leaving in that one last Nate giggle after the outro was a great touch. I love those. I’d like to ask Nate for more of them, but I think they are better when they are spontaneous and natural.

   • 1) Carlos Welch: Your Source For Baby Nate

     2) Ryan’s License – that joke needs a little love!

     3) Even if you are the only one who heard that and enjoyed it, my work is complete! It didn’t belong in the episode, but I also couldn’t help myself from including it.

   • Also loved Ryan’s attitude on the podcast. Just really even keeled and realistic. Great to be starting out with that perspective at 20 (AND) to have access to great strategy content. I know I suffered from not having the latter (and the former of course) when I was starting out at 22-23. You get the impression he has the habits and perspective to keep getting better.

     I remember going to the WSOP and having a similar nonintimidation. It started when I sat at cash in advance of my first tourney. A player sat down with some assortment of big blinds, say 60, and proceeded to play terribly. I don’t want to label them a simpleton, but, they were a very young person, from what I could glean, and if you put a gun to my head and said “use the most descriptive word!” I would use simpleton. Anyways at some point they asked “hey is anyone playing any bracelet events?” Which is of course a cue for him to talk about playing bracelet events. He then offered “yeah I am playing three, got backers and shit.” He proceeds to lose the money in front of him after calling a shove in a bad spot after giving the “you got it buddy?” soliloquy to a random dude he had had no previous interaction with.

     In any case I thought this person had their moment and probably left thinking that 8 other strangers thought he was going to play 3 WSOP events — all for just 180$.

     Then the next day I saw him take a seat at a table in my section of the Pavilion room in a $1500 WSOP event :o.

     Later in the series, maybe my 2nd or 3rd event, a guy sat down at the table who obviously played online. He was maybe 24. He got into a spot with another obvious internet player playing LAG where I think the other player three-bet a KJ type hand and got it in good to double. Some button clicking spot that wasn’t so unusual for either player. KJ player goes to his phone after and newly sat now short stacked guy goes on this acid-laced talking to himself festive where he’s like reciting the hand history in abbreviations, mimicking the guy posting it to twitter. I thought, who are these mental game fish? I later saw that same guy on a HS cash television show. And yeah, all these guys are on their iPads looking at baseball scores the entire tournament. Its unconscionable.

     • Gareth, Its extremely cool to hear compliments like that from people I look up to. Every time I watch your videos i’m impressed. I believe i’m the product of a lot of run good and mentorship from a lot of people who helped me out for free.

5. I laughed a lot listening to this. Not all humorous, some were joyous. It was enjoyable to hear three smart guys, without any self-importance. The biggest laugh came when AB hit the Barkley reference then fumbled it.

   I too love the outtakes. This one is especially good, because I share Carlos’s joy at Nate’s laugh.

   I second Matt’s note on the misclick being part of general deception. I find it to be a small, unfortunate part of the game. Those who rely on these tactics may win hands but aren’t winners. As Matt notes, they take advantage of the inexperienced, but that is how lessons are learned. It is a long-term losing strategy. So for Daniel to do this, he is undercutting his own tremendous credibility. Even if it was an innocent mistake, it should make him be more careful, so as not to have the young kids like Ryan be disillusioned. Lastly, I say to Ryan, not with mean spirit but as I might say to my own son, “grow up”. AB is right, Negraneu is not a role model (on his blog/vlog he’s often a bully). Despite his celebrity, he does not represent me as a poker player (I think Ryan’s quote was “he represents all of us”). I feel about Negraneu as Nate does Dave Eggers. I’m suggesting we can all learn from this story that some poker players are less than we expected of them, and that is part of growing up.

   While I found Ryan’s take on Negraneu naive, he is one of my favorite guests. Very good interview. He is easy to cheer for, and he reminds me of Carlos. I hope to hear/read more from him on TPE and Thinking Poker.

6. RE the strategy hand near the end of the podcast:

   Can y’all talk some more about Villain’s range on the river when he bets? I’m super duper confused how y’all put worse hands in Villain’s leading range – let alone his calling range after Hero raises the river.

   Live players do not lead the river with worse than trips after Hero raises the turn IMO.

   On the river (I hope) I would have been deciding between calling and folding.

7. I’ve been thinking of Carlos with the extreme cold and icy conditions in Atlanta. Can’t get away from it this winter!

   For the insomniacs, and those of you who have trouble quieting your minds, you might like yoga nidra. It translates to yogic sleep, and it is a guided meditation where you are in control of your dream. Some yoga studios offer workshops and that’s a great way to be introduced to it. The process of setting an intention and focusing on it is powerful. You can also purchase a DVD on Amazon, and go through Andrew’s website to order it. My favorite is Mindful Living: Tools for Emotional Sobriety with Diane Finlayson. I study with her in Baltimore, and her voice is dreamy. It’s especially good for anyone in recovery, but has a general application as well. Sweet dreams!

8. Another enjoyable episode, though I thought there was more hand-wringing than necessary on the intentional misclick issue. You should focus on more nuanced debates, like the propriety of using two spaces after a period.

   Not surprisingly, I immediately focused on Nate’s gun comments. To his credit, Nate did not politicize the issue, and I appreciate that. However, he did mention that guns made him uncomfortable. Hearing this, I found myself wondering if he had ever addressed that discomfort.

   Nate, given your obvious penchant for learning and experiencing new things, have you ever tried to address your discomfort around guns by learning more about handling them? I recognize that this isn’t for everyone, but I’m reminded of a colleague of mine who once pulled me aside to confess that had gone to a shooting range for a guys’ outing and loved it. However, he was embarrassed because he was politically very liberal and thought that he was “not supposed to enjoy it,” and he also thought his wife would kill him.

   I’ve never carried a gun to a poker game, but I wouldn’t hesitate to if I thought it was appropriate (i.e. if I had to make the long walk across the vast, desolate parking lot at Parx that John the lawyer referred to last week).

   • Tony–

     Thanks as always for the comment.

     I’m not particularly eager to remove my discomfort around guns. If I thought that my beliefs were being unduly influenced by that discomfort, then I probably would. For now I’m very grateful for all the responsible gun owners out there; quite sympathetic to the view that many kinds of gun ownership ought to be permitted given that there is a natural right to defend oneself; and sad about certain aspects of gun culture. I don’t think that getting more comfortable around guns is likely to change any of those beliefs, and the discomfort itself isn’t something that I think is intrinsically bad to feel.

9. Been around guns my whole life, never once seen one discharge without human interaction. Guns don’t make me uncomfortable but lots of people do.
   Still, Nate’s default caution is probably best. Too many who are unfamiliar with guns treat them cavalierly. I much prefer Nate’s innate concern.

   I think it would take electro-shock therapy for me not to hit that space bar twice, despite my desire for efficiency.

10. I’d never heard of the idea of using two spaces after a full stop until about 2 months ago when I heard a journal editor saying that one of the first things he does on receiving a submission is find&replace “. ” with “. “. I think the practice has something to do with typewriters, right?

11. Anyone who uses only one space after a period is in league with Lucifer.

12. … ’cause I’m in need of some restraint:

    Regarding one space or two after periods, see the Chicago Manual of Style: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/OneSpaceorTwo.html (AP Stylebook concurs: http://www.wewriteforyou.com/Blog/?tag=ap-stylebook);

    Also see: typographyforlawyers(dot)com

    And from the editor in chief of Black’s Law Dictionary: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/4_vignettes_lead_to_a_single_moral_about_writing_better_briefs (see #2.)

13. I might just have very good short-range vision but I shudder at the thought of two spaces after a period. Aesthetically I equate it with the previous use of STOP to end sentences STOP

    Philosophically though I think there is nothing wrong with using two spaces STOP

    Gun discussion, here and in the show, was interesting to me STOP

Comments are closed.