The Organic Method

When I think about buying something new, or designing something new I tend to look back at the most recent innovations, even the original innovations themselves. Yet I rarely look to create from a purely instinctive, naturalistic perspective. Which is now something I believe is potentially better.

When you think of a design ideal there are perhaps deadlines or time constraints and that the idea itself evolves radically faster than you might expect it too. Not necessarily to its detriment or to it’s full potential either. Organic design, that of nature can take millions of years to produce a brilliantly complex design based on simple rules. Life is a perfect example. So squeezing a solution out in short spaces of time will surely never capture the problems essence in its entirety. A different, less considered and more flowing, instinctual design process could yield surprising results. Prototyping, where solutions good and bad are quickly processed through a trial and error phase, is still key to this idea, but the creative process I feel could be much more!

One of the things that I see when I’m playing poker is how my willingness to make a particular play can be affected by the amount of money involved, i.e. hindering my flow. To this I suppose I can easily say a solution would be to increase my bankroll requirements so that there really would be no amount of money that would sway my decision at a particular level although a balance should be achieved to make sure i’m never reckless with my money. At the moment, my BR strategy is quite aggressive from what I understand. I am comfortable with only 20 buy-ins at a particular level before I move up in stakes. Even at a bb/100 rate of 8, I think the potential for 20 buy-in downswings is relatively high (I won’t go into the maths but it’s well within 6-9 months of my standard game play). This April just gone I had to endure a 30 buy-in downswing, dropping through the levels to equate for the losses. My opponents having the goods almost all the time, and not obviously given their range either. That’s not to say I played flawlessly, because I didn’t. It is true to say though, that it’s inevitable no matter how I play.

The issue with applying an organic game methodology though requires some very stiff rules regarding BR requirements. Perhaps in the region of 80+ buy-ins per level. I don’t want to feel stagnant and inflexible by this BR strategy. That said if I feel the “grind” I can always have what I might call a “cheat” day. Athletes often term this a day when they forget the regular training routine and do & eat whatever. I may jump up a level to renew my perspective and relieve any monotonous feelings. Not such a bad idea! As for organic play, it’s really about just letting loose and going with whatever feel and reads you get from the game. It’s more likely that we learn from our peers and their styles, emulating their methods hoping to produce the same results. However, if you know the mechanics of the game you can certainly just do what you feel and attempt to learn from it! This really is where giants leaps are taken and great things can be achieved.

Hanging on the coattails of those that went before you will only lead to second place, and as nice as that is…first is better! My instincts tell me that the variance applying this kind of methodology may well be high, and frankly in my game that really isn’t desirable. My game however has improved recently as I understand ranges better and variations in odds analysis with regard to profitability. When all is said and done, the next time I look for answers, I’ll be more open & flexible with originating my ideas and solutions, not with what’s available, not even with what I think is possible, but with what feels natural. EVERYTHING is natural, so being liberal with my ideas should maximize their simplicity through a sort of evolutionary thinking.