A couple of book reviews

BaddBeatBobb reviews The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning
and The Complete Book Of Casino Poker

Theories of poker

This is a reprint of Chapter 10 in The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning

Chapter 10
Theories of Poker

Poker theory is a topic that takes much more than a chapter in a book to cover completely. At least two books devoted almost entirely to poker theory have been written, and neither of those books even attempts to fully cover the topic. The point of this chapter isn't to give a complete review of poker theory, but to provide a summary of how poker theory provides direction to strategic and tactical thinking in poker.

One problem in poker theory is that many poker analysts who write books or magazine articles about poker don't seem to really understand how theory influences thinking about the strategy and tactics of the game. Most analysts have a favorite theory about the game, and whenever they are confronted with a situation for analysis, they immediately view the situation through their favorite perspective. There are many alternative theories of poker, and a complete analysis of the game requires a frequent shifting of theoretical perspective.

In most fields it's not unusual for researchers or analysts to blur the distinction between the theory of some phenomena and a model based on the theory. That's particularly true in the poker literature. A theory of poker and a model of poker, however, are really distinct things, and I think it's important to understand that distinction when you're thinking and learning about poker.

What is a theory?
A theory has three characteristics: descriptive, explanatory, and predictive. None of these characteristics are necessarily explicit or even complete in any particular theory. A good theory is usually one that can be simply stated in one or more straightforward declarative sentences that has desirable implications for describing, explaining, or predicting observed behavior of the phenomena under study. A good theory doesn't need to do all three of these things. A good theory, however, does need to have some strong explanatory power. A theory that doesn't help us understand the game doesn't really help all that much.

An example is a simply stated theory of poker is: Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights to the ante. This theory doesn't lend much towards describing poker. It doesn't tell us how the betting is structured to facilitate the struggle among the players. It doesn't tell us how to determine which player ends up with the pot.

The theory does have some explanatory power for the first round of betting. It explains why it's usually best to limit your opening hands to those hands with self contained power rather than those that have value through drawing power. Since it does not address the pot growth that comes from multiple betting rounds, it adds nothing to an explanation of the value of hands like Jack, 10 suited in Hold 'Em.

The theory has some predictive power, but not much. A theoretical prediction for poker should provide us with a prescription for play - it should tell us something about the best way to play the game. For poker variants with multiple betting rounds, like Hold 'Em, it just doesn't do that. It does help us predict things like a tight range of likely hands that a knowledgeable player who opened from early position might have.

An example of a theory with a different kind of predictive power is: Money flows from bad players to good players. This theory doesn't have much descriptive power; it doesn't tell us who the good and bad players are. Assuming we have some other method to identify good and bad players, it does help us predict the outcome of a poker session. In fact, I used a simple mathematical model of that theory to develop the recommendations in Chapter 8 for when a single really bad player in a game can make an otherwise unprofitable game profitable.

What is a Model?
A model is a structured representation of a theory. It's descriptive of the theory, not necessarily descriptive of the phenomena. Often we can use a model to derive the predictive elements of a theory. A model might be in the form of an explicit mathematical statement, or it might just be a conceptual structuring.
An example is a game theory model of the Poker-is-a-struggle-for-the-ante-theory. You can use a game theory model to derive a list of opening hands by position. In relatively tight games, where it's typically heads-up after the first round of betting we can use that same game theory model to determine the hands with which we should be willing to call an opening bet. We can extend the use of the same model to determine when to bet, call, or bluff on the river.

For a game like draw poker, where in most games the players tend to be relatively tight and you only have two rounds of betting, you can use a game theory model to almost completely specify a winning playing strategy. That approach, however, just doesn't extend for a game with more than two betting rounds. It doesn't help all that much for a game like Hold 'Em.

Although a game theory model does help us analyze some situations, a game like Hold 'Em requires a different approach to the game. Hold 'Em is very complex and it's doubtful that we could formulate a complete model of the game - even if we could do so, the mathematics of solving it would very likely be intractable. We can, however, develop theories related to particular aspects of the game, and use the models that those theories suggest to analyze tightly defined situations.

The game theory model suggested by the ante theory is one such use. As I've already mentioned, that model can be used productively to analyze opening hand requirements in tight game conditions.

Another model is suggested by the theory that Poker is a struggle between made hands and drawing hands. This theory suggests the use of a multinomial probability model to analyze the play of drawing hands. By multinomial I mean a model that assumes multiple discrete outcomes, such as win large pot, win small pot, lose small pot, or lose large pot. Multinomial is like flipping a coin with more than two sides. A dice game is an example of a multinomial game.

The theory that Money flows from bad players to good players suggests a conceptual model of the game that implies that table selection involves looking for a table with large pots. This step from theory to model is not always an obvious one. But, it's an important one in an analysis of the game.

Variables in theory
Implicit in a theory of poker is the concept of a variable. This is something that might change value or might even be a constant with an indeterminate value. By indeterminate I mean we won't know its value until the hand is over. For example, the hand we are dealt is a variable. It's a special kind of variable in that it's random, but it's not indeterminate -- we know our hand as soon as we look at it.
The hand our opponent is dealt is also a variable, in the same way our hand is, but it's indeterminate, we won't know his hand until the showdown. By the way, my description of the hand you've been dealt as a random variable is something of an example of what I talked about earlier in the blur in the distinction between a theory and a model. In the extreme it's not really correct to call the deal random - once you've specified the initial order of the cards, tracked the exact shuffle and cut the deck it is perfectly deterministic and predictable. Of course, we don't keep track of things like the exact shuffle so it makes sense to just think of them as occurring as the result of randomness. Randomness is a model of the shuffling process, not a theory of shuffling.

Strategy and tactics
Although it's not directly relevant to theories and models, I think here is a good place to differentiate between strategy and tactics. Strategy is about the metagame. An optimal strategy is one that maximized your expected playing result over some period of time, maybe a playing session of a few hours, maybe a longer period such as months or years. Tactics are about the individual decisions that make up the play of the hand. An optimal tactic is one that maximizes the expected result of the particular situation.

The topics we've already discussed, game and seat selection, are strategic issues. There is no expectation of an immediate payoff from picking a good game or a good seat. In fact, there is no possibility of an immediate payoff. No one is going to toss you a few chips as soon as you sit down.

Playing poker as a string of tactically optimal plays does not generally lead to an optimal strategy. However, an optimal playing strategy will lead to optimal playing tactics. The reason for this is that a focus on strategic issues will tend to maximize the opportunity for profit. Without maximizing opportunity, you can't maximize profit. For example, if you consistently play in a game where the other players just aren't going to lose much money, then no amount of tactical superiority will win as much money as you would win by playing in a game where the other players will always just play until they go broke. Strategic issues, such as game selection, come first. Only then can you rationally deal with tactical issues such as a choice of what hands to play. In poker, it's usually the case that strategy focuses on the other players, and tactics focuses on the cards. The distinction isn't really that sharp, but you won't go far wrong by thinking of strategy and tactics in these terms.

Uses of Poker Theory
Poker theories help us gain a deeper understanding of inherent elements of the game. They help us develop a perspective of the game. Some of the current poker theories are given in the table below.

Table 10-1

Theoretical perspectives and game conditions


Perspective Game Conditions

Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights to the ante Very tight, tight

Money flows from bad players to good players all game types


Poker is a game of money and odds loose and very loose games

Poker is a game of partial information Very tight, tight, typical, loose, aggressive
Poker is a game of strategy and deception Very tight, tight, typical, aggressive

Poker is a contest between a made hand and a drawing hand Tight or typical

Poker is a game of kickers and hand domination Tight or very tight

Poker is a game of manipulation and pressure Typical, loose, very loose

As you can see, each of these different theoretical perspectives essentially focuses on the key variable of some particular facet of the game. No one of these theoretical perspectives provides a complete theory of poker, but each of them has its uses in developing a complete understanding of the game.
Uses of Poker Models
A poker model helps us explore the implications of a particular theory. It's through the analysis of either a formal mathematical model or a conceptual model of a theory that we can uncover the strengths and weaknesses of a particular theoretical perspective. A good poker model isn't going to try to reflect every nuance and quirk of a poker game. We can use explicit poker models, inspired by the appropriate theoretical perspective, to analyze the effects of a wide range of decisions; from deciding whether to play in a particular game or deciding whether to raise with an A A.
An example of a model is an Equity Model. PokerStove (downloadable from www.pokerstove.com) is an example of an implementation of an Equity Model.
Equity is the percentage of wins of a hand in a given situation. It’s not just the percentage of time that a hand will win, equity computation includes split pot situations as a half a win.
Some poker TV shows give hand equities of situations, some just give expected win probabilties, ignoring split pots. Some of the TV equity calculations include what’s known about discarded cards, some don’t.
A General Theory of Poker
We don't have a general theory of poker. By a general theory I mean a unified theoretical view that encompasses most, if not all, of the commonly accepted theoretical perspectives of the game. Some of these perspectives are:
Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights to the ante
Money flows from bad players to good players
Poker is a contest between a made hand and a drawing hand
Poker is a game of strategy and deception
Poker is a game of partial information
Poker is a game of money and odds
Poker is a game of manipulation and pressure
Poker is a game of kickers and hand domination
Poker is a game of implied odds

All of these theoretical perspectives are useful. No one of them is better than the others. Each is useful in a different aspect of the game. At different parts of this book, we look at poker through different perspectives. You've already seen two examples of this.
In Chapter 8, on game selection, we looked at poker through the perspective that money flows from bad players to good players. We used that perspective to identify games that involve many players putting a lot of money into the pot as profitable games.
Some poker players argue that the best games are those when the players are passive, preferably loose/passive, but also tight/passive. The reason they come to that conclusion is that they are looking at poker through a perspective of strategy and deception. A weak game of passive players does afford you more opportunity at using advanced strategies and deceptive plays, but that's not the most important source of profit in poker.
It's not a question of which perspective is superior to the other. It's a question of which perspective is more useful in helping to answer the question at hand. In the case of game selection, the key variable is the amount of money available. The money-flow perspective focuses on this key variable, and is the preferable perspective to use when considering selection of a game.
In Chapter 9, on seat selection, we looked at the game with a different perspective. There the focus was on the point of view suggested by a strategy and deception perspective. Most poker writers seem to look at seat selection through a prism of a partial information perspective.
One major difference in seat selection strategy that results from these different perspectives is in the case of maniacs. A common recommendation is to sit with the maniac to your immediate right. I suggest the opposite, sit with either him on your immediate left or half-way across the table from you. What is the reason for the difference? It's because of the difference in focus from the two different theoretical perspectives.
If you use a partial information perspective you'll want him on your right to ensure you have as much information as you can get before you have to act. There is nothing wrong with that except: We are talking about a maniac, someone who plays almost every hand and raises at every opportunity. How much more information can you have? You get very little extra information from having a maniac on your right. But having him on your left expands your tactical playing options tremendously.
Poker is a struggle among the players for the right to the ante
This perspective has relevance in the early parts of the first betting round. In Hold 'Em we use blinds rather than antes, but the point of the perspective is that the game begins as a struggle for the initial money in the pot. It's a useful perspective in determining opening hand requirements, particularly in somewhat tight games and from early position.
Money flows from bad players to good players
The premise of the ante-theory is that without some initial seed money in the pot, you have no game. The point of view of the bad-player perspective refutes that, however, with the observation that some players play so badly that they'd be willing to play even if the pot had no money to start with at all.
Poker is a contest between a made hand and a drawing hand
This is a perspective of a simple two-player confrontation where one of them has the best hand and the other has a possibility of becoming the best hand. It's a useful perspective to use when analyzing situations where you're fairly certain that you either have the best hand or are fairly certain what the best hand is. This perspective is not useful, and in fact can lead you far astray, once you have more than two or three players competing for the pot.
Poker is a game of strategy and deception.
This perspective has a focus on making advertising plays to establish a false image, outwitting your opponents by bluffs and semi-bluffs, and using position to steal pots.
Poker is a game of partial information
This perspective views poker as a mathematical game. The focus is on evaluation of information about your hand and the probable hands of your opponents. The idea of partial information games is derived from game theory.
Poker is a game of money and odds
This perspective is a view of poker where pot size and drawing odds are the important variables. It's a particularly valuable perspective for play in loose games and some aggressive games.
Poker is a game of manipulation and pressure
This perspective is similar to the strategy and deception perspective. The difference is primarily more of an emphasis on false image than on tactical uses of position. Players who view the game primarily through this perspective tend to use a lot of table talk to manipulate and confuse opponents. Amarillo Slim was a master of this. Other's who view the game through this perspective tend to apply pressure by playing in a fast, aggressive style. The current master of the techniques suggested by this perspective is probably Mike Caro.
Poker is a game of kickers and hand domination
This is an important perspective in tight games or in any games where tight players have entered the pot. The emphasis is on the added value of having two high cards rather than one. Of course, two high cards have value because of the increased probability of flopping the top pair, but the domination perspective focuses on the card that does not have a match on the board -- the kicker.

Poker is a game of implied odds
In deep stack no-limit games it’s often more important to think in terms of the possibility of winning future bets than it is to be concerned with current hand value.


What it all means
Which theoretical perspective you use to analyze a situation just depends on the situation and the game-condition context of the situation. Before you finish this book, you'll see examples of using all the theoretical perspectives to analyze the game. That's the key to developing a dynamic approach to the game. Developing the ability to quickly shift your point of view is the first step in being able to adjust to changes in game conditions - the key to winning poker.

Crazy Asian Gambler

I've been reading The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why.

A basic premise of the book is that

The Chinese believe in constant change, but with things always moving back to some prior state. They pay attention to a wide range of events; they search for relationships between things; and they think you can't understand the part without understanding the whole

and

Westerners live in a simpler, more deterministic world, they focus on salient objects or people instead of the larger picture; and they think they can control events

This has strong implications as an explanation for the stereotypical Crazy Asian Gambler. That Crazy Asian Gambler is playing the table, not playing individual opponents.

There really is a difference. That was part of the point I was trying to make in my hold'em book when I talked about adapting to table conditions as opposed to other author's suggestions that you should adapt to particular opponents. You can profit from exploiting characteristics of the total mix at the table without having to worry about exploiting individual opponents. That's what the successful Crazy Asian Gambler is doing.

I think this is actually pretty profound stuff.

Why more people should read my hold'em book

I ran across this post on 2+2

When talking about playing speculative hands, I often read about needed a certain number of callers/limpers to play hands such as K3s or 67s. However, I've don't recall anything specifically mathematical about such hands.

As an example, early in 180 player SNG I had K3 in the small blind. Blinds were 15/30. One caller, and it's to me with 75 in the pot.

One the one hand, there is only one limper to play a speculative hand. One the other hand, I'm getting 5:1 (75:15) to call.

Is this a call?

He only got one response who said he shouldn't call. I'm not sure how you can actually answer the question since the poster doesn't tell us whether it's a limit or no limit game. Most sit-n-goes are no limit, but his obsession with current pot odds suggests he's talking about a limit sit-n-go.

Calling might be okay in a no limit game because of implied odds, but he doesn't tell us anything about stack sizes so we can't really be sure about that either.

All in all I think folding is probably the best idea but a call might not be so bad.

But that's not the reason I'm posting.

I'm posting this because of his statement

I often read about needed a certain number of callers/limpers to play hands such as K3s or 67s. However, I've don't recall anything specifically mathematical about such hands.

I don't know what that means. A statement that you need a certain number of callers/limpers to play hands like XYs is a specific mathematical statement.

So if he's seen the statement that you need 4-6 callers to play 67s or 5-9 callers to play K3s then he's seen specific mathematical statements about how many limpers/callers you need to profitably play those hands.

That's, by the way, what I say about those hands in my hold'em book (p138-144).

The overlap is related to how badly you estimate your opponents play after the flop. Of course these estimates are also based on your being in a limit game, on having late position, and on the number of callers/limpers being typical for the lineup. That last dependency is on a distinction between 6 tight limpers and 6 loose limpers. In a game where most flops are seen by 2-3 people a situation with 6 limpers is very different from that of 6 limpers in a game where 6-7 limpers is the norm.

In a game that's generally tight and passive the K3s (or even something as strong as K9s) is pretty much worthless after 6 limpers. But in a game that's generally loose and aggressive a K3s might be worth a shot.

That might not look mathematical to you, but it's still a mathematical statement. Just because it doesn't use mathematical notation, or doesn't result in a close form statement using mathematical notation does not mean it's not a mathematical statement.

I'll use this as a plug for the blog Math and Poker which often talks about mathematical concepts without using a lot of mathematical notation. X=2 isn't really a mathematical statement (unless X is defined) but "I have two apples" is mathematical.

Some positive comments in that 5 thread about Gary Carson and his work

Not everybody who posts t 2+2 thinks my work is crap just because Mason says it is.

I gave his book on hold'em a quick read a couple of years ago. I actually thought it was quite good, especially since he wrote pretty extensively about adjusting your play based on table conditions. Probably very few here will agree with me but that's okay too.

As I mentioned previously in this collection of posts, that need to make adjustments according to table conditions, and not adjustments from a base but complete adjustments in the way you think about the game, is what the book is all about.

In that sense, by the way, the book is just as applicable to no limit games as it is to limit games. t least I think it is. I'm slowly putting a new edition which includes no limit ideas on the web.

Also,

I think of it as a companion to SSHE, which is focused more on a loose passive table. Carson's book is more interested in loose aggressive settings. I'd suggest reading both books with an open mind while actually thinking about poker.

Carson's book has its flaws. It doesn't seem to have much at all on turn and river play. I seem to recall that it has some laughable psychology, especially in the part concerning female players. But it also has its strong points. My favorite chapter in his book is the one on theories of poker.

Well, I think of SSHE more as a companion to CBHEP. Part of that is ego and part is that my book wasn't geared towards one particular game condition.

Many of the details do focus on loose/aggresive games, that's because I thought that was a game condition that few written works addressed and I thought it was the predominate game condition in the typical 20/40 limit game outside of Las Vegas at the time.

I wonder what was laughable about the psychology in the part about female players. Most of that was taken from observations that Abdul's wife had made and that Abdul had discussed on 2+2. Mason didn't agree with the observations, but Mason also didn't understand why Abdul didn't control his wife better.

The chapter on theories of poker is my favorite part of the book also.

More later.

When they don't care about money

DeadMoney Walking figures out how to play against opponents who don't care about money.

As often as possible

I think that's particularly funny because his discovery is a major premise of The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning, a book he thinks is outdated.

Poker Theory

In my book, The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning , I have a chapter on Poker Theory covering what I call theoretical perspectives -- different ways to look at the game. Someday I might like to try to write a book expanding that chapter, it's my favorite chapter of the hold'em book.

Here's an old thread on rgp where somebody was critical of that chapter. Like most of the criticisms of the book, he was complaining that I didn't cover as much material as he thinks I should have. As I point out in one of the replies in that thread, the book was contracted for 100,000 words and I came in long as it was. And, I don't think my writing style is longwinded (I'm a little more long-winded in blog posts than in other writing because in blog posts I'm writing for search engines in addition to for readers).

Here's the first post in the thread

Carson's "Theories of Poker" chapter contains some wonderful gems but
also some misleading fool's gold.

Many poker players tend to take a rather rote "cookbook" approach to
the game. They memorize general rules of thumb without really
understanding the reasons behind that advice. When "exceptions to the
rules" arise, these folks aren't aware the advice no longer applies,
and they make mistakes.

Most serious players eventually seek a better understanding of poker
fundamentals. Many, however, develop a theoretical perspective that
offers only a single, narrow view of the game. This "tunnel vision"
might be adequate for numerous situations in their usual game, but it
often fails when less normal conditions arise.

One of the strengths of THE COMPLETE BOOK OF HOLD 'EM POKER is that
Carson encourages readers to adopt a broader, more flexible approach.

There are many alternative theories of poker, and a
complete analysis of the game requires a frequent
shifting of theoretical perspective. (P. 107.)

Which theoretical perspective you use to analyze a
situation just depends on the situation and the game-
condition context of the situation. . . . That's the
key to developing a dynamic approach to the game.
Developing the ability to quickly shift your point of
view is the first step in being able to adjust to
changes in game conditions--the key to winning poker.
(P. 116.)

He lists eight theoretical perspectives, such as:

* Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights
to the ante.

* Poker is a game of strategy and deception.

He gives a brief explanation of each theory and indicates the game
conditions when they are most likely to be relevant. More
importantly, Carson uses these theories throughout his book to explain
various aspects of poker and why you should think differently when
playing in different situations.

I commend Carson for encouraging his readers to reflect on poker at
this new level. This is all very nice, as far as it goes.
Unfortunately, he doesn't do as well taking them to the next level.
Indeed, he indicates the next level doesn't even exist. Here's that
misleading vein of pyrite I mentioned earlier:

We don't have a general theory of poker. By a
general theory I mean a unified theoretical view that
encompasses most, if not all, of the commonly
accepted theoretical perspectives of the game. (P.
113.)

I believe there is a general theory of poker, at least for those
players whose primary goal is big profits:

* Poker is a game where maximizing the expected values (EVs)
of your decisions maximizes your long-term profits.

It's that simple--and that complex.

It's that simple, because once you understand expectation well, you
will understand everything Carson's eight theories attempt to
explain--and more.

It's that complex, because it isn't easy to understand expectation
well. And it's even more difficult to compute or estimate EV for the
many different situations that arise at the poker tables.

This complexity means serious players often need to think about
expectation away from the tables in order to develop good short cuts
or rules of thumb that they can apply in the heat of battle.

For example, there are instances when you very likely make your best
betting decision simply by comparing your pot odds to your odds of
losing the hand.

Similarly, there are times when you very likely make your best betting
decision by recognizing you are in a struggle for the antes and simply
playing aggressively.

I view Carson's eight theories as short-cut methods for guessing which
decision has the greatest EV. They supplement the general theory of
poker that I presented above and are encompassed by it.

If readers do not understand the eight theories in terms of
expectation, they are less likely to recognize which theory applies to
a specific situation.

Suppose you have pocket aces under-the-gun in a very tight game.
Based on Carson's explanations, you probably will conclude the
"struggle for the antes" theory pertains best and raise pre-flop.

In some of those situations, however, you ought to just limp in. If
you understand expectation, you can realize when calling is better
than raising. In the same way, this knowledge allows you to recognize
when you need to consider more than just pot odds.

Chapter 14, The Dynamics of Game Conditions

From The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker

Chapter 14

The dynamics of game conditions

Game conditions are generally derived from the behavior of the players. Loose players make loose games. Tight players make tight games, etc., etc, but it really isn't that simple. Players interact to create the game conditions, and they interact not just with each other but with the environment. Sometimes it's like that butterfly who flaps its wings in France and creates a storm in Thailand. Little things can have big effects on the game conditions.

You'll seldom see tight tables all of a sudden become loose tables or passive tables all of a sudden become aggressive, unless there is a change in two or three players. Even replacing one tight/passive player with a maniac isn't enough to change the overall character of the table.

The main changes that you'll sometimes see occur abruptly are a loose table turning tight or an aggressive table turning passive. Those changes can occur at a table with lightening speed, seemingly without warning, and if you're playing a strategy geared towards a particular game condition, it's those fast, unanticipated changes that can cost you a lot of money if you don't quickly realize that the change has occurred and adjust accordingly.

The way to guard against this is to be aware of clues that suggest that a swift, dramatic change in game conditions may occur. There are some events, some external to the table, some part of the game, that should heighten your vigilance about game conditions.

Events that can tighten up a table
Fun games tend to be loose games. Most people play poker because it's fun, and when they're having fun they tend to play a lot of hands. Such games tend to have a lot of table banter, joking back and forth among the players. Anything that is likely to interject a note of seriousness or discord into this banter will likely cause many of the players to tighten up, at least temporarily.
Often the table banter is being driven by a single, jovial, fun-loving player. Everyone may be joining in the fun, but it's that one player who's been driving it. In such a situation, game conditions can change immediately if the jovial player leaves the game. But, he doesn't actually have to leave for this to happen. Anything that might cause a change in his mood will tend to cause a change in mood for the table. Things like a particularly bad beat, or another player slow-rolling him on the river might cause it. Even him getting a business-related phone call on his cell phone might cause it.
There is a good chance the table will tighten up if one of the more loose aggressive players at the table is distracted, maybe eating, maybe talking to a cocktail waitress, he just got a call on his cell phone, a friend of his walked up to the table, or any one of a number of possible distractions. This is because loose players tend to be attracted to pots that have a loose/aggressive player active in the pot. Even loose players who don't do much raising often seem to enjoy competing in a pot where they know someone will be raising with probably weak hands. If that player is distracted and not involved temporarily, the other loose players will tend to pass.
Events that can turn a table passive
Aggression at the poker table takes a lot of energy. Often this energy tends to feed on itself, with each hand being played slightly more aggressively then the previous one. When that starts happening, look for the aggression to reach a climax and quickly dissipate.
One climatic event that frequently occurs is when an aggressively contested, very large pot is won by a player who was aggressively betting a draw and there is a multiplayer showdown. It often brings a temporary halt to aggressive conditions. Even players who weren't involved in the pot often feel the climax and will play passively for a few hands after that.
Aggressive games tend to be fast-paced games. If the pace of the games slows, the aggression will often dissipate. A change in dealers is one thing that frequently causes this. Don't assume that an aggressive game will continue to be aggressive for the first few hands of a new dealer.
Things that suggest the table conditions have changed.
One common characteristic of players at a loose aggressive table is that, once they've called a bet on the current betting round, they've committed to seeing the next card - they'll call raises.
When you see a player call a bet in middle position, then fold when there has been a raise and reraise, you can usually count on a change in game conditions to occur soon.
External events
Many events that don't directly involve your table can cause a change in conditions. Any kind of commotion or activity in the poker room might tend to distract players' attention, causing them to play both tighter and more passively.
A large pot at a nearby table might be enough to cause a distraction. A dealer shift change, where for a short period there are twice as many dealers in the room may cause a distraction. Many seemingly unimportant events might cause a distraction to the players. Watch for it.

UPDATE

DMV made a useful comment

DMW said...

I think about that passage often actually. I cannot corroborate it.

During 2005-early 06. I played a lot of 5-10 lhe with full kill. From 2-5 am the game was wild, often 7 people in for 3 bets pre-flop.

I would check, but I did not see that the table played passive after someone raked in a huge pot. SOMETIMES the next 2 hands were not raised, but the table went back to crazy in a very short time.

I'm going to have to do some clarification whenever I get around to a second edition.
My response

It doesn't always happen, not even most of the time. That's true of that entire chapter, I'm just talking about various events that might should make you a little extra vigilant the next couple of hands.

But a big climatic pot does have an effect many times (not most). You're right that even when it does happen the conditions will likely revert back after a couple of hands unless the player composition changes at the same time.

It depends somewhat on who drug the pot, or even who was involved. The players involved in the climatic event themselves will become more passive the next hand or two. Caro made that observation years before I did.

Are you talking about online? The book was written prior to online and the player interactions online aren't the same at all. Much of the effect of a big pot is visual, large pile of chips.