I kept encountering a guy named Stevesbetas, a poker player who I thought was very weak. To be honest, although I usually beat him, he still managed to win some money from other regular players. It was only when I understood the idea of centrality that I realized why he was so successful against most players.
A similar example can be found in the guerrilla warfare of the American Revolution. In battle, the Americans would send weaker soldiers with simpler weapons to fight against well-prepared British troops. But since the Americans were fighting on familiar territory and their opponents were not, the Americans could create more opportunities for the invaders to make mistakes they otherwise wouldn't. This effect was compounded by the fact that most Americans were used to fighting those unfamiliar with their territory, so they already knew the common mistakes their enemies would make.
Sometimes you have to play against someone who has a very peculiar poker strategy, and in such cases, it's often decided that such a player is a fish. But after a while, it becomes clear that the opponent behaves quite intelligently after the flop and can even pose problems when trying to beat them.
If it's a player like Stevesbetas, we can conclude that he has the most experience playing against regular players who fail to adapt to his playing style. This gives him an advantage. Such phenomena are quite common in the poker world.
There are two strategies to defeat a player who plays in a very unusual or non-centralized style. The first is to study his central circle, i.e., to examine his familiar territory, his playing style, and get to know his environment. Even if you make mistakes along the way. Once you become familiar with his playing “landscape,” there is a good chance that your fundamentally stronger playing structure will prevail. You can only reach this point if you have enough patience and enthusiasm to explore unfamiliar territory and can do so quickly.
You might notice that this strategy is somewhat passive. It simply familiarizes us with the other player's choices, and then we try to settle into that environment. We'll call it a reactive strategy. Most “grinders” tend to play this way (and most of them do it poorly, which is why strategies like Stevesbetas' allow them to make money).
The second strategy is proactive, actively seeking points away from the center that would throw the opponent off balance. Poker players who choose this strategy play poker more aggressively, take more risks, and are more creative. When you play against someone who is fundamentally weaker, the game will be profitable because you can adapt more quickly to unfamiliar territory for both sides.
It's important to remember that the idea of centrality is relative. What is close to the center for one player may be far from the center for another. Centrality is defined by probabilistic frequency, so if two players play completely different styles, what is common for one player may be rare for the other. For example, if one player min-raises before the flop and always plays poker controlling the pot, while the other is used to 3-betting and making many over-bets after the flop, it's likely that they will push each other into unfamiliar territories.
The centrality-based idea consists of many factors, some of which depend on the other player. For example, in a 6-max game, cold 4-betting when an aggressive button 3-bets could be relatively close to the center. It's not something unusual, so we can conclude that the person will be able to handle the situation and respond quite well. But if instead, you make a cold 4-bet when an unpredictable beginner 3-bets, that could be a point far from the center, and other players won't be sure how to interpret such a situation (which usually means they will take less risky actions). Complexity and rarity always lead away from the center.
