Well,if it was just a game of math, it would just be a matter of learning what percentages of hands to play etc. However, the element of tilt (being angry for an illogical reason imo) can make a weaker player have an edge over a mentally weak strong player. And since you can use your brain to change that mental edge, I'd say that constitues a psychological effect. I'm sure someone with a psych background could give you a more eloquent answer.

Well the reason I asked you is because, as a self-declared poker expert, I thought you'd have a lot to say about what psychology has to do with poker (I don't mean that facetiously).
You say that poker involves math and learning percentages, I agree with that.
You say that psychology is used to address tilt, and variations in tilt between players creates edge, I agree with this.
I'm thinking psychology itself has a lot more to do with the intrinsics of poker, rather than just being extrinsic to it (like call it in when you need to fix problems...analogous to, say, psychology and Formula One engine designers...it's not part of their job per se, but it's definitely used to help them get better at their jobs when they get stressed, etc).
If you look through the answers here, you can see that people are talking about two different things, by psychology...about 50/50 poster split. Some say it's that extrinsic thing you describe, some mean that it's actually a part of poker. I've seen it discussed here before, some say it's ....about 80 percent of poker, the rest being...math, you speak of, and hand mechanics, stuff like that.
This can all be looked at in terms of game theory...it would have something very clear to say about the role of psychology, and its role in how hands are played an their outcome.
In beginner's poker, it's mostly the math and the mechanics of it, that people are trying to learn. When people make mistakes, they're often at this level.
When you develop as a poker player, you enter higher stakes, and encounter more experienced, thoughtful competition, you realise that people's attachment to math, strategies, styles, perceptions, are all exploitable by the other guy. This is one of the ways psychology comes into play. And given that many decent players just aren't losing because they make math/mechanics errors, the only way to beat them is in the psychology plane.
So there you have it...the game, at a meaningful level, is predominantly a psychological exercise. So I ask you...when Tendler is writing his books, where does he deal with this vast, overwhelming chunk of the game? Because if 'mental' factors like tilt, stress, confidence are going to be treated, then surely they will talk to the psychological element of poker more than anything?

CH: As with the content of any poker psychology thread there is never a one-size fits all solution. (but then again I don't sell books).

I can only respond from my own personal poker matrix; I survive (starting playing in 1969) by being contrarian - but I (modestly) think there is a healthy amount of poker IQ in the mix too.

Never play on-line; I rely on empirical visual and auditory data to keep an edge. I traverse across several casinos; the sense of being a relative "unknown" helps with some strategies, but more importantly players of similar ages/experience/ethnicity play pretty much the same way in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane Adelaide etc.

Their speech conforms to certain patterns; having a well-developed decade-long understanding of "true" poker linguistics is a distinct advantage. Many in here ridicule this notion. That is their choice.

Body language is another psychological feature of playing poker. If your interpretive skills are accurate, another 5/10% goes into the years bottom line. And certain features/actions are consistent across Australian casinos within age/ethnicity & experience cohorts.

And these two notions (which to me overlap into the realm of poker player profile standardisation) can be reversed. Because you know how they respond and what they react to, you can feed them the wonderful world of mis-information.

So we are starting venture into conditioning. And that is how you have to view your opponents - Pavlovian subjects that you can manipulate. Quietly, systematically, emotion-free, devoid of insult, clinical. Robotic almost.

As you develop a sense of poker proprioception, many things become superfluous. There is no difference between 38% and 43%. It is only distinct mathematical polarities, the 80/20%'s that are part of your game.

What you shed is sometimes more important than what you utilise.

The focus elements are what you hear and see, accurate player assessment, and what you project. A simple business suit and tie, for example, doesn't fit the persona of a semi-professional poker player. (more like a businessman with surplus dollars) The absence of poker language, replaced by silence or conversation about football compliments "poker ignorance". Perception is important.

And that is what many players instantly try to establish. Where am I on the pecking order on this table? There are not aware of it, but every syllable, every statement, every comment is being cross-referenced within a vast poker database. This helps. And it helps when you know what to say, or what movements to make, or stumble in your feeble comments when you dominate a hand but they are betting themselves further and further into a very bad result.

And after a few hands, and the derisions start to appear (directly corresponding to increase in your stack size) the fear starts to set in.

And the centrepiece of any mercenaries psychological arsenal appears - the wonderful world of bluff. All helped by subtle signposts such as chestbeating, tirade, chip fondling, grimace and a thousand and one other indicators that help light up the runway.

Sometimes luck works against you but that's just the way it goes. The notion of "bad beat" concerns me zero. I can afford to ride out minor hiccups. What concerns me though is the quiet player, who offers little. If his playing style is more contrarian than my own, major hiccups can occur. But, the change mechanism that this catalyses (with all the multi-disciplined analysis that goes with it) is the element (financial aside) that makes poker challenging.

This may only offer a partial answer CH, but it may give you an individual rather than collective interpretation of some of the jigsaw puzzle. Might challenge a few boundaries along the way.

I'm not sure if self-declared poker expert is a slight, but I'll answer that first. I think if you are satisfied with the results that you're getting, you could be considered an expert.

As for your other points: psychology is the scientific study of the human mind. In that way, using a person's past tendencies to explain their total range, trying to figure out what our opponents are thinking etc, fall under the category. Only my opinion.

I'm confused about what you mean regarding the 80% being psychology and then you ask why he doesnt deal with the vast other part. Perhaps you can clarify.

Rev, what exactly are you calling contrarian? Sometimes when I read what you post, all I can think is that you are a hipster trying to sound smart. For example, "What you shed is sometimes more important than what you utilise" This doesn't mean anything, it's just a play on words.

It's kind of tilting that every thread on psychology inevitably comes back to tilt - like eliminating tilt will instantly make you a better player.

Instead, people looking to psychology should be considering the positive elements it can bring, such as improving motivation, concentration, self confidence and using psychological skills training to enhance performance.

Blaming all your poker problems on tilt is just focussing on the one negative element that may or may not be the route of your failure at poker - focussing on developing and improving your strengths will in all probably be far more effective in improving your poker game and your overall development as a person.

Because men are pussies when it comes to discussing their feelings and especially weaknesses.