I also read here book cover to cover. But let me answer your question by asking you a question. Are you aware that poker tournament players, unlike cash game players, virtually never tilt?

I hardly ever play a tournament and have never played one on the Internet, but don't worry, I have played plenty of poker and still play a moderate amount at The Bellagio here in Las Vegas, usually late at night (but not every night), and you're more than welcome if and when you're in town to sit in my game.

My comments are based on the words in the book, and by asking silly questions like this all you're doing is hurting Dr. Patricia Cardner.

MM

When meeting a peer for the first time, I would address them as Mr. or Mrs. [Last Name]. If they asked me to call them by their first name, I would do so. If not, I would continue to address them as I did the first time no matter how many times we spoke.

When I first came on here, I called Mason Mr. Malmuth but it became evident that he preferred being addressed by his first name.

What is your basis for saying that tournament players, unlike cash game players, virtually do not tilt? Especially considering, in your very next sentence, you say that you hardly ever play tournaments. Do you have a study? A poll? Information, stats, etc. to back up this claim? You just admitted you don't even spend extensive time in that environment.

Am I correct in my understanding that you play primarily LHE? Because I would hazard to say that playing LHE vs NL, factors into how much a player will tilt. A LHE player potentially can lose less which will engage fewer emotional factors than a NL player. LHE is more cut & dry. From my experience, anyway, but I'm more of a NL player with limited LHE experience.

No matter your opinion of who tilts or doesn't, it doesn't make Dr. Cardner's book any less valid. Her concepts apply to any poker player.

You also didn't address why you believe you are more qualified to write your book & she's less qualified to write her book. Or how you define one is "qualified" enough to write a book on a particular topic.

-Jack

So, if you & I met in a bar with a bunch of other poker players, & I stuck my hand out & said: "Hey, I'm Jack Smith. Nice to meet you." You would call me Mr. Smith until I suggested otherwise?

C'mon, Doc. Be real.

-Jack

I know a lot about poker and how poker works. Since you're asking me this question, it makes me think that you're not knowledgeable enough to evaluate what is written in these books.

I've played a lot of many different forms of poker including limit hold 'em, no-limit hold 'em, seven-card stud, razz, Jacks-or-better to open draw poker, and California ace-to-five lowball.

I guess they can apply to any form of poker but the number of tomatoes on my kitchen table is also an estimate of how much bankroll I need, but it's not a very good one.

Why should I address it? Do you realize that my first published article on gambling appeared over 30 years ago and there is a huge volume of work that I'm associated with including many books that I'm either the author or co-author of and all the books that 2+2 publishes in which I do all the editing as well as give the author extensive comments.

[/QUOTE]

MM

Yes, I would.

Just because you act a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does too.

Where I had the greatest issue with this post is when Dr. Carder (happy jack?) listed additional topics Mason might want to include. I took it as her veiled way as saying Mason was an egomaniac among other things. Maybe she didn't mean it that way, but that is the way I took it.

MM[/QUOTE]

Ah... I see. As some might say, "I've just been schooled." What you say is gospel, and shall not be questioned.

My questions do not reflect my abilities, my experience, or even my immersion in the poker world. My questions reflect an inquisitive mind seeking knowledge & facts. I don't take what I'm told at face value, because poker teaches us it's largely about deception. As is life. I seek verification.

If you'll reference my original question, I didn't bring into consideration your history of publications or experience. It's irrelevant when discussing your upcoming publication on POKER PSYCHOLOGY & your comments saying that Dr. Cardner is not qualified to write about this same topic. (To be crystal clear, editing, authorship, 2 degrees in mathematics, gambling articles, a huge body of work, etc., do not make you any more qualified to write about poker psychology than Dr. Tricia. Just like her podcast, PokerNews articles, association with Red Chip Poker, Gripsed.com, Float the Turn, 2 books, etc. don't make her any more qualified to write about poker math.)

For someone with 2 math degrees, you seem to have a very scant grasp on logic. Were you perhaps ill during those classes?

-Jack

As I am not a cash games player, I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why this is true, but I don't need to see any proof or know the basis for your conclusion.

I should make it clear that even though I quoted Jack, I was addressing Mason.

Good. 2+2 is a for profit publishing company and we hope you purchse the book.

Okay, I'm not qualified. Does that make you feel better? and perhaps this will go on the back cover. But I bet a bunch of books are sold, and that it impacts to a large degree how many poker players think about this stuff, and that there will be lots of debate on some of the ideas presented.

This is actually mentioned in my book. Let's just say that my professors made it clear to me before my oral exam that I needed to take my studies a little more seriously.

And thanks for the insult.

MM

The rules of tournaments negate the normal "reason" to tilt. Do you see why?

My questions were never about me "feeling" anything. I was trying to understand your perspective, to understand why you believe you are qualified to write about poker psychology & Dr. Cardner is not. I wanted to know why can't the both of you have something to offer the game? Why can you apply your studies of mathematics to poker & she can't apply her studies of psychology? Then, in addition, I wondered how you could discard Positive Poker, which contains information substantiated by numerous scientific studies, jump in with your own publication, & claim to know more about psychology? I was confused & seeking clarification. THOSE were my points.

As for the insult, I'm only returning the favour.

-Jack, Asker of Silly Questions & Not Knowledgeable Enough to Evaluate Material, Therein

Sorry, David, what "normal reason" would that be? There are many reasons that a player tilts. There are even many different types of tilt. Because of this, I don't see how tournament rules have any bearing on whether a person will tilt or not. So, I'm afraid I don't see why.

-Jack

I bet we'll understand better after we read the book.

What I am saying is that there is a large body of research & science within the field of psychology that can be applied to poker. I would love to see it applied in this book and I would like to see the references for which inferences are made.

If I wanted to learn about math, I would find Mason a credible (and likely excellent) teacher because he has experience and credentials in the field of math. If he is going to write about psychology, I would like to see how he makes use of current psychological literature so I can make a judgment as to the quality of his psychological theories.

I pointed out some areas that could be of interest to be included in a book on poker psychology. Ones that I have seen plenty of times while playing poker. I have never played with Mason - I play NLHE MTTs primarily - so I have no way of knowing if these apply to him or not.

Best,
Dr. C.

But you have been exposed to Mason through 2plus2 since at least 2008 so you may have formulated an opinion due to that.

Hi Everyone:

Here's a sample from her book Positive Poker; A Modern Psychological Approach to Mastering Your Mental Game from the "Increasing Self-Confidence" chapter and it's a stand alone point:

The bolding is mine and I just want to address the bolded part: Does this mean that your aces are now more likely to get beat? And what if you do make lots of positive statements to yourself but your understanding of how to play poker well is poor. Won’t your expectation when playing be negative? Put another way, if you want good results, become a good poker player and don’t worry about talking to yourself.

Best wishes,
Mason

Between two players who are equally proficient at making optimal plays (because they are equally knowledgeable, skillful and experienced) would psychology break the tie between these two?

In other words, you have two Dan Harrington clones when it comes having the ability to play poker well, would better psychology (as it pertains to the ability to motivate oneself, control tilt, manage energy, etc.) be a tie breaker?

If so, what elements of psychology would make the most impact and how would you rank these elements?

Hi Everyone:

Here's what I want to put on the back cover. All comments are welcome.

Beat wishes,
Mason

.................................................. ....Mason Malmuth

.................................................. .Real Poker Psychology


During the last few years, there has been much new information produced that comes under the heading of poker psychology. The idea is to cover that area of poker which is less strategic but still important to one’s overall success at the game, and a new area of mental coaching has appeared.

But poker, being a game based on probability that can be very counter intuitive and which also has a large short term luck factor can trick many players into thinking that things are a lot different than they are. Thus, the supposed need for psychological tools to help with ones play. But it turns out that gaining a good understanding of everything poker which includes the strategic concepts that govern expert poker play as well as the counter intuitiveness and the short-term luck factor will usually solve all problems.

In Real Poker Psychology, mathematician Mason Malmuth, who has written numerous books on poker and gambling, takes a fresh look at the psychological side of poker, and not knowing much about psychology actually makes him uniquely qualified to write such a book since he won’t make the errors that some poker psychologist make. Topics covered include “Variance,” A Mathematical Model of Tilt,” “Poker is Counter Intuitive,” “Craving Action,” “The Maniac,” “10,000 Hours,” “Being a Tournament Star,” “What Your Opponent Thinks,” “It’s Not What You Eat,”“Visual Cues,” “Fight or Flight,” “Apathy,” “Sucker Privileges,” “Self-Weighting Hand Histories,” “Recent Erroneous Concepts,” and much more.

Will the book also be available as an e-book?

You seem to be implying that Carder thinks that people can overcome poor understanding of the game after reading her book, but she doesn't. She says knowing strategy is very important [paraphasing her principle 1].

https://gyazo.com/3f9793ab6c1ceb0e3a2d2a19272d7840
https://gyazo.com/c36fc611be6fef796194336fb541950a

Is this really the best way to respond to people? "Since you're asking this question, it makes me think you're not knowledeable enough..." really? So he doesn't deserve an answer to his questions?

He asked a question and neither of you have answered. He asked you why tournament players virtually never tilt. You did not answer. David then chimed in "tournament rules negate the normal "reason" to tilt. Do you see why?"

Of course he doesn't and neither do I. That's why he asked!

As someone who backs 120 professional poker players all of which specialize in MTTs, I can assure you that tilt is a major thing for them.

If I'm misunderstanding I apologize for even posting. To me it seems you both are not addressing the question and are basically calling this guy an idiot.

I usually enjoy works that challenge the status quo and take a fresh look at a given topic. I for one think it's an interesting subject for a book that has potential for some intriguing hypotheses to result. You will likely never agree with 100% of what an author writes. That doesn't mean he/she won't have advice that can help improve your game though. Isn't that what we're all interested in here?

There seems to be concern here regarding your lack of a psychology degree. One doesn't need advanced degrees to talk intelligently on a subject in my opinion. It will be interesting to see how you develop/support your arguments. I will avoid insulting you until I have at least read the book.

IS THIS FOR REAL MR. MALMUTH?