This is what Mason actually said. Note the qualifier.

Jack,
You are 100% incorrect on this topic, sorry. I have the opportunity to know many physicians in both a professional and personal setting and in NEITHER do I ever refer to any by anything other than their first name. Not because I choose to do so, because they have asked me to do so. You see, they are people, yes they have achieved a level of professionalism that requires a certain amount of respect, but it doesn't require a moniker that singles them out due to their academic achievement. Either everyone deserves the respect or no one does, your choice but use it across the board. Here in the South we teach our children to address everyone as Mr or Ms prior to their name regardless of their educational or social status. You do as you choose, but don't make yourself out to be politically correct when you are not.
Chris

Hey Doc,
Obviously I do not believe this was the reason for Dr. Cardeners post; however, I do feel her reference to the APA standard deserved to be better explained than it had been as I feel many of the forum readers probably have never heard of APA, MLA or any other form of professional literature publishing formats. It seems you did not either. It was simply meant to educate, not insight. I hope this helps to clarify why I felt it necessary to offer an understanding to her post, sorry if it was taken in any other light.
Chris

Yes.

Best wishes,
Mason

It might be easier to tilt in limit hold'em. Limit games have a lot of action which leads to a lot of big pots. Even a hand like top pair can easily win a big pot in limit. And with players going to the river more often in limit games, there are going to be more bad beats. I always feel like I'm in for a bigger roller coaster ride when I sit down to play a limit game. I like no limit, but I think it's actually more boring than limit.

As for why tournament players virtually do not tilt, I'm not understanding that idea either. Can't players tilt before they lose all their chips? And aren't there at least mild forms of tilt that can affect their play? I am not a tournament player however, so maybe that's why I'm having trouble understanding that idea.

Yeah, considering I was 100% right in what APA stood for, there is no way I heard of any professional literature publishing format.

You've made a few interesting points. One, you live in the South. So, you & Doc T both have cultural differences in how you address others than others in varying parts of North America. Two, you said you don't address doctors both professionally and personally by their title, because you were asked to use their first name.

Let's assume we're using your cultural norms. Let's assume the 2+2 forums operate under your cultural norms. Just for kicks & giggles, anyway. I'll call all of you by the following: Mr. Chris, Mr. Doc T, Mr. Malmuth, & Dr. Cardner. That is, UNLESS, I've been told otherwise.

As Mr. Malmuth has said, going back to his days teaching undergrads, he insisted that his students call him Mason. That still stands, today. So, you & I have been given permission to call him Mason. I'm sure that Mason has made this clear, elsewhere, over the years.

However, I've not been given permission to call any of you anything but: Mr. Chris, Mr. Doc T, & Dr. Cardner. So, according to your arguments, we should all still be calling the doctor, Dr. Cardner.

-Mr. Jack, Admittedly UnPC

I find this interesting, Steve. I've never run into someone who played both LHE & NL, but preferred LHE because they found NL "more boring" in comparison. I usually hear the opposite.

Personally, I find LHE to be a steady game with minimal ups & downs, little to no adrenaline. The roller coaster for me is in NL. Add in the same potential for bad beats, bluffing, larger pots to be lost or won, & bigger emotional swings. I also find LHE has fewer decisions to consider. But that's just me.

Interesting. Matter of taste, I guess.

IMO, tilt can happen from virtually anything. Running like god, becoming so cocky you think you can do no wrong, so you spew a chunk of your stack after losing focus. Or the more typical bad beats, making a mistake, getting a disturbing text from a friend, family member, etc.

But I'm baffled over the concept that tournament players virtually never tilt, unlike cash game players. I'm hoping we hear a reply from Mason or David.

-Jack

Screw Deez Nuts! msusyr24 for President 2016!

Actually, I am not from the south. I am informal on here because this site is informal.

By the way, Mr. Jack makes you sound like a hairdresser.

My apologies, Doc. I could've sworn in our back & forth on this topic, that you'd said you were.

I don't understand your inconsistency re when you decide to address others by a title or not, but I'm done beating the dead horse.

And? Was that supposed to be an insult?

-Mr. Jack, Of the Luscious Long Locks

Mason: If Tricia started a thread saying she was going to write a math book as having no math experience makes her uniquely qualified to do so, what would you say?

The main problem I have with you writing this book is that people will judge themselves against the unqualified advice you write and this will be incredibly harmful to their development.

I would have more of an issue with that than Mason writing his book because math is a hard science while psychology is not.

Also, don't you think we should wait to see the quality and nature of his "advice" before we worry about it?

It is much easier to prove someone incorrect if they write a bad math book. Psychology may not be a hard science but it becomes a very destructive application when scientific method is ignored.

I don't believe anyone is qualified to write a psychology book based on their own subjective experiences. Mason is seen as a figure of authority within the gambling industry and that may be seen as reason enough by many to adhere to all the advice in his book.

Issues will arise when people try to force Mason's theories to work even though they only apply to him. He, himself may not be aware of the roots of the issues that apply to him and not to someone else.

To Everyone,

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?

This has been a repost.

I think over time, the advantage would go to the one more in tune with psychological elements.

Hi Everyone:

I did an interview yesterday with Chicago Joey and I talk about the new book starting at 28:20.

Best wishes,
Mason

That was pretty interesting. It definitely shed some light on what was going on in this thread.

Mason is wrong that what you eat does not impact your poker game.

Remember, Jamie Gold ate blueberries when he dominated the final table in 2006.

Hi gangnam holmes:

You've made a good point, so I added the following footnote to the manuscript.

Best wishes,
Mason

LOL

Looking forward to your book.

Hi gangnam holmes:

It now appears on page 148 of the draft which should be close to the page number after final type-setting.

Also, when the book comes out, send me a PM with your address and I'll send you a copy.

Best wishes,
Mason

aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssooo ooooooommmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The players who have played both and strongly prefer limit tend to have very little experience with limit (they never played it regularly and just tried it out for a short time and hated it), or they don't understand limit well, or they seem to think that being able to go all-in makes no limit a far more exciting game. Those are my experiences anyway. I've heard a lot of comments like "limit is a game of luck and no limit is a game of skill" or "limit is like slot machine poker."

I guess I could see a low limit regular tired of all the bad beats moving to no limit because in no limit you can raise the players drawing off their hands. Also the rake makes limit games at 4-8 or lower very difficult to beat (and maybe even unbeatable), but in games like 1-2 no limit even the regs who aren't that good can be winners. Perhaps this is one reason why some players prefer no limit.


There have been times when I played no limit for a while and then decided to play limit thinking that I'd be more comfortable because I wasn't going to lose my stack in one hand. I didn't lose it all in one hand, but I felt like my stack would go up and down a lot more in limit games.

If I was a maniac or a super loose player, I'd play limit. I could play terribly and go to the river on every hand. I will win occasionally just because I'll occasionally get lucky and have the best hand. In no limit I could lose it all immediately, and players will do things like raise big to make sure I fold before the river, which means my flush draw can't get there unless I want to risk my entire stack. Players would also get more value from their strong hands against me in no limit games. In short, instead of experiencing a roller coaster ride in no limit, I'd get crushed.


I think limit games (especially loose ones) have more bad beats, and more bad beats can cause more emotional swings. Also, no limit games can have huge pots when players go all-in, but there can be a lot of aggression in limit games and when multiple players are getting several bets in each round, the pots get really big. I've played in my share of no limit games with pot after pot being a small because people were folding more frequently than they do in limit games, and even though players had the option to bet big, they bet small anyway. I've played in a lot of no limit games with the average pot size not being big at all. I feel like the average pot size in limit games seem more significant to me. No limit does have the occasional huge hand to keep things more interesting though.


Limit has fewer moments when players need to tank because they feel they are facing a big decision. I don't see how it has fewer decisions to consider though.

Hi Steve:

I have played a great deal of limit over the years but also have played my share of no-limit, and I prefer the limit games by far. I also find no-limit boring mostly because it takes some players so long to play their hands,

However, I do recognize that many players feel exactly the opposite. So each to his own.

best wishes,
Mason