I do not know but i think some points couple of posters said and seem Mason have not address these issues, because he always fall on the maths and strategic knowledge :

Some Psychology book aim is to help you keep playing your A game, while only knowledge of poker strategy would not.
Hence more sleep, eat well, get a bit of exercise,etc. even tho these factors do not help at all to play better poker, they probably do help to play a longer time in a "zone" state kinda.

So in a sense, some tips from otherwise "bad book" might have some benefit, not because they help you play better but help you play better longer, or better said, prevent you from playing your B game, due from stuff that has nothing to with poker strategy.

This has nothing to do with math knowledge.

Can it work ?
I mean let just say it has some minor efficiently, like 10%.
Well 10% seem to be a huge benefit when you have ALREADY REACH certain level of proficiency.
It will not help you reach that proficiency but it can help you not play worst from his " best level ".
Your poker will not do better but your results will !

Obviously, a person who play 2 hours at a table in his A game and 3 hours in his B game will do worst if someone plays his A game 5 hours...


Let s take tennis for example ( i was not so bad myself), you probably know what distinct between the 5 players in the world and the rest top 30-40 is certainly not their skills but a lot more about psychology factors like how to cope with pressure, stay calm under pressure, being able to attain your A game or stay in the zone for a longer period, not being afraid of failing, not thinking in advance you won when you are the lead but stay focus on the present moment, etc.

Those factors have absolutely nothing to do with tennis but they do affect a player ability.

I do not know much but 1 thing i know, sometimes if i feel fatigue or did not eat much in the day, i will surely not be has effective in doing a lot of stuff than if i would have sleep or ate in the day, regardless i am playing poker, chess or doing a physical activity.

It is awfully simple for example but maybe some other concept might be applicable in that perspective.

I mean maths and physics have progress so much and made incredible discovery, it did not change much the mind of human tho and we still struggle with simple things.
Imo the mind is not as simple has 2+2=4, if it was, with all the achievement in maths, we would already have fond an equation to our problems.

ps: well while i was writing , some post came in ...

I think this is the main point.
Those psychology book will help when you have some really good grasp of poker strategy and maths ( like standard variation), because if you do not understand this, no psychology tips will help to prevent tilting if you do not understand this.
I just think you need to understand the math first and learn to accept those maths concept with psychology tips after ...
And a player that tilt ( too much and often ) is not a good player imo.

ps: well depends what good means, let just say he can be good but will not make a lot of money.
So what is the definition of a good poker player, the one who play effectively, the one who makes the most money or the one who plays awesome but do not make money because he loose due to tilt at the end of the night frequently...

But once you attain that profound understanding of poker, well now the psychology book will probably help because what distinguish the proficiency of players is minuscule.
So the best players will be the one that cope best with his mental toughness.
Even in limit poker.


priceless !
And cannot wait to buy it.
I know i have some big hole on these math subjects that i need to resolve .

Mason, no one is "making" you talk about anything. In fact, there have been several posters who have asked legit questions and raised equally legitimate concerns, that you have chosen to ignore. msusyr24, sheeprustler, & myself, to name a few. My point being, YOU are choosing what to respond to and what not to (even within a particular poster's entry).

As for selling your book, is your content going to be a run down of your supposed list of "200 errors" found in Positive Poker? Because the more I read your posts and from your interview, the more it sounds like it's personal or something against nearly every detail in Positive Poker. As if your focus is not debunking the poker mental game or poker psychologists, despite what you want us to believe. Because there are only so many mental coaches with books, and you've said you endorsed the others and numerous times slammed this book and author. For the record, it's possible to disagree with someone without getting personal. (And before anyone calls me out, don't jump on me without looking back to see who started waving his man scepter about and telling me what for.)

Positive Poker outlines scientific research for every claim with a bibliography at the end of each chapter. By making your blanket statements about sleep, diet, tilt, hand histories, 10,000 hours, etc., you are calling every scientist wrong & every study wrong.

The brain is a complex organ. It's ability to deduce and break down problems logically is not surgically severed from the emotional. Food, sleep, and so many other factors play into how the two are connected. For instance, I've witnessed in others and myself, that we become more irrational or emotional when we're very tired or very hungry. If I'm dehydrated, my mind becomes sluggish. I've seen this in others, too. The mind is more complex than the proverbial "well oiled machine."

If the brain was simply a "well-oiled machine," it's more likely we would all think & operate similarly. We don't. It's what makes people interesting. Why some tilt harder than others, some focus more precisely or longer, and so many other factors. Not only are we different in personalities, we are different in how we reason & how we deduce. So, while you reason that you are specifically & specially qualified to write this book over 'others,' Mason, I do not logically deduce the same thing. The beauty of how our brains operate differently.

Again, in case a shiny object distracted you, I'm pointing out the complexity of how our brains operate. It's not as black & white or cut & dry as you are making it out to be.

To say that a pro poker player only plays one game, their A game, and does not experience anything else is naive. Why have big names sought out mental game coaches for years?? (I'm talking as far back as Sam Chauhan's shenanigans.) These big names have been pros for decades with numerous bracelets and titles. It's because they know they could be even better, they need an edge. It's because they know that this is an area of their game that needs tweaking to keep them a cut above! Especially, if everyone can learn the mechanics, and as you say poker can be narrowed down to a 20-page strategy. After all, going through 1,000s of hand histories should make me crazy & I don't need 10,000 hours of study, right?!

So, is your book going to focus on the logic and methods to playing our poker A game 100% of the time, or is it going to be an opinion piece that picks apart another book? Because if it's the latter, I don't want to read your soap box pontificating. That's what you already use 2+2 for. Nor do I want to read about someone trying to sell a book, after years without a personal major release, by trying to ride someone else's coat tails to make that change. After all, mental game IS where it's at!

And if you argue that mental game is not, Mason, I'll happily join you in Vegas at your cash game & bring a bunch of my friends. Because if these words get me banned, how would you handle playing with me, if I'm holding back now??

-Jack, Check... Your move.

Doc:

The book sales comment was a joke.

Best wishes,
Mason

My two cents worth:

1c: Mason is coming to the party rather late...

and

1c: This book may do for MM's reputation what Ciaffone's NLHE book did for his reputation...nothing

Master Splinter made a funny.

I guess I'd rather read a poker book about psychology than a psychology book about poker, especially if that psychology book says:

I actually prefer to bold the first part. You get dealt A A and flop comes 7 8 9. So thinking positively in the face of this setback is a skill that is going to make you a good player? A better player than someone who rightfully thinks "geez, I don't think this is a good result for me at all so I might have to fold"? Because if you start making positive statements to yourself in that situation, somebody should inform you that your positive statements are likely to lead to disastrous results. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Dr. C. is going to do that for you, no matter how many wheat grass juice shots she drinks.

To have to read a book with the above declaration, and then the APA-approved annotations and bibliographies associated with it, would tilt me for sure (and I'm a tournament player!). I have higher hopes for your book Mason.

And to those seeking answers to the tilt question Mason hasn't answered, I think I can help. When you lose your stack with AA vs 22 in a cash game, your next tilted reaction is to buy in again and win your money back. Do you see why that is different for a tournament you've just busted out of?

Are you pretending to not understand so you can attack Carder or do you not really understand what she means?

So you prefer to think that Dr. Cardner means that I got it in as the favorite and lost, but since I made the right decision I just need to remind myself of that? If so, that's fine; but it's not psychology, it's math.


And since I think you really just think I'm being mean to Dr. Cardner, I do think that someone that opens up their critical post with (to Mason, of all people):

has opened themselves up to the same. I have a scintilla of knowledge from taking a Psychology course in college; to imply that Mason doesn't is mind-boggling. So yes, I do think it is fair to critique/attack her statements that contain little more than a scintilla of knowledge.

How do you objectively delineate which is which? "A poker book about psychology than a psychology book about poker." By personally choosing which phrase to italicize, you've personally, subjectively chosen which you deem is which.

You're example for positive & negative self-talk is a poor example. It's about getting yourself back on track. Put yourself HU in the WSOP ME for the title. You have a 3:1 commanding chip lead, but over the course of a very disastrous few hands, the game has drastically changed. Your opponent now has you at a 5:1 chip deficit.

If you sit there & continue to talk harshly to yourself about: how you f'd up, how you're going to lose your biggest opportunity of your life so far, you're going to lose your first bracelet, you're going to be a laughing stock, 2nd place is never remembered, your family will be ashamed, and the list goes on, this will have an incredibly negative effect on the remainder of your game. You'll spiral into the sh*tter, never to return.

However, if you tell yourself: yes, I made a few mistakes & I'll reflect on them later, I can turn this around, I know what I'm doing, I have the skills and the knowledge to beat my opponent, stay level-headed, stay focused, keep your head in the game, eye on the prize, this is yours to win, then you have a better chance of playing a more level headed, focused, game.

We've all seen players on TV going through these internal monologues. We've seen their shoulders slump, their chips bleed away, & eventually they bust out. We've also seen others lose several major pots, take some hits mentally, they step away from the table, & come back focused. Others, like Martin Jacobson, seem to stay focused & level headed all the way through. They appear to have an excellent internal monologue.

As for your final comment, no I don't see how that answered the question Mason hasn't answered. He claims tilting is virtually non-existent for tournament players, as opposed to cash game players.

In a tournament, you buy-in once (typically) & play for days on end, for hours on end. Sometimes, bubbling and not making a dime. Sometimes, because of a bad beat or even due to a personally made poor decision. In a cash game, you can buy back in for either of those demises. In a cash game, if someone smells badly, you want a table change, or you're tired & you want to quit for the day without being penalized, you have all of those options. Not so in a tournament that you've spent sometimes $1,000s or 10s of $1,000s to buy into. Not to mention, in a cash game you have the potential to lose multiple buy-ins, where in a tournament you have the potential lose the (sometimes) millions you could win.

(Yes, nose bleed cash games over a period of just as many days as the WSOP ME COULD potentially win you as many millions, but the tilt factors are slightly different. Still there in both cases but different. In the tournament, it's an all or nothing scenario; one buy-in marathon where you may make absolutely nothing or you may make millions. Cash games, you may win money on day one or lose some not all of your buy-in or any variant thereof. Then, you can re-invest on day two. If you don't like your table draw, you can choose another or even another casino, etc. Assuming you're playing overseas.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm NOTsaying that cash games are any less tilt inducing than tournaments. I'm saying DON'T discount tournaments as being less tilting. They both have aspects that can cause tilt for some players. It's not an either/or.

-Jack

That isn't how Cardner means it in my opinion.

And I didn't say you were being mean to Cardner. I said you were either pretending to not understand in order to attack her or you truly don't understand.

Which is it?

LOLOL! In that case, I have quite a few scintillae of knowledge as I've watched many an episode of Dr. Phil & Jerry Springer! Shall I diagnose MM?

Hi greybeard33:

You have it right. When you lose a few hands in a short period of time you're probably out of the tournament and thus can't tilt. There's also a second reason why players don't tilt in tournaments which is a little more complex and is addressed in the book.

Also, in Cardner's book there is discussion of the tilt problems that tournament players have which is, to be polite, not applicable.

And just for fun, here's another quote from Cardner's book which comes the "Mastering Tilt" chapter:

My comment: This is a misunderstanding of the word mistake. Virtually no one would make a play they knew was wrong.

Best wishes,
Mason

PS: For winning the "Why Tournament Players Don't Tilt Contest," send me a PM when we announce that Real Poker Psychology is available and I'll send you a free copy.

Many people are going to be doing this



when they read the book.

Hey, I knew that reason too, but didn't know there was a contest with a prize and didn't have anything else to contribute to the thread, so I didn't say anything!

Although many tournament players do go on tilt after they bust by going crazy in a cash game (or even in the pit) trying to get back their buyin.

Hi chill rob:

You want to give the second reason as to why tournament players don't tilt a shot. That's also worth a book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hmm, the only thing I can think of right off is why there would be less "winner's tilt" that some cash game players have, where they become overconfident and try to win every pot.

In a tournament this is close to the correct strategy, especially when one has a big stack and can bully other players who are protecting their shorter stacks. Also, if a tourney player who has been winning donks some back by overaggressive play, it doesn't hurt as much, because each chip in a big stack is worth less than each chip in a smaller stack.

I think it's as simple as:

• a poker book about psychology would be written by someone respected in the poker field
  a psychology book about poker would be written by someone respected in the psychology field

I guess those are my subjective definitions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out.

I think HU ME is an even poorer example as no one is going to be on a 4-month high going into the final table and all of a sudden start spiraling downward because of a few hands. I watched the televised ME last year, and absolutely never saw any of those characteristics displayed by Felix Stephensen (there goes your 'second place is never remembered' argument). But even if you want to use that as an example, clearly the key skill that separated the players in your example isn't the positive self-talk; it's that the poorer player played hands disastrously.

Admittedly I gave an oversimplified answer to why tournament players don't go on tilt, but I don't see how the above paragraph disproves it. You can't tilt - adopting a less than optimal strategy - when you bubble due to a bad beat or any other reason because you have nowhere to play this less-than-optimal strategy. And how are you relating the potential to lose the (sometimes) millions you could win in a tournament, which is money you don't have and can't even count as "losing", to losing multiple buy-ins in a cash game that is the money you have (had) in your pocket? Seems like you're just proving that cash players tilt and tournament players can't.


C'mon Doc - now who is pretending? It is clearly neither, and I gave 2 examples that show that. So what is your opinion on what she means?


Dr. Cardner could speak to it more than I could, but I think a college psychology course would be certified by the APA before Dr. Phil. But feel free to diagnose away (although it won't change my opinion of him.)

Admittedly an oversimplified response on my behalf, but I'm glad you're not giving away everything in the book just yet.

Agreed - as worded that seems less like psychology and more like common sense.

p.s. I did find it funny that one of the 38 fallacies of crooked thinking is the "fallacy of the beard".


Thanks - I will definitely take you up on that!

What if you don't remind yourself that you made the right decision, and in the future you decide to make massive overbets when you shouldn't because you want to prevent the draws from getting there? Is that math?

I'm not sure how much she emphasizes this, but won't the stuff that Dr. Patricia Cardner emphasizes (like focus, diet, sleep, exercise, confidence, concentration, etc.) help people study better?

Hi Steve:

Let me put it this way. If you were to go for a week without sleeping, you probably wouldn't be able to play poker well because you probably won't be able to do anything well. But that's not the issue.

When reading this stuff, Cardner doesn't seem to understand that poker is a game which does not require timing, speed, or coordination, and that changes a lot of things. For example, good tennis players, and I have played against many people like this, can hit their serves at over 100 miles an hour. If you're not well focused, you'll have virtually no chance to get a ball back that is hit this hard. Where in poker does something similar occur?

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi greybeard33:

Here's what she does to link this to poker psychology and it's one of the important themes in her book.

1. Players start a session or early in a tournament and they make mistakes.
2. They become upset because of these mistakes.
3. They are now open to tilt.

But the problem is how will they know that they made mistakes?

Let's be a little more specific. Take a marginal player who doesn't play that well. When an expert observes his play the expert will be able to pick out a number of mistakes -- that's partly why he's a marginal player. But unless the expert tells him, the marginal player will not know any of these mistakes from the expert's point of view are mistakes at all, and if the marginal player did, he wouldn't have made the mistakes in the first place.

And yes, if you think about it this is common sense. But by linking it to tilt, Cardner is able to introduce it in her poker psychology book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi chillrob:

While these are good points, neither of them is it. So let's have another contest just for you.

I notice you're getting close to 6,000 posts. If you hit that mark before the book comes out, you get a free book, and the book should be available sometime between tomorrow and the end of the year. So when I announce that Real Poker Psychology is available, if you have reached the 6,000 post mark shoot me a PM reminding me that you get a book.

Best wishes,
Mason