When people live a healthy life and are in good mood, they focus reasonably well. When they live an unhealthy life and are in a bad mood, they will not focus as well. In live poker, when you pay attention, you pick up reads and observe various dynamics that help you drastically narrow your opponent's range, allowing you to make nitty folds or blatantly out of line bluffs. The same thing happens online when you are unfocused. When 20 tabling, you see the 20 hud stats for each opponent but you fail to take them into account. you gloss over them. You autopilot. How is this not common sense to everyone?

Perhaps your sense of what "poker" is is flawed because you play mid stakes limit three hours per day instead of big bet games 12 hours per day where each decision is significant? Focus certainly matters much less when playing a robotic game. I know when I used to play sit n gos as a kid, I could 20 table 16 hours per day and do well because the game was easy and forgiving. A "bad" play would cost you only a tiny amount of a buy-in in equity. The same thing happens in limit, where a horribly played hand may cost you a few bets. In no limit, which I assume most people on this forum play, one mistake can cost you a huge number of big blinds. As players lose focus, they fail to pick up on the tiny details that can sway a significant decision one way or the other.

Here is a simple experiment you can try. Drink a bottle of wine, have a bowl of spaghetti, then go to sleep at 6am. Wake up at noon and go play poker for eight hours. Observe how well you focus. After that day, spend a week working out, getting eight hours of sleep per night, abstaining from alcohol, and eating grilled meat and veggies. Play poker for eight hours. See how well you focus. (If you want to make the experiment fair, drink, have spaghetti, and sleep 6 hours per night for a week before the session.)

I am excited to hear your results!

It should be obvious, but no one is saying that someone who is awful at poker will beat someone who is great at poker by thinking magical thoughts, eating well, working out, etc. I hope the people on this forum aren't that dense. "Mindset" is simply the tie breaker players of equal technical skill (unless one's mindset is really bad). Especially at the highest levels, where everyone plays well, mindset is the key.

Ooh, thanks Mason! I will try to think of the other reason about the tournament tilt not being as bad, and post them as well if I can think of any more guesses; will boost my post count as well.

You can lose a massive pot in a tournament and go from potential dominating chip-stack to in danger of being the bubble boy. You don't have to be knocked out; this causes people to tilt.

You can bust a live tournament and then play a side event on tilt.

If you bust an online tournament you are hardly ever one tabling and you can play your other tournaments on tilt.

A series of unlucky bust outs can cause frustration accumulation in tournaments. In a cash game you can simply re-buy and stay in a good game. In tournaments you can't re-buy the stack you had and have to start all-over from scratch. This causes people to tilt far easier on meeting their first set-back in their next tournament.

Hi sheeprustler:

As I said, there is a second reason why tournament players are very unlikely to tilt, but we'll save that one for the book.

Best wishes,
Mason

How many NL decisions involve us having AA?



I wasn't addressing the second reason I was addressing the one you referred to when awarding a free book.

As chillrob isn't that far away from the magical number, are you using this offer as an example for something dealing with motivation?

If the overbet is enough to prevent proper drawing odds, then seems like math to me. But more seriously, my example assumes that you're making that decision the first time because of a non-marginal skill level. I don't think you lose that skill level in subsequent hands just because you fail to remind yourself that it exists in the first place. This is the paradox that I believe Mason is bringing out in the passage he quoted from Dr. C. She says that talking positively to yourself about your skill advantage is what separates you from a poorer player but it's not; it's the skill advantage itself that does that.

I will give you an example out of my own life. Last year, I played in a large bar poker tournament. I made it to day two while my wife did not. When out of hands, I would read text messages from my wife saying she believed in me and I could do it. This made me believe I could do it. Out of six hundred and some people, I finished in the top thirty. The positive thoughts helped me keep my head in the game.

The positive thoughts weren't about any specific hands.

Here is another example. I have played in the same WPT event as Mike The Mouth, The Magician, John Robert Bellande and at the same table as Nenad Medic, Humberto Brenes, and Sam Simon.

At that point, I had been playing solidly for five years so the mechanics of my game weren't lacking. What was lacking in that situation was my confidence. On a break, I even asked Sam how my play was. He told me I was playing too tight and letting the others run over me.

Had I believed in myself, I think I would have done better.

But she isn't saying think positive thoughts about your skill advantage. Your claiming that she is is a mischaracterization/misinterpretation of what she wrote.

And you aren't really thinking about what Steve wrote and the psychological motivation of the person in his example.

Hi Mason:

Thanks for going into more detail on this. I was curious to know how she related them together as I have not read her book.

So if a pretty reasonable premise is that which you suggested - a marginal player wouldn't make mistakes on purpose; then I agree that "mistakes" aren't really made from the perspective of the marginal player (only the perspective of the expert). If mistakes aren't made from their perspective, they can't get upset by them since they don't know they exist, and therefore aren't open to tilt as they aren't upset. Seems like her argument is more crooked thinking than anything else.

It now seems I've ended up with 2 reasons tilt can be removed as a factor in tournament play. 1) the nature of a tournament itself (a defined end at which point playing is no longer even possible, tilted or not); and 2) removal of a primary cause of tilt (marginal players don't know they're making mistakes, and experts don't make them in the first place).

Not many, but it seemed exhausting to lay out all of the similar scenarios to illustrate my point, so I just chose one that I thought everyone could easily understand.

Overall, I don't think you are posting under the same assumptions that others are in this thread - or at the very least that I am. The assumption is tilt occurring in a single MTT tournament lasting some fixed number of hours in a single day - or a cash session of similar length in a single day. Carryover to what you do after this tournament or session seems out of scope to me. As does multitabling, life tilt, and frustration accumulation.

I play SNGs, and I tilt occasionally after I bust out on the bubble to some fish playing J7o. However, when I register for the next one and play on tilt, I don't think that is in the spirit of this discussion at all and therefore is not proof that tournament players tilt.


Honestly, all this proves to me is that you have a wife a lot of us would be envious of. You don't think that her thoughts had more bearing on you finishing in the top 30 than your solid mechanics do you?

Note that Sam didn't tell you that your negative thoughts were causing you to lose pots - rather it was your suboptimal play that was the cause of it. So maybe you think it was your negative thoughts, and maybe Dr. C does too, but Sam and I don't.

As an aside, why didn't you believe in yourself? You know from Dr. C. that it could lead to disastrous play, so why would you take that line?


So what is she saying to think positive thoughts about?

I don't think there is any "psychological motiviation". The person in his example is a person who makes the expert play in poker when presented with the opportunity. He's saying that the person might change that strategy - I don't think it is very likely, and certainly not due to "psychological motivation".

Doc, you have tried to numerous times to correct the mischaracterizations of my book in this thread & I appreciate it. It's obvious you have read Positive Poker closely as I have always seen you give accurate information about it.

Sometimes people think that by trashing someone else they improve their own chances at success. In my experience that's a short-term proposition and won't get very far.

Thank you for trying to help! You are a true gentleman and are obviously an open-minded man who wants to take his game to a higher level.

Tricia

Hi,

MM seems to keep confusing the advice of poker psychology books like Positive Poker with that of needing timing, coordination in order to return a tennis serve.

I played much competitive tennis growing up and their is certainly a lot of mental game involved in beating an opponent.

Once a person has learned and mastered a bit of the technical aspects of poker then the long-term winners are the ones who best manage their own personal mental game better than their opponents. They are able to exploit weaknesses in their opponents mental game.

Barry Greenstein's Ace on the River really emphasizes the importance of psychology and the philosophy required to be a winning player. Tommy Angelo's Elements of Poker is another great example of the importance of the mental game.

Brad

I don't see how this is any different than in a cash game.

Hi Doc:

I have no issue with what you're describing. If you feel this helped you than that's fine with me. But here's a quote from the "Where Does Self-Confidence Come From" chapter in Positive Poker by Cardner and the bolding is mine.

My comment: How about the fact that these people play well and others know it. I’m sure this adds more to the fear factor than whether they’re confident.

Best wishes,
Mason

No. The big long term winners are the ones who play in good games. There's little value in going up against other top players. That's why these people are spending time in Asia where the best games currently are.

You mention Greenstein. My sources tell me he has not had much success the past few years.

As for Angelo, his book got a poor review from me years ago, but it is much better than Cardner.

By the way, I did play four years of Division One tennis at Va Tech. So don't lecture me on tennis.

MM

Positive Poker actually draws on a number of areas of psychology (e.g. motivational psychology, neuropsychology, sport psychology, positive psychology, personality psychology and more) in order to show how psychological principles can be applied by poker players (many of whom also suffer from depression, anxiety, procrastination, ADHD, and the like). Many players actually want to learn about clinical psychology and how it can help them improve their subjective well being (the basis of positive psychology) as well as their performance.


Positive Poker relies on a wide body of research (some of it meta-analytic in nature) to show why these strategies and techniques can work for many poker players.


Are there some people who are such special snowflakes that the concepts of any particular psychology book won’t apply to them? YES. My book is not for such people. My book is for people who want to learn how to improve themselves using clinically evidenced based psychology.


Let me give you an example of some clinically evidenced based psychology which you can then contrast with some of what has been written in this thread if you so choose.


Let’s take the 10,000 hour rule. This “rule” has been studied extensively for decades by many researchers and it holds true across many disciplines (chess, dance, math, sports, and more). K. Anders Ericsson is the leading expert in this area & he is cited in my book. He is the originator of the 10,000 hour rule and he found it over and over again no matter what type of expert he studied.


What is really interesting is that neuro-imaging techniques have been developed that allow us to view the brain in action. We can actually look at brains as they are learning and performing and we can compare expert brains to novice brains. Guess what? This has been done extensively by psychologists using all types of experts across many domains and you know what has been found over and over again? It takes 10,000 hours for neural circuits to fully myelinate and thus to fire most efficiently. This is the main physiological difference between expert performers and non-expert & there is no short-cut to this process. Myelination happens very slowly & occurs through the process of deliberate practice (not simply playing time). So this adds an additional layer to Ericsson’s findings.


Before anyone loses their mind and screams out that this cannot possibly apply to poker, let me advise you that associates from Ericsson’s lab have been in touch with me and studies are underway with poker players. I have no doubt the findings will be the same because you cannot short-cut the neurologic process of expertise development which occurs through myelination. The more interesting results will be around what specific types of deliberate practice are most effective for poker myelination.


While any one person may deny that my work is not applicable to his brain or his game for whatever reason he chooses - denying it doesn’t negate its existence for everyone else.

Tricia

At first I was thinking the answer to your question is nowhere. But wouldn't some people argue that in poker, if you're not well focused then you'll have virtually no chance at studying your opponents well enough to play to play your A game? It will be harder to pick up on accurate tendencies, tells, betting patterns, etc. which could affect the way a player plays his hands. This wouldn't affect the poker player as much as the tennis player, but it still could affect the poker player enough to make him play worse than he normally would play if he focused better.

Maybe I'm having a hard time grasping this because I've seen things like diet, sleep, focus, trying to play your A game, etc. emphasized in other books and videos.

I've seen a lot of players make those types of overbets, and I don't think they are thinking about drawing odds as much as they are thinking thoughts like "I hope my opponent folds because I'm happy to win what's in the pot and if he sucks out on me I'm going to feel like vomiting." These players make massive overbets because they are scared, not because they are trying to force opponents to make a mistake.



There is a lot of results oriented thinking I see from other players and I do think it affects the way that players will play in the future.


Well, from reading the comments here I'm guessing that the response to what I've written to you would be something like "Put more effort into your game and those problems will be fixed." There probably is a lot of truth to that if the person does put enough effort into his or her game.

I have her book and I'm not sure that's an accurate representation of what she said. I think she was saying that it helps you avoid negative self talk which can cause players to tilt significantly. I don't think she is suggesting that players should forget about trying to improve their skill level and should instead start talking to themselves. On the same page she writes that players with confidence will work harder. If she doesn't think skill level is important, then I don't understand why she would write that.

Speaking from my own WPT experience, I was more uncomfortable with the confidence of the pros than thinking about whether they played well.

This is close to what I would have said to greybeard33 so I will quote you and add a recent example from my own playing.

I was playing a tournament, blinds were 50/100, and a guy in EP raised to $2000. After everyone folded, he showed pocket kings and said he raised because he didn't want them cracked. When someone pointed out it was a waste of good cards, he said he didn't care and he hated to lose with good cards so if he raised and pushed everyone out, he couldn't lose.

He kept doing that sort of things with his good hands.

His tool to achieve his goal might have been math although I don't think he was thinking about math, but his motivation was fear. A fear that was psychology based and not math based.

Her positive thoughts inspired my positive thoughts which made me play my A game. Or do you discount the idea that the same player can have different levels?

How do you know that Sam didn't? I didn't relate all that Sam said and unless you were the dealer, you weren't around to hear all that was said.

I wonder if it is going to be that Mason says rest and proper diet don't matter because good players don't play when they are tired or hungry.

Mason, you seem to be under the impression that there is little to no deep thought required at the table to play good poker. You say that if you're a good enough player you will know what to do and then it's easy to do it. While this is certainly true in plenty of situations, it is not the case in others, and therefore diet and a healthy mental game actually do contribute to success in poker.

Because various opponents have various tendencies, and we have access to such a vast array of information at the table (via HUDs), plus the fact that most variants of poker are complex games, at any given decision point there are a whole lot of ranges and variables we need to learn to consider and balance in our heads at once. In other words, some decisions at the poker tables are complex logic problems which require a deep and creative thought process to play optimally; they are not all math equations that we can memorize.

Perhaps another example comes from stud. I don't play stud at all, but I imagine it's necessary to remember all the cards which have been folded in order to make optimal decisions on later streets. When you are tired, foggy, etc., your short-term memory is not as sharp, and therefore you cannot play as well, as I imagine remembering every folded card especially at a full-ring stud table would require somewhat sharp focus.

I am not saying that a strong "mental game", diet, exercise, etc. are necessary to win at poker, but I am saying they are necessary to win the most at poker.

Hi whatwonder:

Obviously you're not familiar with the books that I'm an author or co-author, and the other books that our company has published. For if you were, you would realize how foolish this statement is.

Good poker play is based on a finite but reasonable number of concepts which you need to understand well. So when you make playing decisions you use the appropriate concepts, and sometimes have to balance different concepts that seem to contradict to make your decision, and I agree that occasionally in a tough situation you'll need a little time, especially in no-limit hold 'em when the stacks are deep. But where was there mention of math equations that you memorize?

This is obvious from what you state below.

On third street, all the upcards are sitting in front of you to aid in your decision and in putting a value on your hand. No memorizing there.

On the later streets you'll see the cards that are dealt out and adjust your hand value as appropriate. No memorization there but you might want to remember a few things from third street such as the aces are dead or the spades are live (and my opponent started with a spade up).

In Real Poker Psychology there is a chapter on the late great Danny Robison who violated all your tired, foggy stuff but was perhaps the best stud player ever. Also, to learn more about stud you should pick up our book Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players by David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, and Ray Zee.

If you're an expert player and you're playing against other experts then a strong mental game, as you put it, might give you a small edge. Otherwise, learn to play poker well and you'll have a big edge.

Also, if you're only a marginal player it seems to me that much of this stuff can hurt you as a player. First, it might take away from improving your game and second, it might encourage you to play tougher games, usually at higher stakes where your expectation will be quite negative.

Mason