Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Books and Publications Discussion and reviews of books, videos, and magazines. Sponsored by TwoPlusTwoStore.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2015, 09:03 PM   #26
Karl Ikon
banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
I can't remember which book or the exact reference, but I definitely recall a 2+2 book written by S or M or both saying the hero made a mistake by betting his top pair likely best hand on the flop, and that he should have gone for a check raise, in order to face the field with two bets cold.
This is a very basic fixed limit tactic that is not necessary in no limit because in the latter you can choose the size of your "protection" intended bets.
Karl Ikon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 10:04 PM   #27
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 8,742
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Correct, but as I said, I imagine in MM's newest book, he is also talking about a fixed limit hand, as he has never written any books about no limit poker. I could be wrong though, as I haven't yet read it (coming soon, hopefully).
chillrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 10:45 PM   #28
*TT*
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 22,857
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc24evr View Post
Mr Malmuth,
Thanks for the good read. I am really enjoying your book.

I have a couple of quick questions.

On page 23-24 you discuss a situation when a player has a weak top pair in a large multiway flop, a flop which is incredibly dry. The player bets, bets the turn, and loses the river to a weak two pair that the villain drew to. You indicate that the player didn't play the hand correctly and that if he had, he wouldn't have tilted. But is there always a single right play, what would be the right play for that situation?

You mention that it was wrong to bet the flop because "anyone with a small pair was correct to call due to all the bets in the center of the table." You say betting was a strategic error. But your rationale seems to contradict what is taught in "The Theory of Poker." Is there really a correct play?

In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."

In other words, Sklanksy reasons that even if betting gives a drawer a positive +Ev call, checking would give the villain an even higher EV. So is it really a mistake to bet on a dry flop if people can correctly call?

In the example above, the flop is very dry with few to no strong draws. If the villain turned over his hand and showed you that he has a small pair and was drawing to a weak two pair, would you still not bet?

The reason I ask is because your book seems to presume that there is almost always a single correct play for a given situation, and that once you identify the play then you will never tilt. But is that really true? Reasonable minds probably differ as to what the "correct play" for that situation above really is.

I don't usually tilt because of a bad beat, but rather the tilt I experience is from not being able to identify if the play I made was a mistake or not, or knowing how to identify the gray area. You are correct that if most decisions are black and white, knowing the difference fixes all the issues. But isn't poker too dynamic for that to presently be the case?

Thanks for your help!
The situation described on page 23 is a bit too vague to discuss the merits of the strategic play - I could be wrong but I believe Mason intended it to be that way. I also assume he wanted to use a hand whose play could be debated depending on issues that were not clarified, making it appear to be correct but actually could be incorrect play depending on the missing info. I think his point was that because this is a large pot preflop, it becomes correct for opponents to call preflop with a cheesy hand such as 7s4s, and it is also correct for them to call flop and turn bets getting great odds IF THE HERO LAYS THOSE ODDS - such as if the turn blank card gave that opponent a gunshot to go along with their small pair. Its impossible for us to know because info is missing, but it looks like the pot could easily be laying 11:1 or more on the turn for the button - making it correct to call down if that was the opponent who spiked 2 pair. Utilizing the Fundamental Theorem of Poker we know it would make sense to check-raise instead of lead if we know an opponent on the button has a small pair and will bet the flop in position. Regardless of this possibility, I think the real reason this hand was presented was to show that steaming because your angry that someone else sucked out frequently means you might be the real one to blame, not the other opponent. Place the blame on yourself instead, and work towards fixing the problem (or better understanding the situation) in the future instead of steaming away.

The hand as presented on page 23: Limit Hold'em. Hero is in Early Position "in a large multiway pot" with QsJs - we do not know any other info preflop, such as if the blinds both called or how many players are in the hand. The flop is J72, and the Hero bets "to avoid giving a free card"; five opponents call - but we don't know the relevant positions vs the Hero. The turn is a blank, hero bets again and there are four callers - same missing info as on the flop. On the river another blank hits and the Hero loses to someone who makes two little pair. We don't know if the Hero is first to act post flop, we don't know what Hero's action was on the river, and we don't know if the villain was in position. In fact we only know that one player beat the Hero, when in reality it could have been multiple opponents that had Hero beat. With that said, even though the hand history is incomplete the point of the hand seems fairly clear to me - always look within, never assume the play of the hand was correct when you maybe could have taken a different line that would have better protected your hand.

PS: I'm aware that some of the text in my post is intentionally vague, that is by design.

Quote:
In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."
I believe your discussing the chapter "Betting when your opponent is correct to call" in Chapter 9 - this describes betting for value in large pots where you would be laying the correct odds for your opponent to call, because checking would lay your opponent "infinite odds" if the opponent gets a free card. David's chapter in TOP describes a situation where the players are heads up, not multiway, and where a free card will likely occur - which is unlikely on such a dry board as this example in a massively multiway pot. If you re-read the chapter (page 71) I think it will become more clear for you.

Last edited by *TT*; 12-19-2015 at 11:12 PM.
*TT* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2015, 11:43 PM   #29
sc24evr
centurion
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by *TT* View Post
The situation described on page 23 is a bit too vague to discuss the merits of the strategic play - I could be wrong but I believe Mason intended it to be that way. I also assume he wanted to use a hand whose play could be debated depending on issues that were not clarified, making it appear to be correct but actually could be incorrect play depending on the missing info. I think his point was that because this is a large pot preflop, it becomes correct for opponents to call preflop with a cheesy hand such as 7s4s, and it is also correct for them to call flop and turn bets getting great odds IF THE HERO LAYS THOSE ODDS - such as if the turn blank card gave that opponent a gunshot to go along with their small pair. Its impossible for us to know because info is missing, but it looks like the pot could easily be laying 11:1 or more on the turn for the button - making it correct to call down if that was the opponent who spiked 2 pair. Utilizing the Fundamental Theorem of Poker we know it would make sense to check-raise instead of lead if we know an opponent on the button has a small pair and will bet the flop in position. Regardless of this possibility, I think the real reason this hand was presented was to show that steaming because your angry that someone else sucked out frequently means you might be the real one to blame, not the other opponent. Place the blame on yourself instead, and work towards fixing the problem (or better understanding the situation) in the future instead of steaming away.

The hand as presented on page 23: Limit Hold'em. Hero is in Early Position "in a large multiway pot" with QsJs - we do not know any other info preflop, such as if the blinds both called or how many players are in the hand. The flop is J72, and the Hero bets "to avoid giving a free card"; five opponents call - but we don't know the relevant positions vs the Hero. The turn is a blank, hero bets again and there are four callers - same missing info as on the flop. On the river another blank hits and the Hero loses to someone who makes two little pair. We don't know if the Hero is first to act post flop, we don't know what Hero's action was on the river, and we don't know if the villain was in position. In fact we only know that one player beat the Hero, when in reality it could have been multiple opponents that had Hero beat. With that said, even though the hand history is incomplete the point of the hand seems fairly clear to me - always look within, never assume the play of the hand was correct when you maybe could have taken a different line that would have better protected your hand.

PS: I'm aware that some of the text in my post is intentionally vague, that is by design.



I believe your discussing the chapter "Betting when your opponent is correct to call" in Chapter 9 - this describes betting for value in large pots where you would be laying the correct odds for your opponent to call, because checking would lay your opponent "infinite odds" if the opponent gets a free card. David's chapter in TOP describes a situation where the players are heads up, not multiway, and where a free card will likely occur - which is unlikely on such a dry board as this example in a massively multiway pot. If you re-read the chapter (page 71) I think it will become more clear for you.
Thanks, that makes sense. I was just surprised the page seemed to imply that betting was a mistake just because draws would profitably call.
sc24evr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 12:57 AM   #30
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc24evr View Post
Mr Malmuth,
Thanks for the good read. I am really enjoying your book.

I have a couple of quick questions.

On page 23-24 you discuss a situation when a player has a weak top pair in a large multiway flop, a flop which is incredibly dry. The player bets, bets the turn, and loses the river to a weak two pair that the villain drew to. You indicate that the player didn't play the hand correctly and that if he had, he wouldn't have tilted. But is there always a single right play, what would be the right play for that situation?

You mention that it was wrong to bet the flop because "anyone with a small pair was correct to call due to all the bets in the center of the table." You say betting was a strategic error. But your rationale seems to contradict what is taught in "The Theory of Poker." Is there really a correct play?

In that book Sklanksy writes that checking to a drawer provides a drawer with "infinite odds." He explains on pg 80 that "If your proponent is a 9-to-1 underdog, getting 6-to-1 odds, you should still bet. In this case, you hope that opponent calls, but you don't mind when he folds. His folding is better than giving him a free 10 percent change to make his hand and beat your."

In other words, Sklanksy reasons that even if betting gives a drawer a positive +Ev call, checking would give the villain an even higher EV. So is it really a mistake to bet on a dry flop if people can correctly call?

In the example above, the flop is very dry with few to no strong draws. If the villain turned over his hand and showed you that he has a small pair and was drawing to a weak two pair, would you still not bet?

The reason I ask is because your book seems to presume that there is almost always a single correct play for a given situation, and that once you identify the play then you will never tilt. But is that really true? Reasonable minds probably differ as to what the "correct play" for that situation above really is.

I don't usually tilt because of a bad beat, but rather the tilt I experience is from not being able to identify if the play I made was a mistake or not, or knowing how to identify the gray area. You are correct that if most decisions are black and white, knowing the difference fixes all the issues. But isn't poker too dynamic for that to presently be the case?

Thanks for your help!
Hi sc24evr:

As the book says, this is an example from limit hold 'em. However, since this is a review thread for a psychology book, I don't want to get into limit hold 'em strategy. However, if you want to follow up on why the strategy used in the example which upsets the player is not optimal, I suggest you read "Part Four: Playing in Loose Games" in our book Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, written by David Sklansky and myself, where some unusual plays for large multiway pots are discussed. And as an aside, whenever anyone points out that limit hold 'em is a "robotic" game, it's an immediate tip off that they don't understand expert limit hold 'em strategy.

I think you also have a slight misunderstanding of the advice in my book. It says that understanding all things poker, which includes strategic play, at an expert level, will allow your mind to solve almost all "logic disconnects" (or points of discontinuity) that may develop and that this will stop the tendency to tilt. This is somewhat different from identifying the best play for a specific situation.

And finally, as is pointed out in Real Poker Psychology, if you're not able to identify if a play was a mistake or not, this is an indication that your knowledge of strategic play can use some improvement.

Glad you are enjoying the read.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:00 AM   #31
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Ikon View Post
If you have a weak top pair on a dry board in a large multiway flop, you are either way ahead or way behind. You have little to gain but a lot to lose. You should keep the pot small. Betting and betting is doing the opposite.

This assumes the stacks are deep.
Hi Karl:

The example in question was for limit poker. So while what you say is certainly accurate for no-limit, it does not apply here.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:02 AM   #32
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Ikon View Post
This is a very basic fixed limit tactic that is not necessary in no limit because in the latter you can choose the size of your "protection" intended bets.
Hi Karl:

This is a good point and it's one of the reasons I argued many years ago that limit was a strategically more difficult game than no-limit. However, whether I'm right or not is a discussion for another thread.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:04 AM   #33
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
Correct, but as I said, I imagine in MM's newest book, he is also talking about a fixed limit hand, as he has never written any books about no limit poker. I could be wrong though, as I haven't yet read it (coming soon, hopefully).
Hi chillrob:

While I haven't written any books about no-limit poker, I do play a very active role in all the books that 2+2 publishes including sending extensive comments back to the authors.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:09 AM   #34
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc24evr View Post
Thanks, that makes sense. I was just surprised the page seemed to imply that betting was a mistake just because draws would profitably call.
Hi sc24evr:

As *TT* points out, betting is a mistake given that better strategies may be available. Again, this is all covered in Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players (which is a limit hold 'em book).

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:23 AM   #35
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 8,742
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth View Post
Hi chillrob:

While I haven't written any books about no-limit poker, I do play a very active role in all the books that 2+2 publishes including sending extensive comments back to the authors.

Best wishes,
Mason
Oh, I'm sure you have, and I wasn't meaning to imply you didn't know anything about no limit poker, I just figured your book would use more examples from limit poker, and it reminded me of a hand in another book, probably the one in HEPFAP you mentioned.

Looking forward to reading the new book!
chillrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 01:28 AM   #36
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
Oh, I'm sure you have, and I wasn't meaning to imply you didn't know anything about no limit poker, I just figured your book would use more examples from limit poker, and it reminded me of a hand in another book, probably the one in HEPFAP you mentioned.

Looking forward to reading the new book!
Hi chillrob:

While the focus of Real Poker Psychology is not strategy, and therefore examples of poker hands were often not necessary, examples from many different forms of poker do appear, including one from Jacks or Better to Open Draw Poker, a game I haven't played in almost 30 years.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2015, 06:59 PM   #37
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Hi Everyone:

Here's a link to our own2+2 Pokercast where I talk to Adam and Terrence about the book starting at 1:17:00

http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/list...hp?episode=391

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2015, 12:32 PM   #38
CrazyLond
veteran
 
CrazyLond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,550
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

I got the book yesterday and read the first section, "Them Fluctuations". I thought the section was pretty solid and offered a different way of looking at various mechanisms that cause people to play sub-optimally. The book arrived at a convenient time for me as I am currently struggling with one of my worst live downswings. I think I've had a few incidents of pseudo-tilt (playing slightly looser to try to give myself a better chance of winning for the night) and possibly actual tilt where I've had a slight mental breakdown that has caused me to play some marginal spots. Although I don't think either has been severe.

I'll give a full review once I've finished, but I am curious about one thing. I spoke with a friend of mine who regularly played in the Bellagio 20-40 LHE with Mason 2 or 3 years ago (he moved to L.A. so no longer plays at Bellagio). I mentioned Mason had written a psychology book and he was quite surprised. He claimed that Mason had a reputation of getting tilted when he started to run bad and sometimes picking up his chips and storming away from the table after a bad beat.

Did you struggle with tilt issues a couple of years ago and since gain an understanding of variance that has helped with it? Or was your behavior unrelated to tilt that affected your play at the tables? Or is my friend's description inaccurate?

Thanks.
CrazyLond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2015, 12:59 PM   #39
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLond View Post
I got the book yesterday and read the first section, "Them Fluctuations". I thought the section was pretty solid and offered a different way of looking at various mechanisms that cause people to play sub-optimally. The book arrived at a convenient time for me as I am currently struggling with one of my worst live downswings. I think I've had a few incidents of pseudo-tilt (playing slightly looser to try to give myself a better chance of winning for the night) and possibly actual tilt where I've had a slight mental breakdown that has caused me to play some marginal spots. Although I don't think either has been severe.

I'll give a full review once I've finished, but I am curious about one thing. I spoke with a friend of mine who regularly played in the Bellagio 20-40 LHE with Mason 2 or 3 years ago (he moved to L.A. so no longer plays at Bellagio). I mentioned Mason had written a psychology book and he was quite surprised. He claimed that Mason had a reputation of getting tilted when he started to run bad and sometimes picking up his chips and storming away from the table after a bad beat.

Did you struggle with tilt issues a couple of years ago and since gain an understanding of variance that has helped with it? Or was your behavior unrelated to tilt that affected your play at the tables? Or is my friend's description inaccurate?

Thanks.
Hi CrazyLord:

None of what your friend says is true. I've read this type of stuff about myself for over 20 years and it usually comes from people who are jealous of our success.

And to add a little more to this, the original edition of my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics was published in 1987, and since much of that book is about variance and it's affect on poker/gambling, this is not a topic that I recently mastered.

And finally, thanks for your favorable comments and I hope you enjoy the whole book.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2015, 03:27 PM   #40
redfin
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 171
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

First off, Mason, I really enjoyed the podcast you did with Chicago joey. If you could continue to do more podcast with Joey, discussing life, and any and all things 2p2 that would be great Ė as I always appreciate the intelligent discussion on a variety of topics. Given pokers current landscape, I would have much appreciated had you wrote this book a few years earlier, nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work.

For anyone who missed the podcast, or for those who simply want a refresher on the content discussed, Iíd like to highlight a section of the podcast which I found especially pertinent:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Ingram + Mason Malmuth podcast View Post
Tilt is actually something humorous where the logic that your mind requires gets hung up and once you acquire enough information that your mind wonít get caught up in an infinite logic loop then tilt should be something of the past.

Poker is a game of positive expectations, but there is a large short term luck factor. So if every time you play a poker hand, if you are an expert player, you basically should always be in a positive expectation situation. Does not mean you are going to win --- that particular hand, or win that night, or that particular session. In the long run you will win.


Yes there is a large short term luck factor, the standard deviation, which is common measurement for this stuff, is proportional to square root of number of hands you play .While your expectation, which is your win-rate, or loss-rate if you are a loser, thatís proportional to the number of hands you play. Which means -- Over time the effect of the luck factor dissipates.
1.) Large short term luck factor in poker
2.) Many things based on probability theory (which poker is) are counter-intuitive to a lot of people
3.) You need to understand how to play poker very well.

Short term luck factor comprehension does not necessarily affect your play. Expert players understand better, or at least have a good feel for how this works, therefore when they run bad, they have a better grasp in that itís expected to certain degree, they understand the concept better, so mind does not get locked up in how can this happen to me. In this example, itís more than understanding the strategic component it is...
==> Understanding all things poker.
redfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2015, 08:43 PM   #41
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by redfin View Post
First off, Mason, I really enjoyed the podcast you did with Chicago joey. If you could continue to do more podcast with Joey, discussing life, and any and all things 2p2 that would be great Ė as I always appreciate the intelligent discussion on a variety of topics. Given pokers current landscape, I would have much appreciated had you wrote this book a few years earlier, nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work.

For anyone who missed the podcast, or for those who simply want a refresher on the content discussed, Iíd like to highlight a section of the podcast which I found especially pertinent:
Hi redfin:

Thanks for your post. In case you didn't know, I did two interviews with Chicago Joey. The other one can be found here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=92

Also, Real Poker Psychology goes into much more detail, as well as other related topics, than what was stated in the interview with Joey.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 06:23 PM   #42
MuffledFumes
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 147
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Hello,

As you somewhat talked about on the 2+2 interview with Adam and terrace about statistical biases and how your mind plays tricks on you. In situations where you know you are being irrational (or that it may not be the optimal way to view things) with how you are viewing the situation but you cant help to think or be bothered by these events.

Let me give an example:

Lets say someone has a tilt trigger from watching board run outs in online poker. i.e. 2 hands get all in preflop ... 66 vs QJ, flop comes 6T2r--- 8 ---9.

In your mind on the flop, you know that you are a huge favorite, you consider that you won the hand, but the hand is not over, he hits a miracle runner runner and it makes you mad that a very rare statistical probability has occurred. You realize that preflop odds were close to 50/50 but you cant help but feel particularly unlucky and mad about what just occurred.

Maybe I need to re-listen to the part of interview where you talked about this topic but I cant really remember or arrive at any conclusions myself with regards to the human brain and its complexity. Did you mention that studying statistical data biases that even rational people are prone to has a lot of merit for improving understanding of all things poker? In the given example there should ideally be no difference then if you lost on QQJr flop, but the brutality of how it happened has thrown your mind in a infinite loop, you know you are being irrational (after all it was 50/50 preflop) but you cant help feeling that losing in above situation (T62r) is different.

By the way I use the terminology tilt trigger because I am sure you touch upon this in the book that tilt is not gradual. Its not like boom you are on tilt. For many people there is a series of events that cause you to react a certain way before your mind gets locked up. Would you generally agree?

I will 100% get around to reading this book in depth, but for now appreciate any feedback. Thanks!!

Last edited by MuffledFumes; 12-26-2015 at 06:31 PM.
MuffledFumes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2015, 12:16 AM   #43
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,891
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuffledFumes View Post
Hello,

As you somewhat talked about on the 2+2 interview with Adam and terrace about statistical biases and how your mind plays tricks on you. In situations where you know you are being irrational (or that it may not be the optimal way to view things) with how you are viewing the situation but you cant help to think or be bothered by these events.
I don't think I said anything like this.

Quote:
Let me give an example:

Lets say someone has a tilt trigger from watching board run outs in online poker. i.e. 2 hands get all in preflop ... 66 vs QJ, flop comes 6T2r--- 8 ---9.

In your mind on the flop, you know that you are a huge favorite, you consider that you won the hand, but the hand is not over, he hits a miracle runner runner and it makes you mad that a very rare statistical probability has occurred. You realize that preflop odds were close to 50/50 but you cant help but feel particularly unlucky and mad about what just occurred.
I do talk about what causes tilt and this is addressed in much detail in the book, but what you're saying here is not the way I address this issue.

Quote:
Maybe I need to re-listen to the part of interview where you talked about this topic but I cant really remember or arrive at any conclusions myself with regards to the human brain and its complexity. Did you mention that studying statistical data biases that even rational people are prone to has a lot of merit for improving understanding of all things poker?
No.

Quote:
In the given example there should ideally be no difference then if you lost on QQJr flop, but the brutality of how it happened has thrown your mind in a infinite loop, you know you are being irrational (after all it was 50/50 preflop) but you cant help feeling that losing in above situation (T62r) is different.
Okay

Quote:
By the way I use the terminology tilt trigger because I am sure you touch upon this in the book that tilt is not gradual. Its not like boom you are on tilt.
No I don't.

Quote:
For many people there is a series of events that cause you to react a certain way before your mind gets locked up. Would you generally agree?
I guess. But a process like this is not something that plays any part in Real Poker Psychology.

Quote:
I will 100% get around to reading this book in depth, but for now appreciate any feedback. Thanks!!
Hope you enjoy the book.

Best wishes,
Mason
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 07:09 PM   #44
reziduer
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 646
Re: Guess Who This Might Be

Also I already have a copy of Mr. Mason's book and I can say that it kicks ass!
I am loving it because the notions in those poker psychology books that I read are far more esoteric then scientific in my eyes.
Also I have studied the eastern schools of philosophy for many years now and can assure you that the miss representations of buddhist teachings are the basis for most of the esoteric "new age" ideas in this ****ty poker psychology books.

There is popular anecdote about a journalist or friend who visited the home of a prominent physicist. The visitor was surprised to find a horseshoe above the front doorway of the scientist’s abode. Tradition asserts that a horseshoe acts as a talisman of luck when placed over a door.

The visitor asked the physicist about the purpose of the horseshoe while expressing incredulity that a man of science could possibly be swayed by a simple-minded folk belief. The physicist replied:

Of course I don’t believe in it, but I understand it brings you luck, whether you believe in it or not.

So basically the story above... Any way please excuse my bad English.

I just want to say that from my point of view I support any one who is speaking with clarity on topics that are used to sell cheap ideologies and books.
reziduer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 06:33 AM   #45
MuffledFumes
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 147
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professionalpoker View Post
It is now available as an Adobe DRM protected eBook.
http://www.professionalpoker.com/Cat...ker-Psychology
10% discount with the code rppt22. Discount is good on everything in that listing.
This no longer works. Please provide another code so I may go ahead with the purchase.

Despite my issue with the ebooks pricing in relation to physical copy, I promise to not hold against that you, and offer a completely fair and unbiased review upon finishing the book. But as someone who is not privy to paying full price for anything, I ask for a discount, no matter how small, so that I may go ahead and give this book the proper review that it deserves. Thank you for reading.


Muffled.
MuffledFumes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 07:15 AM   #46
Professionalpoker
 
Professionalpoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @propoker
Posts: 15,926
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Everything looked OK but I reset it just in case. Worked on my test. Make sure you apply.

The discount expires tomorrow. 12/31.
Thanks,
Mike
Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 09:44 AM   #47
MuffledFumes
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 147
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Mike,

To clear up the confusion -- the code you first provided is not the same one you gave just now. However, the one above works.

Cheers,

Muffled.
MuffledFumes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2016, 05:37 AM   #48
KptBomba
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 248
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Honestly this is probably one of the worst books I read. I lack of words to describe how poor it is. Basically what you did you took your limited singular experience and your view and then made huge generalizations and simplifications based on no data just your experience. It is not like you tested your hypothesis. I didn't even bother to read it all. If there is a refund option I would strongly appreciate it.
KptBomba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 01:29 PM   #49
reziduer
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 646
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

I love the book! I have it and it is the best book on poker psychology I have ever read!

Last edited by reziduer; 01-03-2016 at 01:47 PM.
reziduer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2016, 01:31 PM   #50
reziduer
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 646
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by KptBomba View Post
Honestly this is probably one of the worst books I read. I lack of words to describe how poor it is. Basically what you did you took your limited singular experience and your view and then made huge generalizations and simplifications based on no data just your experience. It is not like you tested your hypothesis. I didn't even bother to read it all. If there is a refund option I would strongly appreciate it.

none of the above makes any sense in the real world...
reziduer is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online