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 03-20-2017, 05:48 AM   #151
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,795
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchronic View Post
As far as I know I said Liston quit and wasn't mentally tough, but I didn't say he tilted.

I then moved on to Duran whom I did say tilted in the most extreme meaning of the word, using it as an example from my perspective, because that is the kind of thing I've never seen at the poker table. Total mind freak. I'm sure it's happened, especially on line probably, near nervous breakdown type incidents.
You wrote in Post #144:

Quote:
There is a great example of the kind of tilt (total brain meltdown) that Malmuth considers all tilt to be. He should have used it in the book. He used Clay-Liston as his example,
Again, Clay-Liston, which appeared in the "Mental Toughness" chapter was used as an example of the lack of mental toughness that can appear in an athletic sport. It had nothing to do with tilt.

Now from the rest of this post of yours:

Quote:
I left out the mini-tilt stuff because by what you say on here in your first response, it seems none of it is tilt by your definition except for the total "brain locked up" thing. So such minor deteriorating play wouldn't apply to tilt discussion by your definition, as I understand it.
I think you need to read the book to get a better understanding of what it says. "Mini-tilt," what ever that is supposed to mean, is not addressed in my book, and who knows what you mean by your last sentence.

MM
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:12 PM   #152
Synchronic
banned
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Florider Corrider
Posts: 868
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

It doesn't say or mean that you used the Liston example for tilt, I meant you used that example of a fight, whereas, in my opinion, using the example of the Duran fight would much more eloquently establish the difference between the subjects of tilt, mental toughness, quitting, total mind freak, etc. My point is eloquent in that regard. Of course there isn't time for editing to clarifiy every possible misunderstanding when discussing such related subjects. But I didn't conflate them. Again, I didn't say or mean that you used the Liston example to describe tilt, I merely said you used the Liston example ... meaning, speaking of fights, not tilt, you could have very effectively used the Duran example instead to draw a great line of demarcation regarding the "brain lock"/tilt and other aspects of poor performance.

Neither of us has said that Liston was an example of tilt. Only a misread and presumption, admittedly left a little bit open by the language due to no finish editing on these posts, conflates the two.

Why do I get the feeling you want nothing to do with that Dostoevsky quote? I mean, let's quibble about minor stuff and avoid the big issue.

Are human beings combinations of emotions and reason whereas computers are not?

A lot of the other is just nitpicking on a subject where there is no actual disagreement.

I have about a 4,000 word review of your book which you stubbornly insist I haven't read. I'm going to distill it into about 15 questions or so and see what happens.

I will say this first. If you read a treatise on Jungian or cognitive impulse control and then attempted to integrate it in a thread about poker, when you inevitably screwed that up here and there ... would that mean you hadn't read the book? I don't think so. LIkewise, when I read someone else's framework, yours, I may not integrate it perfectly first time around.

BTW, if I wrote a book called Real Poker Math and in the introduction said I don't know anything about math ... what would your reaction be? I'm going to debunk poker mathematicians by redefining the concepts to my liking, rejecting any other framework, etc. etc. Fibonacci or whoever the hell he is (I wouldn't know) be damned ... I"m the one telling it like it is here. How would you react to such an attitude?

Poker players, like human beings in general, often lack impulse control. It's why they smoke, it's why they eat too much, it's why they do all kinds of things to excess and could be said to lack discipline. Lets' say Mason Malmuth is highly disciplined and controlled when playing poker. With this as a given, all he need to do is learn to play well. Such is not the case for the masses. They need in the moment when they are abandoning their knowledge to indulge their impulses, to learn how to change that dynamic. That dynamic does not rare itself as a specter for very controlled players, by definition. I think this is one of your major blind spots in terms of appreciating what others can benefit from.

That's not an insult. Ask me about my blind spots re math, and they're legion. I couldn't even think of the other guy's name re "gambler's ruin," so I said Fibonacci instead (whose name I saw on a bogus sports cappers advertisement recently).

Hey, did you write the thing on the odd of the UCLA 38-game winning streak years ago, or was that Sklansky?

Gotta go. Can't edit. Nothing is written in stone.
Synchronic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 10:21 PM   #153
Mason Malmuth
Top Dog
 
Mason Malmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: @MasonMalmuth
Posts: 9,795
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchronic View Post
It doesn't say or mean that you used the Liston example for tilt, I meant you used that example of a fight, whereas, in my opinion, using the example of the Duran fight would much more eloquently establish the difference between the subjects of tilt, mental toughness, quitting, total mind freak, etc. My point is eloquent in that regard. Of course there isn't time for editing to clarifiy every possible misunderstanding when discussing such related subjects. But I didn't conflate them. Again, I didn't say or mean that you used the Liston example to describe tilt, I merely said you used the Liston example ... meaning, speaking of fights, not tilt, you could have very effectively used the Duran example instead to draw a great line of demarcation regarding the "brain lock"/tilt and other aspects of poor performance.

Neither of us has said that Liston was an example of tilt. Only a misread and presumption, admittedly left a little bit open by the language due to no finish editing on these posts, conflates the two.

Why do I get the feeling you want nothing to do with that Dostoevsky quote? I mean, let's quibble about minor stuff and avoid the big issue.

Are human beings combinations of emotions and reason whereas computers are not?

A lot of the other is just nitpicking on a subject where there is no actual disagreement.

I have about a 4,000 word review of your book which you stubbornly insist I haven't read. I'm going to distill it into about 15 questions or so and see what happens.

I will say this first. If you read a treatise on Jungian or cognitive impulse control and then attempted to integrate it in a thread about poker, when you inevitably screwed that up here and there ... would that mean you hadn't read the book? I don't think so. LIkewise, when I read someone else's framework, yours, I may not integrate it perfectly first time around.

BTW, if I wrote a book called Real Poker Math and in the introduction said I don't know anything about math ... what would your reaction be? I'm going to debunk poker mathematicians by redefining the concepts to my liking, rejecting any other framework, etc. etc. Fibonacci or whoever the hell he is (I wouldn't know) be damned ... I"m the one telling it like it is here. How would you react to such an attitude?

Poker players, like human beings in general, often lack impulse control. It's why they smoke, it's why they eat too much, it's why they do all kinds of things to excess and could be said to lack discipline. Lets' say Mason Malmuth is highly disciplined and controlled when playing poker. With this as a given, all he need to do is learn to play well. Such is not the case for the masses. They need in the moment when they are abandoning their knowledge to indulge their impulses, to learn how to change that dynamic. That dynamic does not rare itself as a specter for very controlled players, by definition. I think this is one of your major blind spots in terms of appreciating what others can benefit from.

That's not an insult. Ask me about my blind spots re math, and they're legion. I couldn't even think of the other guy's name re "gambler's ruin," so I said Fibonacci instead (whose name I saw on a bogus sports cappers advertisement recently).

Hey, did you write the thing on the odd of the UCLA 38-game winning streak years ago, or was that Sklansky?

Gotta go. Can't edit. Nothing is written in stone.
Here are the first three paragraphs from the "Introduction" of Real Poker Psychology (on page 1):

Quote:
Iím a mathematician. The reason I can say this is that my degrees are in math. But Iím also a statistician, and the reason I can say this is that in graduate school my curriculum included a bunch of statistics courses. When I worked in the real world, first for the United States Census Bureau and then for the Northrop Corporation, my job was more of a statistician than mathematician even though ďmathĒ was always in my title. So why am I writing a book on poker psychology?

There are two reasons. First, my perspective is different. I donít look at poker psychology as many psychologists would and believe that my understanding of what causes the issues that poker psychologists try to address is far better. And for those of you familiar with the poker psychology literature, video, seminars, etc., I think youíll agree once you finish this book.

Second, even though there is certainly some good stuff out there, I canít stand much of what I read and hear. Yes, perhaps this is my version of tilt and also my mathematical bias, but as youíll see, my tilt problem is solved.
and this appears on page 6 in the "Variance" chapter:

Quote:
So why is this important and what does this mathematical relationship have to do with poker psychology? Well, it turns out that this idea is the source of all good and evil in the world of poker psychology. In fact, and as weíll see in this book, itís almost impossible to think of anything in this field where the mathematical relationship between the expectation and the standard deviation, (along with a couple of other attributes that weíll get to ó poker can be counterintuitive and you need to play poker well) isnít the explanation.
So that's how I can write a book on poker psychology.

MM
Mason Malmuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 09:19 AM   #154
Alternate Identity
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: it is all about location
Posts: 388
Re: Book Review Thread: Real Poker Psychology

As I still haven't quite learned how to get a quote from another thread to appear in a thread, I am doing a link.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=27
Alternate Identity 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 03:42 PM.


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