Miller's CP article of March 30 ("Playing the Course") has a point in it that seems misleading. Either he is lost in his analogy or I am. In third column, first full paragraph he says your opponents are the course. In the first paragraph of his final thoughts, he says "you need to ignore your opponents and play the course."

Since the article already verbatim defined the course as your opponents, then says in effect, ignore your opponents and play the course ... this is basically saying "ignore the opponents and play the opponents."

He is sloppy with the analogy, lost in the analogy ... or I am lost in the analogy. As I see it, the cards, the situations, the opponents and your own mindset is the "course" of a given session.

I haven't read the book and I have confidence in the writer, but can't see consistency here.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...imple-1499991/

The idea is that you don't get worked up about whatever it is your opponents are doing. You don't lose a big pot and then complain, either out loud or in your head, about how they didn't have the odds to call with a flush draw on the turn. You simply adjust to whatever your opponents are doing (which is the 'course') in order to make the most money.

Yeah, but my point isn't semantic. Hard to see him saying "the course is your opponents" if it is something much more. In my way of thinking, it is much more. So I wonder what his course is. I know ... read the book.

I think that if you follow the strategic advice, and if it makes you money, that 'the course' can be a reference to how he likes to use the bathroom and it does not matter as it's just a metaphor.

Yes and no. "The course is your opponents" isn't a metaphor, it's a definition. It shouldn't be in the article if, in fact, that isn't his actual "course." If someone wants the short cut as to what his course is in deciding whether to buy the book, this statement misrepresents it. That's all.

I think you're the one who is lost.

You're not playing to beat your opponent in that you're not trying to win every pot against him or cash out with more chips. You're just playing the course and trying to beat par. It is impersonal. Don't view poker as a personal battle between two egos. He actually says that analyzing your opponents is part of playing the course. Going after a player because he sucked out on you in a big pot and you want your money back is focusing on the player.

I was with synchronic before AsianNit gave this explanation. So now it's clearer what this "contradiction" is about, but it actually makes me even less excited about the book (and I usually love Ed Miller's work).
"Adapt to the player, but continue making the right decisions and don't get out of line out of ego, spite, or whatever reason", that seems like a topic for an article magazine. Knowing some of Ed Miller's previous work, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that the content is actually better than what the exterior suggests, but he probably tried to be too cute this time around when trying to sell the book.

Ha! Absolutely was a great explanation by AsianNit. It explains it completely ... and all is still consistent. So often a little nuance of specific meaning in a particular use can seem wrong when compared to the bigger picture ... but it can fool you.

Here's one from a Buddhist theorist recently. There are two very similar sayings:

"Let it be" and "Let it go."

One master-type who had been sitting in ashrams for decades, said the first one makes great sense but the second one he didn't get at all. I happened to see this one. It depends on what the "it" is, I said. The "it" is not the event - say cancer or ALS, or whatever - the "it" is your resistance to it. With that realization, the two sentences mean the exact same thing. Yet he had been at loggerheads over it for years.

You don't need to let the actual culprit go - and often times you can't - but you can let your resistance go. He had spent decades objecting to the second saying. But when "Let it go" means "Let the resistance go" ... then that sentiment is intended precisely as the first on ("Let it be"). Be sure you know what your pronouns are referring to is the lesson. No, you can't let ALS go, and it makes an absurdity of the advice to try. But you can let the resistance go ("This shouldn't be happening to me," "I'm supposed to be able to play golf" etc.).

Too long, but the two remind me of each other. A shade of meaning tosses the thing off course. That's why some people think that sentences are like equations: the more precise the values plugged in the more powerful they become. Akin to the Richter scale, the power increases exponentially according to precision.

And AsianNit saw it with no prob.

I think that covers it. Hold the applause.

halfway through the book easy read enjoyable 2 questions,
1. $1 $2 chapter realize his hand selection applies to $1 $2 cash game but can i apply his hand selection in tournament play? Basically the smaller buy ins with 3 to 5k GTD
2. I came away with the theory that he places great emphasis on exploitation of your opposition more than anything else and that connecting with the flop is the least important facet of the hand. In other words connecting with the flop is just an extra bonus or icing on cake so to speak. Am i correct in assume that?

Which further explains the seeming inconsistency. Your #2 is big.

The course has yet to takes its course after my first session with $1 $2 cash this afternoon. busted out with 0 profit after 3hrs including the additional $46 i threw out on his kindle edition Im going to try and contact amazon for a full refund

If you felt entitled to immediate profits, you're doing it wrong.

I dont mind critique as long as its constructive. Time frame please

If you think his book is worthless, try posting hands where you think his advice led you astray in the Live Low Stakes No Limit forum.

Cannot post hands because i do not have complete info due to bad memory. I could hardly remember what i ate for breakfast let alone remember all the details of my hand history yesterday. If its worth anything 9 handed effective stacks $200 I am short stack with 50BB I open action with 10 9 suited following course guidelines 2 10's to the flop Showdown villian turns over J 10 . Half my stack is gone . Requested a table change because this ass to my left kept betting out of turn not once not twice but 3X with no warning . For the next 2hrs i played the course to a science but rarely picked up suited connectors or suited one gappers . When i finally had a hand such as pocket K's and raised i bricked the flop. Because i was so card dead so bored etc etc My bust out hand from the button was 56o not a "course" hand but i was shortest stack at the table and needed to make something happen. Flop KK 5 turn 5 river 6 2 callers one raise chick to my right shoves has me covered and then some . She turns over K8 and giggles . slam my chair and walked the hell out. So much for the course my ass

Hellofaplaya, if I may, you shouldn't expect a book to automatically make your next session a winning one! It would be too easy, wouldn't it.

Consider the following:
- You should not forget that poker is a high variance game. So, let's assume you played perfect poker (which, with all due respect, is probably not the case, as even the best players in the world do not play perfectly) in the session you are mentioning. This doesn't mean that it makes your session automatically a winning one. It just means that your expected value is much higher than what it used to be
- Applying the concepts of a book or multiple books in a good manner takes some practice. Analyse your session, try to find out if you made some mistakes despite trying to apply the concepts of the book.
- The course seems to imply that you need to adapt. Adaptation is not an exact science, so there's no way to be sure that the advice from the book is applied perfectly.
- Moreover, your last hand seems like a mess indeed. So that's money that you will never see again, as your expected value here was not good at all.
- Maybe a few articles on self-control or the poker books on "poker psychology" or "poker mindset" could be useful for you. I'm saying that on the basis that you seemed very impatient to gather immediate wins and went on tilt at the end of your session. These books will help you realise that your expectations should be different in that regard.

Why did i play the hand badly?. I was basically pot committed had the other raiser/ callers beat except for the girl to my right who acted before me . I had maybe $25 left behind and when she raised or went all in i had no choice but to call. I dont think it was a bad play at all. I was looking at a potential big pot with a boat while the chances of being out kicked is rare . What i would like to hear from you or anyone else willing to share, is that it might take a few sessions for the course to kick in before i see a profit. Then it would give me some incentive to continue following the course . I see flaws in my game and i am willing to improve . I dont expect miracles on the first shot but a small profit after reading the book would have certainly lifted my spirits and motivated me even further

To the OP (I know this thread is old).
You were playing very short stacked (not in the book), so you wernt really following his method. I like to stay at least 100bb deep and top off when I'm not, his way you have room to raise and still have fold equity (important in the book).
I hope in the time since this thread died, you have found some success in your live game.

Am I actually reading this thread?? Read a book, go out and win $$$$$ in first session. If you don't then book is no good??

IMO, the most noteworthy statement made by Miller in The Course is to the effect that after every session, you should tell yourself that whether you won or whether you lost says nothing about how well or how poorly you played.