Hi AI:

This isn't accurate. Over the years, and this is much more than six, I had accumulated a fair amount of material that would come under the heading of real poker psychology. Some of it was sitting in my Poker Essays books, but this stuff needed to be rewritten with the emphasis changed more for poker psychology. And some of it was just sitting on my computer, such as the chapter on "A Mathematical Model for Tilt -- Cause and Cure" which was first published in our Two Plus Two Online Poker Strategy Magazine about five years ago.

However, I only had enough material for about half a book. So even though I occasionally talked about writing Real Poker Psychology no active work was being done. But then, thanks to one of Jonathan Little's websites, I stumbled onto Patricia Cardner and immediately knew that If I got her book (written with Little) there would probably be enough material for me to finish my book, and I wasn't disappointed.

I also felt that it was now important to get this book out as soon as possible and with hindsight it was rushed. But now we have another book soon to hit market which has some additional psychology stuff from me that serves to smooth out some of the rushed edges in Real Poker Psychology. An example is a more gereral definition of "pseudo tilt" is now given, and for those just reading here, pseudo tilt is something very different from tilt, and it's also a state which players can enter into that the current group of Poker psychology coaches don't seem to have any awareness of.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi LektorAJ:

If you found approaching poker in this way helpful, that's great. But it isn't exactly what I'm saying.

You wrote:

What I'm addressing here is what I call the A Game / C Game nonsense. It's the idea that you'll sometimes show up at the poker room and not be "in the zone" and thus will begin to make plays that you know are bad. In the world of athletic sports, there are definitely some days where the athlete for some reason is not at his best and performs poorly. But this usually has something to do with speed, timing, and coordination and nothing to do with his knowledge of how to play.

Continuing with what you wrote:

This sounds like a classic tilt situation. The player in question is having trouble processing (in his mind) why the floorperson made a certain decision and thus gets caught in the human equivalent of an infinite computer loop as his mind can't solve what I call a "logic disconnect" which has now developed (again in his mind). Thus he loses the ability to think rationally and begins to make crazy plays.

Best wishes,
Mason

I don't say anything like this. What I'm saying is that the advice coming from the current crop of mental game coaches has at best very little value. This doesn't mean that having a strong mental game isn't worthwhile. In fact, in my book, it's explained how to develop a strong mental game and when to make strategic decisions based on the mental game, yours and that of your opponent, that should increse your EV or reduce the short term luck factor.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Everyone:

Here's another one that I suspect no here ever heard about. And while not exactly a book, from 1993 through 1995 Mike Caro put out a magazine/report called Mike Caro's Pro Poker. I think seven of these were published and I have six of them in my collection. Each one was 16 pages, were printed on 8.5 x 11 paper, and consisted of a number of articles, the majority by Caro but a bunch by other people also contributed.

I have no idea where you can purchase any of these today. Also, there's something called Mike Caro's Pro Poker Tells DVD which is not the same thing.

Best wishes,
Mason

Yes, I know. But your argument/attitude can be applied to other things - particularly things which are irrational play but don't meet your definition of real tilt (such as my "acting tilt").

Or maybe that type of irrational play is what people are talking about when they talk about being on the C game. In any case, simply not making moves you know to be wrong solves a lot of the problem.

Yes, I think it's true that people learn new concepts much better when they are not tired. For executing familiar concepts it is less important. I think you agree it might be a reason to close a strategy book and go to sleep but it would not be a reason to stand up from an otherwise good game.

I have some of those 8.5 X 11s.

Is that the video where you are one of the players at the table? If not, then I'll add that one to the list.

King of a Small World is an outstanding book. It is fiction. Written in the 90's. There isn't much strategy advice. The author is clearly a very good player who made/makes a living playing poker. Given that I had never heard of it mentioned once until a month ago, it would qualify as obscure and underrated. I would give it a solid 5 stars.

Hi Everyone:

Here's one more book. It's called The Casino Gambler's Guide and was written by Alan Wilson who I believed had a Ph. D. in physics. It's not a poker book but has great discussion on bias roulette wheels, blackjack, and systems in general. Here's the Amazon link:

https://www.amazon.com/Casino-Gamble.../dp/0060146745

The link says the book was written in 1970 but the copyright on my book is 1965. There's also a picture on the back jacket of Wilson standing in front of what looks like a very old computer.

As a side note, in the mid 1980s I actually had some correspondence with Wilson. I don't have the letter today but he was not happy I was writing for Gambling Times Magazine. It turned out Wilson was correct and I was done with them shortly after receiving his letter.

And one last item. For those of you who have read my Fundamentals of Craps (written with Lynne Loomis) you may remember the system "Oscar's Grind." The original source of that system is Wilson's book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Everyone:

And here's one more terrific book. It's called The Psychology Of Gambling and is edited by Jon Halliday and Peter Fuller. Here's the Amazon link:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-ga...d+Peter+Fuller

My version is a paperback, the copyright is 1974, it has a different cover picture from the one that Amazon shows, and I picked it up from Gambler's Book Club in the early 1980s. It's a unique book with a very long introduction by Fuller and then a number of essays each by a different author including "Dostoyevsky and Parricide" by Sigmund Freud.

There are also a number of books with the same title but they're different books by different authors.

Best wishes,
Mason

Check out mgop 1,2 by Tendler, or at least the Amazon entries. He is clearly trying to get deep into the sundae and the cherry. A game, C game, errors, poker learning, where learning sits V consciousness, how you make mistakes, how you can play peak poker by defining what your mind needs to do to achieve this. It's hardly cherry stuff.

Mental game coach admits they don't know the game but people are happy to accept their knowledge (game) / execution deliniations. That just happen to permit them to start then spewing advice. Advice which then starts marauding all over 'game think' itself.
Only possible conclusion from this is that the poker scene is jammed full of ignoramuses/the gullible.

I am very interested in books that are cultural studies of poker, and I actually have quite a few recommendations.

I don't think anyone on the thread has mentioned Jack King's two books on poker- Under the Round Table and Confessions of a Winning Poker Player. I would also recommend Allen Dowling's The Raw, Rowdy World of Poker, Jon Bradshaw's Fast Company and Robert K. DeArment's Knights of the Green Cloth.

If you want to really go back, there are a few turn of the century titles I own- J.F.B. Lillard's Poker Stories and Eugene Edwards' Jack Pots Stories. There's actually a copy of the former on ebay currently.

If you want underrated obscure titles that are more recent, try Poker and Philosophy by Eric Bronson and Poker The Parody of Capitalism by Ole Bjerg.

Hi 3BarrelSlinger:

Robert K. DeArment's Knights of the Green Cloth is a book I've been recommending for almost 30 years. It would be a fun read if it was just fiction, but it's real history written in a wonderful way.

Best wishes,
Mason

Came back to this thread to try to fish out the Bayesian vs Frequentist statistics cartoon and noticed this:

Contrary to what many people think, there isn't a rule of English that states that a fronted prepositional phrase must always be separated by a comma.

It's only needed if it aids readability (pretty much the same times you would pause if you were speaking).

As this misconception is so widespread it may explain why some people think there are a lot of dropped commas in this book.