Play some sober and shorter sessions, then report back.

Lol grab a snickers, I wouldn't dream of doing that

Not sure if it's been touched on, but continuing to grind when up huge is also wicked important.

Even if you're some pseudo-GTO bot that doesn't get affected by lack of sleep, short term results, etc, the fact is, your opponents do. When you're up 4 racks, that means everyone else is, on average, stuck. And fish are notorious for playing worse when stuck. So maybe they're a 1 BB/hour loser when happy, but a 4 BB/hour loser when stuck. If it's a 6 handed game, 0.6 of those bets are for you (probably more as you're better than the average opponent). Why pass that up?

Hi CrazyLond:

Now that I have reviewed Tendler's first book in much more detail I'm definitely not a fan. What I find frustrating about his first book is that most of what is right is in there, but the right stuff is also over whelmed by so much silly stuff, much of which comes from the sports world that has little to do with poker, that his overall message just can't, in my opinion, have much value for any poker players.

To be specific, let me just address the "unconscious competence" stuff. Clearly this comes from sports and it's the idea that you know and have something down so well that your ability to use it is essentially instant. Since I use tennis as a reference in my book, unconscious competence would be the equivalent of a touring pro returning a 120+ mph serve. To do this well, you'll only have an instant to react, and it should be obvious that to have this ability will require probably thousands of hours of practice and repetition. And of course this sort of thing occurs in all other sports where the combination of speed and timing are important.

Another way of looking at this is to view a game as having two components: a knowledge component and an execution component. Using the tennis example above, you'll need the knowledge of how to hit the ball back (and there is a lot to do this) and then the ability to execute your knowledge which requires speed, timing, and coordination (and this is where unconscious confidence usually lies).

Now let's look at poker. Unlike an athletic sport, it's mainly a knowledge game that is built on a finite number of concepts which govern strategic play, and in difficult situations you'll have the time to think about different concepts and to balance them against each other as you arrive at your decision. That is the need for timing, speed, and coordination is not there meaning that the execution component must be small, especially when compared to the knowledge component. It also means that something like unconscious confidence plays nowhere near the role that Tendler claims and in my opinion has little value in poker.

It's not the same as trying to hit a 95 mph fastball, and even though an experienced player who understands how to play well can do most of this quickly, if you need more time, unlike an athletic sport, it's there when playing poker.

I agree.

Well, in poker, you're supposed to pay attention

I don't think these decisions are as automatic as you claim. This is especially true in no-limit where many players take plenty of time.

This is a misunderstanding of what I say. If you're an expert player and the game is good, you should still have a high positive expectation even when you're somewhat tired. Your expectation may not be quite as high as if you were fresh, but it should still be well worth your time to sit down.

This would not be true of an athletic sport. If you made the Ohio State football team stay awake for 15 to 20 hours before they stepped on the playing field, I'm sure they would lose a lot of games which they would otherwise win.

And finally, if you're seriously sleep deprived, you won't be able to function well no matter what you do. And this includes poker.

I frequently read something like this in response to what I've been writing about poker psychology but keep in mind that my work is not directed at super experts who are only playing in extremely tough games. It's directed at marginal players who are struggling to improve their results. So this statement, while technically true, is fairly irrelevant relative to what I'm trying to accomplish.

If you play well, you should always be able to hold your own against experts. If you're not sure what to do, just move away from exploitative play to one that relies mostly on Game Theory. And now the terrible player will still assure that the game is well worth your time.

Also, if you want to read a little more as to where I'm coming from with poker psychology I just happen to have an article in this month's 2+2 Online Magazine. It's located here:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...psychology.php

Best wishes,
Mason

I would suggest that you read some of the books that I'm either the author or a co-author, and you'll get a good feel as to how silly this statement is. Especially read the chapters on "Non-Self-Weighting Strategies" which appear in my Gambling Theory book to get a good understanding of how expert gamblers, and this includes poker players, should approach gambling opportunities.

If I'm the tightest player in Las Vegas it would simply mean that playing that way is the way which maximizes my expectation. But if you were to sit behind me and watch every hand, many of the plays I make are considered extremely loose by most regular players.

This sentence shows how little you really understand about poker. You're describing situations that are close where it often doesn't matter in terms of your overall expectation as to what your decision is.

This is actually an important statement since it is exactly what some of these mental coaches seem to do. They emphasize that your decisions can almost never be good enough, and as Cardner says, poker requires a "daunting" amount of work. Of course this encourages their students to sign up for more consulting and some of the fees seem to be quite high.

Thanks for the insults.

MM

If you think that's my strategy, you'll be sadly mistaken if you play in a game with me.

Mason

I hope you're talking about other games because barely anything you do in limit would be considered loose, let alone extremely loose.

honestly i have no idea if that's your strategy, but in the 5+ hours i've played with you i'm pretty sure i've only seen you show down AK

Not suited? That is extremely loose

Well, you don't have a clue.

MM

c'mon, this is a quote from earlier in the thread

I know you've written a lot of books and articles about poker, but you're simply incorrect about this topic. Knowing how to play poker well is only part of the battle. Have you ever known a poker player who talked a really good game, seemed to really know what he was talking about when you'd discuss hands with him, but whose results just weren't very good? I've known like 10 of them.

Grinding out a living at poker, especially in bigger, tougher, shorthanded games with smaller edges, is really hard. I stand by what I've said. While you may be right that some mental coaches are selling snake oil, the fact is that a strong mental game is absolutely crucial to be successful playing poker at any kind of higher limits. To deny this is to be completely wrong.

[QUOTE=boc4life;49725696]c'mon, this is a quote from earlier in the thread

Let me ask you a couple of specific questions.

First off, the starting hand guidelines I'm currently using are very similar to what is in our book Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games: Short-Handed and High-Stakes Concepts and Theory for Limit Hold 'em by Nick Grudzien and Geoff Herzog. The main difference for my own play is that I have extended the ideas on three betting before the flop and this information is currently not published.

But what I observe is that almost everyone, even those who are thought of as good players, are looser than these guidelines in early position. (That's not the case in some of the other spots.) And my speculation is that one of the things that happens to many players is that they play a number of hands that have either zero or slightly negative expectation, but these hands drive the estimated standard deviation up and if anything lower the expectation by a little bit.

In addition, and this may be counter intuitive for some, I also believe my three-betting strategy lowers my standard deviation compared to others and I actually do a fair amount of three betting, much more than many of the players I play against. But this explanation would take too long to write here.

Question No. 1: Are these starting hand requirements insanely tight? For if they are I have found them to be extremely effective for the games I'm in.

Second, much of my play of hands today is governed by what was published in our book The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall. Much of this is a game theory approach and it's certainly different from the way most regulars play, but again I have found this stuff to be extremely effective.

Question No. 2: Are you familiar with this book? and if yes are you saying that this advice is all screwed up?

To compute my estimate of the standard deviation I use the maximum likelihood estimator for the standard deviation that was originally published in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics in 1987. I also believe that this is the same formula that most everyone else is using.

Question No. 3:Are you familiar with it and is this the one you use?

I've known a number of people over the years who match this description, and when playing in a game with them their play did not match their talk. This has nothing to do with me.

I'm well aware of this and have written on this very subject. But unknown to you is that in my career (and before this website existed) there was a time which lasted a number of years when all the money which our publishing company made was being reinvested by me into the company for things like inventory, art work, editing, and so on. And if I wasn't successful at poker, Two Plus Two would not exist. So I don't need to hear how tough some games can be.

I never said it wasn't. I just wrote and published a 259 page book with the title of Real Poker Psychology. If I thought this was a worthless subject, none of this would have been done. However, if you took the time to read the book you'll see that I'm saying what is right in this area is much different from much of what is currently out there and much of what is being sold (sometimes at high prices). Also, there are a number of ideas and concepts in my book which have never been published before.

At the higher limits, where there are many tough players and real win rates are quite small compared to the stakes, I agree that a strong mental game can be a separator. In fact, in some of the interviews I did, I even gave specific estimates of what I thought win rates might be and how much they could be increased by a strong mental game. Everyone needs to understand that a small increase in your win rate relative to the stakes when the stakes are very high can add up to substantial money over a period of time.

But my book is not written for expert players at these very high stakes. It's written for marginal players in much smaller games who are currently struggling with poor results and are also trying to improve them.

MM

Mason,

You say that you rarely play very short-handed. Why is that?

I've learned a lot from old school tags. They're the type of grinders that've played for 15, 20, 30 years and are still around. There are a whole bunch of stereotypes and I'll list a few.

By and large, they play ABC poker. They don't play high variance which increases their standard deviation. They don't limp 87s in EP, they don't play speculative hands. If the pot is raised multiway and they're in the BB with Aces they just call because they don't want to expose the strength of their hand. They'll cold call three with Aces, they'll limp UTG with 10s, I can go on.

By and large, they bet their hands and aren't prone to fancy play syndrome. The way they play their hands makes sense, but rarely will they ever show down a 'bad hand'. They're less concerned about winning the max, more concerned with getting fewer chips in when behind. Old school tags aren't mumbsy, they're just more showdown bound.

They taught me a lot because that's one way to win. When I started I few into the trap of thinking their bluff more than they really do and they're making a move on me. Most of the good TAGs also have great temperament. They conduct themselves as professionals, know how to take beats, and never berate the fish. They don't go on 4 rack heaters, but they rarely lose 4 racks either.

At some point though, you just figure it out. You read their hands better and now their holdings. You know when they bet for value and when they can be moved off a hand. Their decisions are easier and they don't vary - short handed versus full ring, bad players versus bad game. They don't tend to play short because the EV for them isn't there. They need the dead money of a bad player to justify playing.

I agree with Boc, playing live short-handed games you just encounter way more scenarios that are marginal. Knowing when to call/raise/fold is much more tantamount. Figuring out the best strategy is skill in itself.

Hi Verona:

Because I don't have the option. In the games I play, the times it's short handed is when the game just starts up and I'm part of the initial players or it's late at night and a number of players have left, there's no list, and I'm still in the game.

By the way, a short handed game with a couple of passive players is a great spot. In fact, when I play, this occasionally happens and these are almost always the best games I play in. Unfortunately, they don't occur that often, and when they do occur, they usually don't last long.

Best wishes,
Mason

Nice post dadjoey. Don't be a stranger in these parts.

And boc, so nice to see you again, my friend.

Boc and mason both have good points.

Undefeated against boc at super stud.

Do you consider poker a performance based game? It sounds like your answer would be no. I want to make sure I'm right about that.

Hi Kevin J:

I'm not sure exactly how you're defining performance.

When viewing games, it seems to me they each have a knowledge component and an execution component, and I suppose how these two components come together would produce performance, and this is something I have not thought about.

But it's also clear to me that in a game like poker, the knowledge component has to be very large compared to the execution component, whereas in an athletic sport, the execution component is also large and perhaps in some games much larger than the knowledge component. So in poker, with only a small execution component, if I'm understanding the term correctly, I don't think that performance would be meaningful in the same way we would use it for an athletic event.

Best wishes,
Mason

1. I read stox's book a long time ago. It's a good book. The preflop ranges are a bit on the tight side compared to how most people were playing HSLHE by the time it was published, but the ranges certainly aren't overly nitty.

2. I never read Phil's book but I interacted with him on the forums a lot around when the book was published. He's a sharp guy, and I'm sure his book is full of excellent advice.

3. I've never been interested in calculating my standard deviation because I don't see the value in such data.

Missed ya, Leo

Sounds likely

HI boc:

Even though my degrees are in math, I spent 11 years working as a professional statistician and find stuff like this very interesting. With that said, I do think it has a lot of value, but even if it didn't, I would want to do it anyway.

And speaking of the standard deviation. I now understand that at least some of the players who claim my standard deviation is too low are playing in games with either a kill or a half kill, while I'm not. This should at the very least explain for part of the difference.

Best wishes,
Mason