Hello everyone, hoping to have a good discussion about temperament, resiliency, and mental fortitude.

It is in my opinion that a player with exceptional mental toughness will outlast even the most highly skilled players in the long-run. By mental toughness I refer to a player whom is virtually untilitable, highly resilient, and always keeps a positive attitude.

In this case example lets take a highly skilled player whom read every poker book, knows every advanced theory and thinks on a completely different level. This player is excellent, yet he has a flaw. His human emotions, and cognitive biases. He will make spewy calls at times, and once in awhile let his emotions get the best of him. Perhaps a good example of a pro player like this is durr, or Mike Matusow.

On the other hand we have a resilient and mentally tough player. This guy has adequate poker knowledge, but perhaps doesn't think on that next "level". However what makes this player unique is his mental toughness. He practices meditation frequently, is highly focused, and never lets a bad beat get in his head. He never tilts or lets his emotions get to him. He is always thinking about the numbers, reading opponents and tries to make the best play at the given moment.

So whom do you think would have the advantage in the long run.

Player A: Highly knowledgeable, thinks on next level, very unique style, weak mental toughness

Player B: Highly knowledgeable(not as much as player a), good poker mind, never tilts and strong mental toughness.

How big of a factor is mental toughness in poker? Small, moderate, or huge?

If you are going to be a midstakes grinder Id rather be b.

If you have the bankroll for playing big tournaments Id rather be a.

There are many guys with weak mental toughness who struggle as midstakes grinders because even if they good poker skills not tilting and the ability to put in hours are probably more important than being a super creative player.

On the other hand there are a few lazy super talented players who can crush tournaments, I'd probably rather be them. But you have to be in a situation where you have the bankroll to not play very often but play the big events when you do play. Not many people in that situation.

HUGE. For example I feel when I'm playing my A game I prob make about 2x more than when I play my B game. My C game is prob barely +ev, about 10% winrate of my A game.

Using my perceived winrates let's look at what that might look at for fun.

A game: 6bb/100
B game: 3bb/100
C game: 0.5 bb/100

Talented player who plays A game 50%, b game 30%, c game 20%

6*.5 = 3
3*.3 = .9
.5*.2 = .1

4bb/100

so in this situation talented player losses about 33% of his winrate.

But 4bb/100 is still a damned good winrate right?

So if a rly disciplined player makes say 4bb/100 on avg

plays his A game .75, B game .25 and makes 2bb/100 he'll make:

3.5bb/100.

So I mean, it's obviously huge as the winrates converge to close to the same in this scenario.

I think it's more complicated than that. I have known great players with zero mental toughness, Stu Unger is perhaps the most obvious example. These people are rarely successful in life, or even long-term consistent winners at the poker table. But they can certainly win tournaments, or be very dangerous in cash games.

At the other extreme, too much mental toughness can get in the way of the psychological insight you need to be a top player. Of course, it depends how you define mental toughness, but at the top levels intuition, flexibility and insight are required, and these attributes are not usually associated with toughness.

Certainly a competent player with toughness and discipline will be an adequate player at mid levels, and will like make money in a poker lifetime, and might well have a good life. But it's not a common personality type at the top level.

I agree with Aaron ^^^

While mental toughness is super important... if you're asking who would I back:
a) "a highly skilled player whom read every poker book, knows every advanced theory and thinks on a completely different level."
or
b) a guy who "has adequate poker knowledge, but perhaps doesn't think on that next "level". However what makes this player unique is his mental toughness"

I put my money on Player A every time.

Think about this.... player A has the ability to return his bankroll into the stratosphere after a blow-up. Player A has so much more earning potential than Player B. Player A has a skill that's unique and ultra-valuable.

Player B is so exploitable. Although losing doesn't phase him, losing will consistently be a big part of his daily routine (along with meditation).

Learning the craft, evolving your game and becoming feared at the tables is what separates the big winners from the fish. Mastering poker is always more profitable than mastering your temperament.

This question reminds me of the fable about the tortoise and the hare. While one was more talented, the one that was more consistent won the race.... but how many times do you think the hare is going to lose these races???

^^^ Strongly Disagree

I never said Player B is a losing player. He is simply not as "skilled". Skill doesnt = money earned. So in this particular case player B will still be a very good player.... but not a professional or Poker Coach. He is still a shark however.

Player B has the disadvanatge of less expirence, and perhaps his calculations aren't as good as the skilled player. He knows must of the numbers, but perhaps doesn't have an edge such as very strong math skills or a HUD.


So to sum it up:

Player A:

Much better than B at reading people, and making in game adjustments

More Experienced

Perhaps slightly to marginally better with math(not a big edge)

Tilts/lets emotions get in way once in awhile. Will chase at really bad prices when tilted. Not a maniac. Might believe in destiny, or have some type of Gambler's Fallacy.

Player B

Knows math pretty well, not as much as A

Makes good reads, not as much as A

Sharp player, not as much knowledge as A

Strong mental toughness, never tilts. Never never chases at wrong price. So even if player B suffers a terrible bad beat... the next hand he wont chase the nut flush if terrible pot odds and implied odds. Has no Gamber Fallacy.

If were talking about $ won & kept then B is obviously better, isildur was/is the biggest example of this.

Expecially when you look at the fact poker is a game where table selection can be huge, then player A generally will have more ego & less table selection which will affect your winrate as well.

My guess is you're posing this question because you see yourself as Player B... But the fact of the matter is Player A will nearly always outplay Player B. Which means when they're at the same table, Player B will not win as much (or maybe not win at all) compared to Player A.

There are many forms of tilt - and mental toughness is an important part of the game. It's why champions pick themselves up and try again after failing. But talent and skill supersede mental toughness.

Plus, when you're a true poker sharp, you will suffer fewer bad beats and get into fewer tough spots where you lose money. So Player A - while mentally weaker than Player B - will not need to suck it up and play on tilt - because he won't be losing as often as Player B.

My point being - yes, Player B will make more than Player A when they're both having bad days. But on good days, Player A will outperform Player B. And because Player A is so advanced, he will have few bad days than Player B.

Players like Roy Cooke are proud to be average grinders that don't tilt. But they also don't advance and move on to play the bigger games where whales spew money like it's going out of style. Being mentally tough helps overcome the variance. But, in my book, guys with the ability to outplay the best win more and win it more often.

BTW: more skill = more earned money.
Luck will make fish think they stand a chance, but in the end... money finds its way into the pockets of those with the most skill. True story.

+1

By the way, I learned the whom/who method last week. However, your last posts confused me. I would have said who.

I agree with your post. In the long run Player A will win more money. So skill is a more important factor than mental toughness.

However I still believe mental toughness is a huge part of the game. Perhaps most important characteristics of a Poker Player:


1. Adjusting to players,situation context. Playing to villian's tendencies.

2. Knowing percentages really well

3. Other theories/knowledge

4. Mental Toughness(Resiliency, ability not to not have any negative emotions when playing)

5. Psychology of the game

What do you think?

I'd put it this way...

1. Adjusting to players, situation context. Playing to villian's tendencies./ Other theories/knowledge (these are both equally important)

2. Psychology of the game... picking up tells, getting inside V's head. (I've seen great players push amateurs off their winning hands... that's why poker is a game of skill more than luck)

3. Knowing percentages really well...e.g., hand equities & Pot to stack ratios (This isn't as important as you think live when you're putting the fear of God in your opponents. Online is a different story.)

4. A clear head... ability to focus, stay in the moment, play long hours without getting bored. Ability to remember/ memorize player's hands & results. Ability to judge players, put them on hand ranges, etc.

5. A healthy bankroll that can tolerate variance.

6. Mental Toughness (Resiliency, ability not to not have any negative emotions when playing)

These are the factors that I see live winning players have in common.
But since I play exclusively live - online players may wholeheartedly disagree.

This is just one guy's opinion.

There are extreme examples of A. who tilt so bad, have no bankroll mangement, or have drug or alcohol problems that they might just never make in poker. To back someone like this in cash games is probably bad. To put them in tournaments with makeup might actually be extremely profitable.

There are many people like that in poker. Some of them don't turn out that well if their vices get the best of them. Obviously, that is at the extreme end of things. Other guys simply don't play their best a certain percentage of the time but that does not destroy their poker career. They just have a little bit of these bad habits and its not much of a problem.

I think this is easily surmised in this way:

What player I personally would rather be = Player B
Because my quality of life will be better, and personally I do not need to be in the stratospheric region of poker playing to make it as a good player and am still capable of the occasional huge score in an MTT though that will likely not happen often, and stress will be lower since I'm not living on the edge of my bankroll all the time

What player would I rather have as a horse in my stable = Player A
These people are much more likely to go broke multiple times in their life and their quality of life will be lower because they are constantly on the edge of super rich and broke as ****, causing huge amounts of money-based stress. HOWEVER, if I can understand my horse's frame of mind and catch them when they are properly concentrated, they will go on a huge run and backing them will be tremendously +EV.

Good example of Player B = Dan Harrington, who despite not being the most skilled player and being someone who can't beat top cash games is never broke and has made a good living at poker for +20 years. I think Phil Hellmuth could fall in here as well, despite the tv tantrums.

Good example of Player A = Mike Matusow, who when on has made tremendous runs and reads well beyond average variance in major tourneys but yet always finds himself broke

I like rightlight's answer.

Consider the related question of choosing an investment.

If you have to choose a single company to put 100% of your wealth and 100% of your effort, you'd pick some boring steady business that was pretty sure to turn a small profit every year.

If you're investing in a portfolio of hundreds of companies, you'd look for the most innovative, outside-the-box entrepreneurs and figure you'll pick up a few supernova winners to make up for all the losers.

If you look at the best anything: poker players, entrepreneurs, scientists, rappers, political leaders; you generally find people who took foolish amounts of risk to get to their positions. They're talented, of course, but they're also lucky fools. Emulating them is a low-probability route to success.

Mentally tough people are not known for taking foolish risks, that's for dreamers, morons, thoughtless people, undisciplined thinkers, obsessives and minds ruled by passion. And think about a person with the intellect, insight and nerve to be a top poker player, and uses those powers to be a top poker player; does that sound like the considered decision of a tough mind, or someone who can't do the smart boring thing and sell cars or negotiate corporate lawsuits?