When I was a low volume/developing player especially. I, like so many others, was not following my natural inclinations at the table. Rather I fell into the trap of mimicking what I had read, seen, or heard from those who more successful. And in affect blocked out my natural inclinations in favor of parroting theirs to an extent.

I think players in their early stages of development need to be very wary of the difference between information and communicative expression.

Information (opponents tendencies, pot odds, equity calcs, tells, GTO play, hand histories, your history vs a certain opponent, etc.) is something youve studied or observed that you use to make decisions while playing.

Communicative expression (pokers bks, training vids, forum threads, articles, interviews, etc.) is someone else telling you about the way that they play &/or how they think that u should be playing. Its POV.

Now with communicative expression, its inevitable that a certain percentage of the newbs on the receiving end of it are going to misinterpret and misuse a certain percentage of whats communicated. The extent to which this will occur depends on 2 things imo:

1) The communicator's amount of awareness as to who his audience is. If he's very aware, he'll put more care and depth into what he's doing and also be cognizant that his audience may be very green and likely to misuse what he's putting forth, and he will try to prevent that. If he is not very aware, he will be "self-expressing" to a greater extent and not very careful about what his audience may do with the material.

2) The newb's amount of discernment. His ability to take everything he's reading/watching/being told in context. His understanding that though the communicator is wildly successful, what he's putting forth may or may not be right for him.

Dont get me wrong, mimicking better players is probably a good thing, even if u dont know why youre doing it at first. But i think a lot of players dont really deeply understand the game their playing, theyve just memorized techniques that work, and b/c their so dependent on those techniques (largely taught to them by others) they dont think outside the box enough or come to a deeper understanding of things.

Sorry, kind of a rant but I had to get that out.

One of the poker theorists (probably DS) said that it's possible to take two pieces of valid advice and put them together to produce a bad result. The example was Brunson's advice to sometimes mix it up with SCs and Harrington's advice to sometimes throw in Ax for deception (I don't remember the second person now). Separately, the two authors achieve the same valid result: deception at a minimum cost, but someone who's read both may read it and advice of both authors, mixing it up with SCs and Ax indiscriminately. They'll now be achieving deception at a higher cost.

I think it's pretty standard to have sub-average sessions when you're out of your comfort zone, but it's generally a more effective way to learn than to play for 40 years and hope to figure out the game on your own doing the same stuff. That's part of the intellectual challenge of the game, you have to figure out how to think about the advice, which is very hard to do (I probably don't do this nearly enough), but this is really the primary benefit of poker to other analytical pursuits.

^
interesting points

i remember hitting plateaus more often when i first started playing because there was such an overwhelming amount of new information to soak in. i still hit plateaus but not as much since i am now absorbing less new information during the same amounts of time by comparison. i feel like you tend to hit plateaus after you reach a new level of awareness, and in a way it splits your game into two conflicting styles of the more advanced playing style that you are now aware of, and the orphaned outdated style of your previously less experienced self. it's like assimilating larger chunks of new information or sources of information, than the norm, and trying to integrate them at the same speed as the rest. this assimilation is a continual process however, and good play falls somewhere in between, balance is required in both directions: control of incoming information, and of outgoing affectations upon play style.

Everyone probably has experienced the CTS theorem.

Also another factor is when you try to pattern your game after good players you generally start loosening up and get put into spots where you don't have much experience.

Good points but I can't agree.
Just like a Doctor needs to study medicine and also listen to the patient and follow his instinct, a good combo is the optimal solution.
However, I much rather have the Doctor base his diagnosis on the books and technology before anything else. Same in Poker, the theory is too important to be second to anything. I have been playing Poker for 25 years and I can't believe the weapons I have acquired since I started studying from Poker writers and using odd calculators.
I understand that the "heart" is important but the M's are, imo, way more important. When I won a pot before being an educated player, most of the times I didn't know why I won it. Now, in most cases, I can reconduct a win or a loss to a good play, a mistake or just chance. I feel way better now and the results are coming. I see it every day, the super aggressive, cocky or instinctive players chipping up early in a session or tournament, only to give it back as soon good players got their guns adjusted on them.
You don't need to "copy" anyone, just use your judgement to take the best from everybody.
Personally I have one writer who I follow religiously but I can't say which

Right, but when a doctor does a procedure, prescribes a drug, etc, he knows WHY it works, and HOW it works. He understands biology, physiology, nutrition, the human body. He isnt just mimicking other doctors he thinks are better than him.

But for a good number of years, a doctor will study the work of doctors who are better than she is, and will work and learn and put all of it together bit by bit, and will get to make her inevitable errors in a hopefully patient-free environment (tests, simulations, cadavers, etc).

I think I'd rather have a downswing after reading than not read and keep playing with the little bit I currently know. Brains aren't linear, those pieces will fall into place out of order and maybe months, or who knows, maybe years apart. But I'll take those pieces from anywhere or anyone I can get them from and trust that, if I keep slogging and reading and studying and thinking about all of it, it will come together right.

But the part about miscommunication is a scary truth. It's a problem whenever a writer tries to communicate anything to a reader.

Sure sure. I think when I OPed it was b/c so many players I play with (Im a SS player) play according to dogmatic rules. Theyre all technique no understanding. Not the kind of player I want to be. I wanna move up. Not be destined to be some bot who 25tables FR 100NL. Just wanted to see if anyone else was thinking along those lines also.

i played poker for a while without ever reading a book. i will say that a lot of times, i would win without understanding deeply what had happened. not exactly luck, but definitely not like i completely outplayed a table.

after reading several books, i immediately found things that took me months to figure out on my own. if i had read this and applied immediately, maybe i don't get stacked for thousands with AA and KK in cash games. maybe i understand pot control and minimize losses and bad beats. maybe i understand value betting and "way ahead, way behind" situations. so to summarize, i wish i had read from the beginning.

and although most books i read now, i already know 75% of the material, it is helpful to hear pros validate some of the things you're doing, or more eloquently explain why you should be doing it.

i do agree that constant information dump wreaks havoc on my results. i'm all over the place trying to unify my "new" strategy. but it takes time, and i would rather have the info than not. some things i try and throw away. others i absorb and probably use every day.

but eventually, everyone ends up doing the same things, because they read the same books, or they watch players that read the books, or they figure it out themselves. so i think it's important to blaze your own path. but reading books and having info can only help you, not hurt you. unless of course you can't read between the lines or are incapable of separating yourself a bit from the text. but then you probably have bigger problems

It always surprises me that people don't review every single hand they play after a session with Pokerstove and the various other software tools out there to actually quantify the plays they've made. Instead, people just seem to work with an elaborate form of guesswork based on copying various people and never really improve until they get coaching.

that was a very good point on mixing advice from different authors....... and of course, some of the advice is very game-centric. doesn't phil gordon say never go broke with top pair or overpair? but i know good 6-max cash guys who will do it every time with KK-AA (unless board is really scary)... and probably all of them are correct.

you have to develop your own style... TAG, without being a rock. creative TAG!!!

also, poker benefits people who can think on fly...... i'd see it all the time in college. people who could figure out something easily the first time vs. the 5th time (5th time people did ok in many courses, but got fried in the harder courses)

Poker is all about finding a good balance in your play mix. If you are a decent or good player, you probably have some level of balance. When you throw something new into the mix, you'll have other adjustments to make to reestablish a new balance. For example, if you decide to throw in light 3bets into your play, this will affect how you need to play postflop with such hands (whereas before you were more likely to have a good starting hand to play, you may now need to be more deceptive). It will also affect your opponent's perception of what your non-3betting range is, and so your non-3bet hands will get less respect, so you will need to deal with that. This will also change your opponent's perception of your 4 bet and 5 bet ranges, and you need to adapt to that. There are other nuances you need to adjust to, but the point is, you can't just take one item (such as light 3 betting) and think that's all you have to do. One simple change can affect multiple parts of your game, so you need to be aware and tweak everything accordingly. So I can see how one piece of good advice can lead to bad results, if you do not tweak the other parts of your game accordingly.

^
Good point. And I would like to see more formal instruction about holistic play that developes holistic understanding, and not so much about specific technique. Actually I wouldnt. Then id have nothing to complain about.

Post deleted for nonsense.

OK, thoughts are more ordered (less chaotic) now:

In my humble opinion, "formal instruction about holistic play" is inapplicable, mainly due to the reason that the term 'holistic' is a misnomer with regards to any kind of formal teaching. It would be nice to, for example, just take ONE course covering an entire discipline and walk out with a degree, but, as you may well know, the whole is indeed the sum of its parts with respect to the concept of formal instruction/education.

Staying with the academic theme here, the only qualification for this game is money - and a brain. Nothing less, although, we'd prefer the majority to have only the money. The world (of poker) would be significantly different (read: tougher) if the game was an academic discipline, where graduates would apply for jobs at poker institutions. Not only would the social stigma be removed, but the professional career path will be acknowledged as part of society, even though it serves society to little or no extent. This poker utopia is probably envisioned by some, but I'd pass on it. It's easy to see why. That's a topic for a different discussion, however.

A poker stake is similar in some ways to a typical career. The employer invests in a prospective employee based on his/her qualifications (OPR stats) with a positive expectation. This, coupled with good references, is expected to lead to high productivity and results, which in turn yields the serious bottom line for the top of the chain. Think of a certain WSOP tournament as a 'work project', or the Sunday Million for that matter. The work one does for somebody else will always be worth more than the work's remuneration. This is all "standard," but I digress.

One can learn everything there is to learn about poker without playing a single hand, but until they do, there is no understanding. Only a prodigal genius could probably reach the level of understanding without ever playing. For the rest of us, though: Playing is learning in poker. The literature (and training tools) should be treated as complementary to one's play. The purpose of poker literature should not be to fill gaps in a player's game, but to help the player understand his/her own game better. It is up to the player to fill those gaps through playing. If a player is fortunate enough, they (or others) will spot their own gaps - what we traditionally refer to as "leaks" - and this will help accelerate the learning process.

That's it. No great mystery of the universe to solve here.

well said