.

I would like to hear some more of your thoughts on this particular interpretation of self-deception.

When someones lying to you, they arent forcing you to believe them.
If you are led down a wrong path, it's because you yourself were complicit in the deception; In a way, to be deceived takes place in your mind, and in your mind only. Even a liar isn't 'doing' anything to you. you are going along with it.
Actually, as soon as we stray away from what we 'know' empirically with our own senses, and our own reason, we are deceived in a way, automatically. Even if we are 'right', in a sense, we still dont see the whole picture; sometimes it's exactly because we're right, that we end up deceiving ourselves, and missing he way.
being a 'know-it-all' is being self-deceived. it's trying to deceive others, that you are much better than you really are, so that you also may deceive yourself of the same.
For what reason, i'm not so sure. the key to improving is assessing yourself, and your performance honestly, and ruthlessly. Dishonesty with oneself is certain death is poker, IMO.
the most dangerous players are the ones who are 100% accountable to themselves.
protecting their own ego doesnt rate in their pursuit of what they have to accomplish.

Theres the lie by omission, too.
We rule out entire possiblities to ourselves, because we have a command over something, a system, whatever. we fail to take in new data because we've 'got a handle' on it, when nothing could be farther than the truth.
I'm not saying that i dont think that im better than i am, and that i couldnt work harder at it, when i think im giving it my all?
I'm just as prone to deceiving myself as anyone.
I just try to not believe as many things in general, and therefore dodge more chances to trick myself. sometimes not knowing is a powerful thing. and this comes up in poker a lot. (a game of incomplete info); sometimes we cant know what the correct play is. there are valid arguments either way. its a mystery, and it may not even matter. (the EV is the same either way).
It's not as rigid as we would be more comfortable thinking it is. Live poker is way more complex this way, because of the increased amount of info available; there are plays that would not make sense if not for one piece of information.
there are personality types that have a really hard time with this reality; that there are mysteries, that things can't always be known in the normal sense. just like randomness tends to freak ppl out.

"One can be deceived by believing the false, but on may also be deceived by not believing he true." S.K.

a good example is the poster who insists that no one comments on certain aspects of the hand. they dont want to hear about pre-flop is the classic one.
sometimes they are vehement about it.
but how are the different streets separate from each other?
the OP is opting for street-by-street thinking as a way of blocking out having to look at themselves.
and why are they even posting? they want to cherry pick what they hear, so i figure they are more interested in reinforcing thier self-deception than in vanishing it?
theres nothing you can say to this OP to actually fix his/her problem.
they have to open their eyes for themselves.
All you can do is to try to shake them out of their comfort zone, to wake them up!
Thats' one reason why i'm known to say some ridiculous things in certain threads. I'm trying to make a point, and i'll exaggerate greatly, and i dont care if ppl think i'm an idiot (at the table, or on the forum, either way).
but, like the quote says, it may be easier to wake up someone who doesnt believe they are awake already. that's where 'not knowing', and being free of the known comes in. we have a chance then. A chance to wake up.
When we lie to ourselves that we are awake, we are already awake in our own mind, so attempts to awaken us are futile. we have deceived ourselves into a permanent slumber.
Only when we humble ourselves can we even begin the learning/improving process. Otherwise, we are just collecting data, not learning. learning happens within your self; and if you never address that self, you have no shot in poker, imo.
Examine who you are, and what youre doing it for? a wise man once said that an unexamined life wasn't worth living, anyways...
ultimately, you can't remove yourself from the equation (unless you're the man) so it's only up to you to deal with yourself, and look at yourself, and monitior yourself.
you could have the best coach in the world, and it's still on you at the end of the day.
and in poker, it's not about what you woulda done, or coulda done, it's about what you really did in practice in the moment. it's about discipline, and following through, and endurance (not tilting).
who cares how good it looks on paper?
who cares how smart you are when you blow up, or can't make the decisions in real time??

"There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio"
-William Shakespeare. (Hamlet)

just glanced back at "Ace on the River", and noticed that the first chapter is high lighted by a Kierkegaard quote which kinda applies here;"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards".

Greenstien rates the traits of winning players, and 'honesty with oneself' is second only to 'psychological toughness' on his list.



how about this one??

>>>"Face the facts of being who you are, for this is what changes what you are."

or, "To dare is to lose ones footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself."

or, "It is the duty of human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand."

the best thing that happened to me in college at UT Austin (besides receiving a scholarship) is that i took every class that I could with professor Louis Mackey, (who appeared in the cult-movie Slacker), and bugged him incessantly in his office hours. Leading Kierkegaard expert, and a hell of a guy. RIP. you would see him at a punk show occasionally.
not your typical old man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_H._Mackey

Reading Mpethy's (9999) post and this post there are some major differences in style. Here we are a man with no name and there we are a man with a name and we have no problem telling everyone what it is.

You are very consistent in your approach and it seems to me that you back what you say as it is the only way.

How do two threads, with different messages, co-exist coming from what the forum assumes is two solid players? Do you find your approach the only way, or maybe the better way compared to what mpethy's thread says?

This is not to start an epeen contest. I am sure some people are wondering what exactly is going on. One guy tells them mum poker and the other guy plays a winners image and is not afraid to shy away from it and even show some cards and talks poker. Not saying your image isnt that of a winner, but rather you try to take the emphasis off your image and place it elsewhere. What would you say to a poster with all these questions and is now confused on what to do?

Mackey appears at 57:00 in the movie Slacker as a senile anarchist. (himself?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB4xl...-button&wide=1

heres his parting words:
(at 1:04)
"the first hurdle for the true warrior: to those humans in whom I have faith, I wish suffering, being forsaken, sickness, maltreatment, humiliation.
I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, and the misery of the vanquished.
I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not? that one endures.

theres your answer, APD. he's slashing his own win-rate/ killing the action in his game/ lying to himself that it's cute.
what he's calling in his thread a 'winning image' is nothing of the sort.
winners drive the action, get ppl to gamble with them, and make their games good. This is impossible to do by being the 'know-it-all' at the table.
I chimed in in mpethys' thread about Bobby Hoffs definition of 'winning image' in contrast to what he was talking about (which is a product of his own self-deception) and was ignored.
what mpethy is calling a 'winning' image is really the image of a self-decieved loser, IMO. i spot these guys a mile away as soon as they mention "reverse implied odds", or whatever other nonsense they spew thats designed to shore up a faltering ego, or to impress themselves.

no one who knows what they are doing has to constantly remind you of that fact. It's ego pure and simple, and is very destructive, imo, to both a 'know-it-alls' winrate, and the game they're in.

DGAFs' 2k post says it all.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11...r-obv-1167630/

the dude abides?

I think the models of stampler and mpethy are just points on a continuum. It is great if you can walk into a room unknown other than being a random tourist. There comes a point, no matter what you do that you become named if you play at a location long enough. TMWNN becomes eventually TMWNN. While people disparage the fish, they do notice that good players don't take much time making a decision, know exactly how much they want to bet/bet appropriately, or even do little things like stacking their chips for easy view, only look at their cards once and don't have their cards flip over because their hands are off the table. Even if they don't have a clue I'm a mod on 2+2, I'm continually asked by others how to handle themselves at a table.

Quite frankly, mpethy has to deal with that he is well known in the poker community. If someone wants, they can find pictures of him on 2+2. If he was playing where he should be (5/10+), they wouldn't particularly care. But at 1/2, people are going to react to him being there. Not staying one level ahead would be disastrous. However, I'm confident that given his choice, he'd rather appear to be a tourist donk.

One in the same IMO.

Great thread, nothing more to say for me.

Solid thread. Excellent theme. Keep it up, stampler...

I play at a casino with a small player pool, how do I become the mwnn after being a man with a name?

Play somewhere else.

Haha there is no place else.

you dont have to to become TMWNN,
you already are him. everybody has those qualities in them. (being dispassionately obsessed with EV, and EV only)
you just have to get the other crap out of the way.

i play in a small, even fixed player pool, too, and am starting to realize that the TM is a good model for being profitable.

it's not about not being ID'ed. ;although flying under the radar can be a good thing. it's about leaving your ego at the door.
it's about when they do ID you, they're still not altogether sure which side you're on, or what your real purpose is. you want to make them play the geussing game on every level. train them to make the tough decisions, about your cards, and your self as well.


look at the character:
he's obv seasoned, and he can more than handle himself,
but still, we dont know a lot about him, his background, or history.
he gives away only the information which creates the desired effect, and that's it, and it's often misleading.
He's greedy, and is single-minded about making money (thats why he's there, not to be social, although he is always exceedingly cordial. Even when he's about to gun you down, he jokes with you.), yet we don't know why he needs the money?
at the same time, he's not attached to it, as he gives back @$100 to Don Rojo because he feels like 'he has'nt earned it.' (or is it an intentional spew?, he does get $500 from the Rojos later on.)
at the end of the clip, at 8:50
as a result, the Rojos can't figure him, and are put in a position to make a mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification.

Great thread stampler...been looking for motivation to play live after BF so threads like this are gold to me.

IMO having a dealer as a friend goes a long way and doesn't hurt your bottom line.

ya, the dealers in vegas seem to like me cuz they know that I recognize, and respect that they working, and what that means. (even though i'm frugal tipping, i'll tip when i lose a pot, or just out of the blue.)
the ones here think i'm stingy cuz i cant afford to tip huge like the fish, which they believe is a standard practice, cuz fish are standard.

What are the implications of being a player whose motivation, intentions, and being are constantly questioned but never fully unconcealed?

you are more effective?

more effective in the real world.
and yet, you never completely are this player,
you can only strive to become him/her.
it's a model.

we make an error when we try too hard to become TMWNN, or treat the model as though it's real, (a fallacy); or when we fail to differentiate between the model and our own imperfect selves. (become delusional).

it's funny how a model that exists everywhere except in the real world can help you exactly there, in the real world. the model helps make something concrete for us; we can put our hands on it, relate to it; and yet it is just that, a model, and a model only (it's not really what it represents).

you can say that art imitates real life,

but does real life sometimes imitate art?? (the movie?)

In a way, a model is the intersection of the real, and concrete, with the ideal, or theoretical.

posting, reading, and analyzing HHs is playing with a model.
it's not the same as performing in the heat of the moment, in real time, in the presence of others, and with your bio-chemical interactions going on, which all greatly effect how you do.

This in no way diminishes the value of studying, and posting on the forums,
but, i believe, it puts it in it's proper place, and gives you a perspective that can free you up, instead of limit you.

I like what DGAF said in his 2k post. (rough paraphrase). He posts to exercise his mind, so that when he's performing, he's more likely to make the best play, because he's practiced thinking on his feet, by responding to so many posts.
it's like working out.
i think this is a very healthy, and productive attitude, and approach to posting

it should be obvious that being great at posting, and always having the right answer, and the solution every time on the interwebs does not nessisarily translate into being able to do it at all
in real time under live game conditions. posting is a model. It's reification, and if it's not treated as such, can become a dead end, or worse, imo.

the whole idea of a model is to represent the real world to us, so that when we find ourselves there, we will have a clue.
it's not a replacement of the real world, or an ersatz reality.
it's not a place to prove anything, nor is it a destination of any sort. it's a stepping stone.
ultimately, it doesnt matter.

Posting and studying greatly improves your game. Just being around players who think about the game is light years ahead of any live player. I was listening to bart hanson today and he commented on DGAF post on one of the podcast from this year. He talked about an important concept that dgaf uses. He is not in the business to 3barrel bluff but when he does he makes it look like a thin value bet. Its funny because I did a play like that last week. Two times otr I thought to myself I have to bluff to win this hand. If I didn't post or talk with players on this forum. I wouldn't be able to make those plays.

Its funny the more you post the stronger your brain/instincts get for the game.

@stampler I agree the forums is not a place to prove anything. We should embrace and use our time wisely here.

.

the final Sergio Leone flick.
youve got the Black Hat, Frank, (Henry Fonda as the meanest bad guy youve ever seen, this isnt "on Golden Pond'.) he's completely evil, displaying no trace of what you might like to think is humanity.
the Grey Hat, Cheyenne is Jason Robards. he's fundementally evil, and yet has a good, playful side when he wants to.
and then the White Hat, Charles Bronson, Harmonica, who has noble intentions.
but he will still kill you as dead as either of the other two.


I was thinking today that being at a poker table is kinda like being in the Donner party.
They may like you just fine, and it's nothing personal, but if youre the weakest in the group, you are whats for dinner.