Hi ItsJustMeAndYou:

You're another person who should probably read this paper:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...38&postcount=1

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Drt. Meh:

My comments are embedded below.

Best wishes,
Mason

This is only true in the short-run. In the long run, where the short-term luck factor has dissipated relative to the overall expectation, it's not true.

In many cases I agree with this. What happened was that some of these people happened to win one or more tournaments at the right time. But they're not winners today.

This is actually a theme in my new book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better: An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement. By having a "proper balance of luck and skill" the recreation players will win enough so that they'll lose the maximum in the long-run.

This is certainly true. And while variance can definitely cause downswings, eventually the downswing is not from variance but from poor play.

I don't agree with this. Two Plus Two books were not written and published as a sham. We have even said that the majority of people who buy and read our books won't become top poker players. But a good book/training site/etc. can certainly help you get there.

I agree that more people go broke than should, and some of this has to do with the excessive rake players are charged today.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi browni:

I agree.

Best wishes,
Mason

I go to the Bellagio and play with many of the same losing players all the time. I do agree that when the "proper balance of luck and skill exists" in a poker game it will tend to maximize the losses of a recreational player in the long run even though they have some nice wins along the way. But it will also tend to maximize the win of the expert players in the long run.

Also, we at 2+2 are really nice people who do our best to put out quality stuff.

Best wishes,
Mason

I hope you didn’t take offense to some of what I said. I didn’t mean it as an insult. I just view 2+2 as a cog in the bigger system and didn’t mean to question your motives or integrity. I think it’s all just part of “selling the dream” but you guys certainly do help people become more competent and more likely to have a successful shot at accomplishing that dream. Even though it’s virtually impossible for the vast majority of people who try,

It sure was an insult. If you really understood the history of 2+2 you would know that we have often been anti the poker establishment.

Mason

Hey Mason, thanks for the reply.

My fear is mostly in between games, making it harder to plan the next game or actually go to the next game.

Once at the table this mostly goes away and I don't adjust my play because of it.
I don't do any of the things described in your article.

I probably do sacrifice some EV to reduce variance, the main reason being to protect my bankroll.
I now sit down with €200 at a table, while sitting down with €1000 would be hugely +EV, but my risk of ruin would skyrocket.
I also get up early when I'm winning a significant amount, again to build my bankroll.

I now have around a €7000 bankroll, playing 1/1 mostly with a €200 BI.
I do believe this fear will go away when my bankroll grows large enough.

I'm aiming for a 15k poker bankroll and a 20k life roll atm.
Once I start playing 2/4 I'd prefer a 20k bankroll.
This is for live games.

Hello Yeodan, I simply put it down to fear of failure.

You dont enjoy the feeling when you lose, your not alone in that I imagine we are all with you on that.
You are gambling when you play poker, the more skillful you are does improve your chances of winning but the cards still play a very big part in deciding if you win or lose.

Yes, I agree completely. However, a few seem to think that they're not gambling in the short term, when they are - which is where I take issue.

Of course, this isn't a point I press very hard in conversation.

I am astonished that you would belittle the idea of a proper meal being beneficial to one's ability to play poker. That makes no sense and is (or should be) a foundation that everyone builds from. While poker isn't physically strenuous, it is mentally and intense mental activity burns a lot of calories too. Besides, be it a meal, or a snack, eating something you like is (or should be) a pleasant experience that can only improve your mood.

Concentration is needed to be effective in a game. To easily pick up and act on things, as they happen. This makes one's mental state important. As one studies and these situations become familiar, the energy required decreases. However, there always seem to be new situations and twists on known situations that need to be evaluated on the spot, in-game. In particular, tracking the mental state of the other players in the game.

Hi Jay:

Much if not most of the nonsense that the poker mental coaches espouse comes from the sports world. And in an athletic sport, where the execution factor --- speed, timing, and coordination, is large I would agree with what you're saying. But poker is mainly a game of knowledge and thus doesn't require anywhere close to what an athletic sport would require. Of course, you should pay attention. But if you skip a meal, eat a bad meal, stay up too long, it shouldn't have much effect on your play.

So while what you're saying sounds right to many people, and it certainly won't hurt you to do those things which are good for your long-term health, it should have little effect on your poker game. See my book Real Poker Psychology for more discussion.

Best wishes,
Mason

I am finding it very curious that you've chosen to focus on a single word in the initial post on this subject, that being the word "fed". I was speaking much more generally than that. Having eaten, while important, was really barely worth mentioning.

What is important is a pre-game routine that leaves you feeling calm, focused and with energy. All too many people just go to the casino without any consideration for their mental state. Perhaps that gets less important as we increase our knowledge, but I don't think it's ever unimportant.

Edit:

I'll add something here. A while ago, during a long session, I was stressed (variance), hungry and getting close to my quitting time. I discovered, much to my surprise, that I had lost a good portion of my ability to put people on a hand (OK, range of hands). It was a curious sensation and very uncomfortable, since it's become semi-automatic. My mental state just wasn't there. Time to go.

Again, this stuff is coming from the athletic world where the execution factor is large. It should have little to do with poker which is mainly a knowledge game. Of course, once this gets better understood, it would put virtually all of these poker mental coaches out of business.

I do agree that for excellent players it'll probably have a little value. But it won't have anywhere near the value that it'll have in an athletic sport. See the "Conclusion" of my book Real Poker Psychology.

And one other thing. In the world of statistics, and this is very important, correlation does not imply causation. Here's an example. The poker mental coaches like to point out that a high percentage of the best poker players are in good physical shape. So, is being in good physical shape important to becomming a top poker player? And this is from the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter in Real Poker Psychology:

Concept No. 11: “Many top poker players are in excellent shape.” As the text points out, people who are in excellent health are also frequently the ones willing to work on things, which is a good characteristic for becoming a top poker player. So, while it’s great to be in athletic shape, it should have little to do with your poker strategy.

Best wishes,
Mason

I think I see where you're going. However, I've never heard of a Poker Mental Coach before now. Not too surprised they exist though. Can't say for sure, but I suspect I would view them with the same disdain as you seem to have.

I'm speaking from personal experience and what I've found works for me and what doesn't work for me. Don't really recall where it came from, it just developed over time. This is why I tried to stay somewhat vague in my description. With the exception of having some kind of routine that leaves you content, in good spirits and with a clear mind. It should be something each person develops for themselves. I did start meditation back in the '90s just for my own sanity working in IT, so maybe that's its origin, not sure.

However, where we seem to differ is that I'm firmly convinced that poker has a heavy mental component to it. There are plays where you deliberately tell a story to one particular player, that you wouldn't tell to another. That sort of thing goes beyond specific poker knowledge and moves into the mental sphere. What is also in the mental sphere is ranging hands, which requires a clear head - not a trivial subject.

I also think we're exposed to different audiences. You play higher stakes limit (I never regularly played higher than 15/30 and haven't played limit for years) and I play 1/3-2/5 NL, frequently with tourists and mediocre regulars.

The 15/30 almost always ran smoothly with very few dealer decisions, let alone the floor having to come over. The 1/3, on the other hand, has some kind of drama every few hours - a much more distracting environment.

I've never read a 2+2 book that presents poker as a get rich quick scheme. Nor have I read any that present rote 'systems,' which many poker books do. 2+2 is more about presenting and exploring concepts that can be applied intelligently. These aren't 'how to' manuals, nor do the authors represent them as such. There's other poker literature that can make that claim too, but most of it is independently published.

Most poker books though do read like step by step guides, and do more harm then good, i.e 'Super/System.' 2+2 as a whole though approaches poker theory like Chess theory. Chess books don't have lists of sequences - they present ideas and illustrate them with examples. This is how any game should be studied imo.

OP, your fear is natural and common. My first real downswing left me sad, confused, and insecure. The more you experience variance, the easier it will be to cope with - that is of course If you KNOW you're a winning player. If you don't, then find out. There are ways to determine of you're likely a true winner, or have been just been running great.

As you slowly overcome your fear, you can mitigate it. If your roll starts to diminish, start avoiding tougher games. Even move down in stakes. But don't try to lock up wins for their own sake. It's all arbitrary as you're really just playing one everlasting session and you take breaks. No difference then skipping a round of blinds for a bathroom break.

If the goal is mainly the money, there is the fear of losing the winnings. If the goal is to play this and that amount of hands, get better and move up when one thinks the time is right, there is no significant fear in losing the winnings.

The fear is then in not playing well enough and some in not moving forward fast enough, that all cost money or time. The money is the last worry when working up and I have moved up many times without winning anything but the rake but I played fast poker tables for training and faster moving up till I had to start to collect roll in easier games. That part sucked as the challenge is minor.

I prepared technically and thought during every hand my technique and adjustments. The only worry -- additionally to not playing well enough or the competition relative to rake being too good for me -- here is losing too much on the next level because of variance or and lack of skill plus rake. It takes more energy before one is established at some limit and then it is time to move up again and wonder how it will go and how tough many players there are.

If one worry about losing the winnings, the goal and roll is wrongly set. One worry about losing then even in small games where it doesnt matter really. The best thing that can happen then is that one loses so one can relax and focus on the game itself.

The fear that is more serious is the money that matters enough, getting stuck as a result of losing too much that online means a step down often and a long grind for sake of money mainly, with some improvement during. It is good to have a full roll for the higher limit and have one level below it where one can still make real money and compete if one doesnt want to grind it in garbage games, that you probably have no problem with at this time.

Hey man.

I just read about your problem and reading it made me appreciate that I don't have that problem anymore, or that it doesn't bother me much these days, cause I can still remember how much it sucks not to be able to play for a higher risk and a higher reward (that used to be such a sweet carrot dangling just out of reach, and it's what made me decide to finally change a few bad habits) cause you're still afraid of swinging too hard (I imagine that fear will get smaller with experience at some point, right?).

Fear is definitely in the mix for me as a sort of reality-strategy, but it's not predominant. That said, i wonder what your goal is? These questions help me a lot when I find myself in a suboptimal state that I want to break out of consistently:

1. What kind of mix of emotions do you want, and when do you want it? (In your example, the issue with getting rid of all the fear is that most people imagine themselves being really reckless if they had NO fear.)
   
2. And what is it that you'd like to do that your fear is keeping you from doing?

What has worked for me is the box breathing technique, I just do it every time I am a bit stressed out at the tables to build up the good habit, so I imagine that you could do it before buying in deeper than usual, cause it seems to me that that's when you're stressed out. Anyways, here it is:

https://www.gearpatrol.com/fitness/h...ng-navy-seals/

Even if it takes me 15 breaths, I am much more relaxed and laid-back after this each time pretty much, and the few times that it doesn't work you know that it's a good day to take it easy on yourself.

Anyways, all the best man.