The last 6 words are a bit harsh perhaps, but insulting, no.

My biggest issue is that this flow concept is not based on the hard realities of poker math, observing others' play, and other poker fundamentals. Rather, it's a squishy feel-good, vaguely applied concept that is worn like a badge of honor. While it may have value, it should come after one has a very firm grip on the basics. This concept of flow, however, is something that is easy to grasp as a way of bypassing doing the work.

Again you've created a strawman. The math has nothing to do with Flow. Flow relates to being in a peak state of emotion that results in the best performance you're capable of playing.

When you play someone slightly better, you'll be more likely to enter a flow state if the situation gets you to play your best. Nobody has made the point that a person who is a novice at poker is going to beat Phil Ivey simply because they somehow enter flow.

You berate the term, but you have literally shown zero indication that you actually understand what flow is. It's a pretty well-defined and used term in psychology.

Fine. You enjoy and apply your ill-defined concept and I'll continue to win 8bb/hr. If you really have something, you should be able to win 20bb/hr without issue.

I have tried to explain my position and all you seem to be able to do is link to stuff and whine.

Yes, the debate is either to try to get into a flow state or win 8bb/hr. Another strawman, and not to mention a sick brag. I'd say it's doubtful that an OMC is bringing in that much, but what do I know about live poker.

And yes, my ill-defined concept, aka the one used by Psychologists. And using in the Psychology subforum. Go figure.

You haven't explained your position; you've simply referred to anything you don't understand as squishy, feel-good, and detached from reality. Your rebuttals aren't even arguing the subject at hand; instead you simply turn it into an either/or between two entirely different subjects. Perhaps if you'd read the links for flow and strawman argument, you'd be able to understand why any attempt to discuss this with you is futile.

GL OMC

child

Haha... says the guy who does not know the fundamental difference between Gregor Mendel and Dmitri Mendeleev. Keep amusing us....

It was more fun, easier to win, easier to manipulate clueless players, because there were a LOT of new players who didn't know squat. Those really bad players are mostly gone.

Yeah bigtime. I started in 2007 and I'd say maybe 1-2% of fish play as bad as the ones from that era. VPIP100%, 35% 3-betting, triple barreling any pair that connects, getting pocket 2's in for 100bb.

I used to bet full pot if I had top pair +, full pot turn as long as a higher card didn't come, check fold hands like KJ on K35A to any bet... and my ROI was over 10%. Today that type of player would lose their shirt.

I think a lot of breakeven players from today would crush in that era at their same skill level.