Frustration tolerance ... never seen the subject distilled that well in just two words. I spent a little time going down the Google rabbit hole on that and "ego strength". I know just enough about general psychology to tread carefully here.

Ego strength seems to relate strongly to a sense of self. If so, how is that sense achieved? My answer is knowledge, knowledge of the self.

Low frustration tolerance is born mainly from not understanding why something is happening and interfering with one's immediate goals. Knowledge of poker, including the mathematical and statistical components, allows you to understand and takes the sharp edges off.

In the general case, where someone goes to a psychiatrist, or psychologist to deal with these issues, what is being imparted is knowledge of the self. Also (and I'm guessing here) is to observe the surroundings to understand the why of what is happening. Since this is a poker forum, the "what" is poker. The understanding, therefore, is poker knowledge.

I think this misses the mark a bit. In therapy, they are going to help you realize what you think about situations, and why you are getting the outcomes you get. The understanding you need is on yourself and how you think about the world.

I have seen psychologists for poker and they had me do these exercises where you break down a scenario that upset you (ideally right after), the emotions that you felt from it, and then "dispute" why those feelings are not logical.

I did a lot of these for poker when I'd get tilted and the common theme for me was that running bad in poker meant it would take longer for me to reach my financial/ poker/ life goals. If that gets unpacked further for myself, I was indirectly believing that it also meant I was unlucky in life, unworthy of success etc. I was associating winning in poker with being a winner in life.

It wasn't like I didn't understand that trip Aces can lose to 32o flatting a 4bet and turning A5K4. On a chart of emotions one therapist gave me, the word that resonated most with me was "devalued." I took that to mean that I was using poker as a vessel to prove to myself (and the world) that I was a valuable person. If I had a great/lucky poker day, I'm valuable. If I was losing, I'm worthless.

I think if a lot of people did some introspection, a lot of why they play poker has to do with some of the following:
-people think you're smart if you do it for a living
-freedom to play anywhere/ no boss
-higher ceiling than other career paths (depending on your country etc.)

However, since downswings can last weeks/months/longer, we are all at the mercy of variance for at least some of our poker success. Even though I knew it's illogical to believe the universe wants me to fail, there was at least part of me that believed it.

Some of the things aside from that which were the most helpful were:
-large poker bankroll
-savings that I could rely on for 6+ months

There are studies that show the human brain thinks about money in terms of relativity.
For example, people will drive across the city to buy a TV that is $100 off when the TV is worth $600 vs $500, but if they buy a car for $30 000 compared to $29 900, they are less inclined to do so. Therefore, if you have 40 buyins for your highest stake played, a 10 buyin downswing is 25% of your roll. If you have 400 buyins, it's 2.5%, a drop in the bucket.

I think most poker players mistake tilt for just being bad at the game.

Once you acknowledge how bad at the game your are (and how much more there is to learn) it is gonna be much easier to adapt the "student's mindset" and thus avoid entitlement.
I have a lot of poker friends and even some students who constantly complain about running bad, but when we review their play we see they are making crucial mistakes in scenarios that repeat themselves a lot, which thus leads to substantial leaks and lowers their winrate, which inherently increases variance.

If you don't study regularly and haven't made any real, provable improvement in the past month lets say, there is something explicitly wrong about your approach to the game.

Don't be entitled - instead study hard and try to improve where you can.

This gets at the core of my position about poker knowledge. It's far more than just knowing that 2+2=4. It's getting at a deeper understanding that low-probability plays do hit and that they were still bad plays.

On the flip side, during the reviews of the Mike Postal scandal, a point overlooked by almost everyone was that he did, on a rare occasion, lose. Now, that someone with perfect information loses perfectly illustrates the random nature of a poker game and that the statistical distribution in poker is a real thing. If you recall, Mike never tilted.

A few years ago when I had submitted a paper to a NYC psychoanalyst, I remember part of his comments were about this relationship between frustration tolerance and ego strength. Certainly learning of any kind can have a helpful effect on this kind of mental strength. Even more so though, I would argue, mindfulness, meta perspective and emotional IQ aid in the development of ego strength. We all know of the brainy type who easily melts down under stress, or can't get outside of his tunnel. This isn't ego strength, it 's just expertise or even genius. So, it's not so much academic or abstract learning or acquisition of knowledge per se that flexes this muscle, it's more getting outside of our cocoon of perspective and observing ourselves and appreciating what is happening with us instead of just blindly flailing away under unidentified triggers. So I agree and as I've commented it is knowledge of oneself, understanding of one self, where we really feel it and sense our individuation ... that plays the powerful role in this and produces self-control.

One thing I also find hilarious about the whole "mental game/tilt" discussion is:

- how consistently the players who are complaining the most about their mental game also lack a deeper understanding of actual strategy

- how a lot of people seem to completely disregard the connection between mental game AND actual strategy knowledge, when it is clear they are directly connected and can absolutely NOT be separated from each other in any context.

Like, how can you talk about you tilting when you don't even know how to play in the first place, right? Tilting would be deviating from your normal strategy, but if you LACK some baseline strategy for a certain scenario, how can you deviate from it? You can not deviate from something that hasn't been set in the first place. This is a huge misconception I think a lot of people completely omit when talking about mental game.

Quick fix from me for anyone struggling with mental game:
- get good at poker and your mental game leaks will not exist anymore

Good luck!

This is not true. I get your point, but for years I was a professional musician. I worked with some phenomenal musicians who had severe performance anxiety. They were literally world class at understanding music, playing their instrument, they put in the hours, the work, the study, etc. But they also had emotional issues with performing in front of people that needed to be dealt with and worked through. They were great at music, yet their performances still suffered until they fixed these emotional issues.

I can only repeat: You can give a tilting player an exam at the table, and, while he is tilting, he can still answer the questions to the same extent he is able to when he isn't on tilt. Yet his behavior at the table, his decisions, his actions, are in violation of whatever sound strategy he does possess. The problem of tilt is the problem of self-control. The problem of being lousy at poker has nothing to do with tilt.

And I repeat: the more thoroughly complete one's poker knowledge - which includes the behavioral, hand selection and mathematical elements, the less likely one will tilt and the less dramatic said tilt will be.

This is nonsense. John McEnroe was the Phil Hellmuth of tennis, getting upset many times at calls (things outside of his control). By your logic, he just needs to get good at tennis.

Tilt in a lot of ways is the fact that something happened in a game (often out of the players control) eg. villain gets it in bad or called huge bets way behind and gets there.


Explain to me how someone who has gotten really good at poker is just going to suddenly become mentally strong? The two may coexist, but they can also be exclusive.

I don't disagree that some trash players tilt and think they're good. However, there's also people I've known that have made mid 6 figures a year who break things from time to time.

I think the only disagreement we have is the definition of what tilt is and why you should try to avoid it.

If tilting for you is breaking things, but you still play your A game and make the best decisions at the table --> not tilt (IMO)
If you get mad inside and adjust your decisions based on the emotions --> tilt

I also do swear sometimes, and I also complain to myself sometimes, but at the end of the day, if I KNOW I made the correct decision there is no reason for me to think about it for more than 2 seconds and I just move on.

I do concur that the major part of tilt is that you play suboptimally. However, I'd a person playing their A-game with a heart rate of 130 is still tilted. Maybe they aren't 3-bet shoving A4o or 72, but there's a pretty good chance their reads or some element of their game is going to be played suboptimally.

I don't know about the heart rate thing, as one's heart rate goes up when you have the nuts and the pot is huge. However, I've always agreed that there is "tilt", "Tilt" and "TILT".

Yeah I definitely agree with the "tilt level" point of view, although I just call them A game, B game, etc...

Heart rate is an interesting one. I have been keeping track of heart rate to see if there was a "goldilocks" region for when I am in Flow during my games. However, after 2 years, I've found that I can have a resting heart rate of 65-90 while I feel like I am in Flow. I would've expected there to be a more specific number.

If there is going to be a correlation of some kind, then it will have to be compared to your resting heart rate. I would also want 20-40 samples and figure out an appropriate standard deviation. That is where you should be able to start measuring.

I have my doubts, but how you collect and measure the data matters, and there might be something there.

My resting heart rate is generally around 58, but I've had A-game sessions with 55, and other ones with 95. I use the Cardiogram app which continuously records your heart rate. Sometimes in big spots my heart rate will jump to 100-110, but that happens maybe 3 times a day.

Generally those spikes are when I am flipping in the highest stakes I play where I am currently taking shots. Over time that aspect will go away (until the next level above that etc.)

OK, perhaps we need to clearly define what "In the zone" is at a physiological level. I honestly don't know. However, there are some things that it must include.

- The brain uses the body's resources. Oxygen and nutrients. It's why you get tired and hungry after some serious thinking and study.

- The only way the brain gets stuff is through blood flow.

So, it would not surprise me to find that "In the zone" would include a modestly higher heart rate.

On the other hand, there is a calmness that is associated with being "In the zone". Calmness is generally associated with a lower heart rate.

Either way, before you can say much definitively, you need better definitions.

Both of those points about the higher vs lower heartrate are why I found this interesting enough to buy an Apple Watch for. I think the other challenge is that I feel like your competition's level matters a huge amount also.

When I am battling a good, thinking reg, I feel like I can get into flow almost from hand 1. However, against someone who clicks buttons, I know my reads are sound, but it just doesn't have that same feeling.

That makes sense to me (about feeling the flow). While the morons are more profitable, they are also irrational and unpredictable. I had a guy hop a $60 3-bet with 22 and hit a flop of 227 today. I don't monitor my pulse, but I'm sure it was elevated playing against him.

I'm still struggling with what "in the zone" means though. For me, it's absorbing the people and the action. However, there isn't any specific "feeling" to go with it. I'm either "seeing" most of the stuff at the table, or I'm not.

What is tilt? Is it playing below, generally well below, your actual skill and knowledge level? If it is, then increasing your knowledge actually increases the potential severity of tilting. The higher the knowledge and skill level, the further below it one can fall. Like Stu Ungar, for instance.

OMG, you simply can't be serious.

As to Stu, he was a maniac that had an exceptional ability to read people. If he were alive today and played the same in the current nose-bleed stakes, I feel certain he would be a massive loser. As to why he went bust in the first place, most of his money went either up his nose, someone else's, or in bad prop bets (like golfing with Doyle). I also suspect that the drugs eventually impaired his ability to play. So, ... bad comparison.

I'm not sure this is a well-accepted definition of tilt. As I understand it, tilt is when we allow strong emotions (positive or negative) to influence the way we think about the game. Tilt usually leads to below-par play, but it is sometimes possible to tilt while playing mostly sound poker. Certain old-school poker icons are known for this.

The reason the "emotion" definition of tilt is important is because it allows us to address root causes.

You forgot the part about the definition of tilt.

Ungar was a gift in cash games all along. He was obviously somewhat of a master of tournaments but he had a mega tilt game in tournaments. So it was precisely where his expertise was highest that his tilt was most evident. In cash games he just sucked and it wasn't tilt when he gave his chips away.

And I'm serious.

Well you obviously dropped that correction in without perusing my comments in the thread. If frustration is an emotion, and frustration tolerance is an ego function ... then, yes, tilt is generally emotion driven play at a level well under our understanding of what sound play is. As to when a player is emotional, pissed, frustrated -- but isn't playing poorly or making rash and poor decisions as a result of the emotions -- this isn't regarded as tilt. It's just being emotional.