This is getting a bit off topic and I don't know any more than what I've heard shared publicly, but a few things come to mind. First, the story wasn't used as a testimonial, it was shared by the mental coach as an example to illustrate what kind of client might benefit from mental coaching. Second, as far as I'm aware poker mental coaches aren't governed by a professional college or association and don't have any formal ethical standards. Third, it may have been a former client and not a current one so that principle wouldn't apply.

Mason,

I’m not sure what leap I’m making, I didn’t even use the phrase “good mental coaching” in this paragraph.

And later:

So you invent your categories of mental states related to poker and then criticize mental coaches for not being aware of them or not understanding them? Just because you have come up with your own theory does not mean your theory is the most accurate representation of reality. But I’m curious, what was your methodology for developing your theory? Did you study the mental states of poker players? Is there any evidence base for your theory? Have you tested your theory at all to see if it accurately reflects the mental states of poker players? Or are you and Sklansky the entire sample?

I’m sorry, but my understanding of your theory is that the four mental states are the only things that would prevent a player from making the correct play. So I referred to them all as execution failures. If pseudo tilt and apathy don’t cause execution failures, what is their relevance?

Perhaps you are correct, though I will point out that Cardner is a licensed psychotherapist. Regardless, the fact that someone might need psychotherapy doesn’t mean they can’t get some benefit from a less intensive form of counseling provided by mental coaches.

This is ridiculous. If every poker player with mental health challenges or issues that could benefit from psychotherapy followed your advice and didn’t play, the poker community would be extremely small. Besides, all you’re doing here is dodging the substantive issue. If he has “mental problems” that interfere with his ability to make the best poker decisions, and those mental problems can’t be cured by increasing his knowledge of all things poker, then this would be a counter-example to your argument. You can’t just ignore it by saying people like him shouldn’t be playing poker.

Again, you are the only one arguing that it has to be one or the other (poker knowledge or mental coaching) and can’t be both. The mental coaches would agree with you, mental coaching without strategy won’t make someone a winning player. But the point of the example is that someone can have good poker knowledge and still not make the correct plays in certain situations.

I think you’re really reaching with your response to the Jim example. Either you’ve completely misunderstood it, or you’re just trying to force it to fit with your theory when it can’t. I didn’t describe Jim as losing confidence he once had, so trying to characterize it in the way you have is just misplaced. If you honestly believe that players like Jim, who fail to make the correct play because they are scared or intimidated and not because they lack knowledge, don’t exist, then you either live in a poker bubble or you truly don’t understand your fellow human beings.

I was trying to anticipate how you might apply your theory to address the counter examples. If these examples are not cases of one of your four mental states, then wouldn’t this imply that there are mental states other than the ones you mention that can inhibit success at the poker table?

Okay but you haven’t really addressed it directly. I have noticed this is a tactic of yours – in response to certain arguments you either choose to just ignore them or you appeal to your own authority and tell people to read your books.

Why not? When reading the first books books by Cardner and Tendler, one of the impressions made upon me was how little awareness they had relative to what really goes on at the poker table. And one of the areas where this was most clear was the huge emphasis on tilt, and in my opinion much of what they attributed to tilt wasn't tilt at all. So in my book and other work I've done on this subject, I came up with the four categories to help readers who, unlike you, were interested in understanding how this stuff really works and what actually happens at the poker table and how to guard against it.

If you object to the four categories, fine, that's your business. But they do a good job of explaining why mostly marginal to moderately competent players can begin to play poorly.

I went to Va Tech and have two degrees from there. But a while back I sarcastically wrote that the difference between Va Tech and Argosy University was that Va Tech had a football team. But just between you and me, there are more differences than that.

One thing I might do, if and when I get a chance which won't be for a while, is to try to read Cardner's second book just to see if anything positive (since she's the "positive poker" person) came from my criticism. In the article that I linked to in the OP, she now seems to recognize that in poker (and any other game) there is a knowledge component and an execution component. Of course, she tries to argue that she had it right all along, so, despite how silly it is, you still need 10,000 hours to become some sort of top poker player. I have also seen an article by Tendler where he now also recognizes that there's a knowledge and execution component.

I guess my criticism must have stung.

MM

Is this one sentence not 90% of the actual issue people are arguing about?

So here is the thing. There are people who do not make the correct play because they don't know what it is. There are people who know the correct play and don't have stress making it even when many others feel stress. There are people who force themselves to make the correct play in spite of the stress. And there are people who know the correct play but can't fight their urges to make the incorrect play due to psychological factors such as being bullied.

The first category is by far the most numerous and the last category is by far the least numerous.

The second category is fairly rare and can be split up into two groups. Those players are either not prone to be affected by stressfull situations (or maybe even enjoy them) or they are winning players who fully get the idea that if you keep making the best EV play you wind up doing better than if you don't. It has become so ingrained through both theory and practice that the stress those plays once gave them is gone.

The third category is not rare. It is players who feel the natural human emotions one feels when getting three bet or get in a position where a big bluff is the mathematically correct play, etc. Yet they do it anyway. Because the alternative is idiotic and will cost them money. I'm talking of course about players who have decided that it is very important that they maximize their wins. They don't need help to ignore their stress given the downsides of not ignoring it.

If such players think it might be worth it go to a therapist to help them have less stress in these situations, fine. Although I don't know how a therapist could do much more than tell them to be patient as they await the day they move into category 2B as they most certainly will as their winnings pile up. But again people should realize that most good players, even those abused as a child, make the right play not because they have found a way to overcome the stressful feeling certain good plays would invoke in them, but rather because their brain, their study, and their results cause them not to give in to their stress.

And no one should think that a counterargument to the above is mentioning people who eat junk, don't exercise, etc in spite of their knowledge. That's a lot tougher than making the right poker play because the temptations are greater and the downsides are far in the future.

Those tiny number of people who aren't on drugs, know poker theory very well, yet still can't stop themselves from making a bad play because their daddy hit them, do indeed need to see a psychiatrist. Not a poker mental coach. Of course most of those who are visiting such coaches and being diagnosed with this syndrome are not in category 4 but actually category 1.

Poker coaches are not governed by a professional college or association, but then neither am I and I still understand I have an ethical duty of care towards clients.

WRT your second point, these are clearly current clients.

http://jaredtendlerpoker.com/poker-testimonials/

This. The duty of care of a psychologist is that they should not exceed the boundaries of their professional training. During the intake interview, if a sport psychologist determines the client may have mental health issues, they should refer them to a clinical psychologist (or similar), who has the appropriate doctoral training to deal with mental health issues, and should not undertake performance related work until the clinical issues has been resolved.

Almost. But you're missing a category. There are players who don't feel the stress, there are players to make the correct play in spite of the stress, AND there are players who are unable to make the correct play because of the stress. You can't lump everyone who fails to make the correct play due to mental or emotional challenges as having serious psychological problems that require a psychiatrist. Mental coaches target the people in the category I added.

Okay so maybe Jared is in violation of the sports psychology ethical standards. Though it's hard to envision his typical poker client as "vulnerable" in the sense intended by the standards.

I didn't miss a category. When someone does something that they know is bad for them for psychological reasons it is either because

1. They don't think it is that bad (eg a poker player who doesn't realize that the plays he makes to avoid stress are as minus EV as they are). Most of these people would stop doing it if they were more knowledgeable.

2. They realize it is bad by certain standards but not for them (eg a recreational poker player who would rather play a losing non stressful game than a winning stressful game). These people have no interest in improving their game if it means coping with stress.

3. They realize how bad a mistake it is both in general and particularly to them (eg an aspiring professional player) but they don't have the ability to force themselves to do what is right because stress (or urges or things of that nature) have such a strong influence on them that they can't fight it.

Frankly I doubt that there are many expert poker players in this third category because people like this are not apt to have the discipline to study all that needs to be studied to become an expert. But if there actually are such people why would their susceptiblity to emotions that force them to do wrong be confined to poker? Almost certainly these people need the whole package of psychological help.

I think we're starting to argue in circles now but I enjoyed the discussion.

I read Cardner's book.

I read Tendler's book.

Interesting content but not that helpful IMO.

Not a fish.

Not a pro.

Mainly a rec who likes winning better than losing.

Mason's stuff is helpful when applied to live play.

And thus, indirectly, when preparing for live play.

Cardner and Tendler were not.

YMMV.

One lingering question for Mason and those who agree with him: How do you explain the fact that there are a number of high stakes pros - we're talking some of the most successful tourney players in the game - who not only advocate the benefit of mental coaching but use it themselves? Do they just not get it? Are they simply lacking knowledge of all things poker?

Mental coaching could be worth it for high stakes players because small edges end up being worth significant amounts of money. The high stakes players also have a strong grasp of all things poker. So, they could be the few players in the world who wouldn't be wasting their money on a mental coach.

Mainly the placebo effect. Sort of like why rabbis do almost as well as psychologists. (Also if your remember I agreed that a psychologist could reduce the stress that player feels when making a correct play. I was disputing that a poker mental coach could change the actions of someone who was so sick that he let those stresses force him into the incorrect play.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Even if it is the placebo effect, it helps.

And I'm having a really hard time seeing how transference plays out here.

I'll present an independent view on this, even if some of the Top Dogs in here might bite

The misunderstanding between both parties (the theoretical and the mental) might just be based on this:
The tennis/sports example is way oversimplified and thus misses the point.
You do not just magically, "instantly" know what you want to do.

I would rather describe the process as
1. perception (might slightly be altered by mindset)
2. mental execution (critically depending on mindset)
3. physical execution (mostly depending on physical skill, but mindset can have influence)

Here, "mindset" refers to everything going on in your mind, which might be a lot (if your girlfriend just left you) or just the right things if you are in a state of flow.

Now, for tennis, we have the following:
1. you perceive the ball+opponent (unless distracted by external/internal influences)
2. you "plan" what to do. For sport this quick, this basically just means pattern recognition and instantly reacting to what you see. Still, the mindset comes into play here. Just because it happens very fast, does not mean that it is a fixed, automatic process. It obviously depends on mindset. You might e.g. pre-decide to play aggressively or defensively, hit on his backhand most of the time, etc.
If your mindset is not good, you are prone to errors here. To be a top player you obviously need a top notch planning network here, the functioning of which obviously depends on your state of mind.
3. You execute. How good you do it mostly depends on your physical condition, skill and training. Still, your mind might be so far off optimal that it interferes with the body in some way at this stage.

Now, for poker (and chess etc.), the process is exactly the same, the only difference being that phase 3 is almost completely trivial.
1. You perceive situation and opponents (might already be altered by mindset)
2. You mentally execute, planning what the best move is. Mindset plays exactly the same role as in tennis, probably a little more, because you can think much longer about it.
3. You toss chips/cards looking detached

So in conclusion, the mental game and state of mind are equally important in poker, chess, tennis and golf. And they clearly are the key success. The slight difference is just the fact that in tennis and golf, the mind also plays a role during actual physical execution.

For some background: semi-pro poker player. I have no (mental) coaching experience whatsoever, I just play all the 4 games mentioned and every other time my mind plays tricks on me. I liked Tendler's book.

I’m sorry Darth,and my purpose is not to be mean, but you seem to have a lot of trouble seeing a lot of things.

What happens is that someone wants improvement in his results and goes to one of these mental coaches and gets shown much symphony and understanding. The person then begins to like/love the coach and feels that everything is now just great, and thanks to the normal fluctuations of the game may even do better for a while.

Thus they spend a lot of money and get little in return.

Mason

I think Darth has a point here - transference is usually limited to person-to-person interactions and relationships, although I'd caveat that I'm no expert on Freud.

It's finally time for a good sport psychology analogy. I think while all sports people can undoubtedly benefit from a psychologist, for the most part their money would be better spent on coaching for their specific sport.

Basically, the less a sportsperson can actually learn about their discipline, the more they can benefit from marginal gains in other areas. However, there are very few situations where a psychologist can come in and turn a journeyman into a contender - you're talking for the most part about a couple of percent improvement. Of course, for a high end athlete this can be the difference between 4th and gold, hence why it's essential for them to have access to a psychologist.

Hi Elrazor:

I thought that’s exactly what the question was. He wanted to know why certain players from the high stakes games liked their mental coach so much.

Did I miss something?

Best wishes,
Mason

You know what, I can't be bothered anymore. You accuse me of misattributing ideas to you and then you do the same thing to me. I never said anything about pros "liking" their mental coaches. And you're arrogant and condescending while you do it.

You've applied the concept of transference incorrectly. Stop pretending to be a psychology expert and stick to math and poker.

This is what you wrote:

One lingering question for Mason and those who agree with him: How do you explain the fact that there are a number of high stakes pros - we're talking some of the most successful tourney players in the game - who not only advocate the benefit of mental coaching but use it themselves? Do they just not get it? Are they simply lacking knowledge of all things poker?

And when you say "but use it themselves," it has to mean that they like/love their mental coach.

Relative to your last two questions, I do say in the conclusion of my book:

Also, be careful with the insults, and considered yourself warned.

MM

Another thread ruined by ppl getting personal

Can't we all just get along?

I think becoming a good poker player requires at least a million hands under your belt. Even then I don't think you've been put in every possible situation and I wouldn't classify you as mastering the game. Once you hit the 5 million mark you can start to consider yourself as some what of a master.

Hi Mason

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but let me remind you about online mass multitabling that does require good execution and does allow some grinders to earn more money per hour than some of the top strategy experts of the same poker format.

In particular, the Spin & Go community is currently excited about the success of Dmitry 'FREEQ7Z', who habitually plays at ten 3-max spin tables at once, while most spin regs find it hard to even play at 4 without making too many mistakes.

A Spin & Go tourney requires 40-45 decisions on average. (As it's a hyperturbo, the regular thinking time limit is 10 seconds, and so is the timebank.)

Dmitry plays about 70 spins an hour, so he makes about 3K decisions an hour, or one decision every 1.2 seconds, on average. Still, he beats mid-high stakes spins (was even beating $100 ones in summer when they were a bit softer, which alone proves him an elite player), and he earns about as much per hour as (or at least, not much less than) those who have the best knowledge of the strategy of spins and who play $500 ones, and his hourly winnings obviously have a much lower standard deviation than those of the $500 regs who play at 1-2 tables because that's how few games fill up at all at the $500 level.

He did consider playing $500 spins too but rejected that idea because it would result in him earning the same money per hour but with higher variance. I think that was a correct decision, even though his bankroll management is generally too tight.

Furthermore, there's a reg who plays at 16 spin tables at once with a positive EV, making a decision every 0.8 seconds on average.

Mind that this is happening even after Stars removed rakeback almost entirely, which was an incentive for multitabling at low stakes but no longer is.

Do you think most $500 spin regs would earn a positive EV if they were to play at ten $30 spin tables at once without prior physical training?