Well the silliness about "watching the seams" appear in a number of places:

In Chapter II: "I will always remember a tip from Inner Game ... and instead focus all of my energy and attention on watching the seams of the ball as it approached." A little later: "This became my mantra: Watch the seams. And a little later: Meanwhile, I would be on the other side, taking deep breaths, one goal on my mind: Watch the seams. And a little later again: "Over the years I've experimented with countless ways to bring myself back into that relaxed focus I enjoyed when watching the seams of the tennis ball."

In Chaper VIII: In the Inner Game of Tennis, Timothy Gallwey advocates for giving the concious mind a specific job, like watching the seams of the ball, ..." And a little later in the same chapter: "In the same way that I would focus on the seams of the tennis ball as it came towards me,"

Actually, this is a short book and there's very little to it. If you do his exercises which include things like deep breaths in rhythm to rocking yourself back and forth in your chair, and some other things to get your body quotien (which is something like IQ for your body) you'll be paying attention to all the goings on at the poker table at an extremely high level. So is this worthwhile relative to just paying attention?

Towards the end of the book he finally gives three examples where he's in the "prescence." In my opinion, an expert player who's not in the prescence would play each hand as well or better than he plays it.

As for whether it should be recommended as you think it should, let's just say that my opinion is much different from yours.

You need to understand that for his stuff to be any good it means that you'll now play some of your hands differently and this new way of playing is superior to the way you would have played it. If poker was a game that required a high level of execution -- speed, timing, and coordination, then it would probably have some value. But poker is mainly a game of knowledge and unless you're already an expert, I highly doubt it'll help play any of your poker hands better even if it makes you feel better or helps you to become happy with yourself.

Best wishes,
Mason

There’s no catch.

Though I’m failing to see the difference whether the decision point is on the river or the turn.

Is it something to do with equity? (Whether yes or no you’d be doing me a big favour if you could flesh out the situation a bit. I might learn something I hadn’t realised.)

People are bad about objectively evaluating themselves, they are subject to countless biases, and consequently many smart and successful people hold stupid beliefs and attribute their success to incorrect sources. The fact that some high level players vouch for a particular mental coach, or mental coaches in general, actually means very little about the truthfulness, accurateness, long term usefulness, etc., of the coach.

I would say high stakes players are very good at objectively evaluating themselves when compared to an average person.

By definition you would have to be - otherwise you would be broke.

If we take truth in your statement then someone like Phil Galfond endorsing a mental coach like Elliot Roe would mean very little because of all the reasons you said.

But that has shown not to be the case.

If enough highly qualified people vouch for someone then the likelihood of that person being effective in their teaching's goes up. As long as those sources are independent.

Although I don't think this is the case for Jason Su since the people that stand by him are also working together with him so there will be some innate bias.

I play highstakes online for a living and I completely disagree that poker isn't about execution. Yes it doesn't require the type of execution that a sport would, but having a clear, present mind to manifest and execute all of your knowledge in moments of high stress is extremely important. Paying extra attention to detail, makes you more present which leads to playing your A game vs your C game.

Hi Sensation:

First, I don't say that the execution component in poker is zero. Also, in the conclusion of my book Real Poker Psychology I do put a value on this stuff, especially for experts playing high stakes poker, and I suspect that you and I would be in close agreement.

And your point that poker "doesn't require the type of execution that a sport would" is certainly correct, and whenever I look at this stuff, and that includes this "Presence" book, I see advice that I agree could be good for games that require speed, timing, and coordination.

I suggest, if you have this book, to look at Su's three examples towards the end of the book. An expert player who does none of this stuff will probably play the hands the same (or even better) as Su does even though he has had some sort of eureka moment.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi DooDooPoker:

I just put this in my last post but let me emphasize it by putting it here as well. In the conclusion of my book Real Poker Psychology I do put a value on this type of stuff, especially for expert players who are playing high stakes against mostly other experts.

I've also told Elliot Roe that I would be happy to come on his show anytime to discuss the value of this stuff for poker players. And while polite, he had no interest. My offer still stands.

Best wishes,
Mason

^Thanks Mason deep and simple insight!

I've read this discussion, and whilst I'm unlikely to buy the book, I was working wondering whether there was any evidence (i.e. scientific studies) to back up the claims/methods advocated in this book?

If you limit yourself to what science has already established you risk being left behind by those who DGAF about science.

Well, that's may at times be true, but these types of claims aren't actually ridiculously difficult to show some scientific evidence for. Pretty sure it could be done for the cost of 10 memberships to the training course (assuming it's $500 a pop). And, the flipside to not giving a f**k about science is injecting yourself with bleach in the hope of avoiding covid, or such similar big brain moves.

It's interesting to try to think of where execution matters beyond knowledge in poker. In live poker for example, 2 players might both correctly decide that the right decision in a particular situation is to raise, but I suppose a player who is better at execution might be able make the raise (timing, physical movements, body language, table talk) in such a way that he's more likely to get the desired error from his opponent.

I have to admit I respect his sales pitch