I suspect the player who sees 60 hands per hour will improve at a much faster rate but I fail to see how this logically precedes the assertion that follows it: "Time frame is irrelevant, experience is gained through the repetition of a task"

If time frame is irrelevant, why aren't the players who play the most hands on a day to day basis the most skilled at the end of the year? Ie, rakeback pros who 20 or 30 table. And as long as we're using contrived examples (1 hand per hour in yours) to prove our points, if time frame were truly "irrelevant" wouldn't the player who sees 10,000 hands a day be much better than a player who saw 9,000 hands over the course of a week? I doubt it personally, since a day will only afford you 24 hours to digest all of the information taken in to a week's 168. In fact, I agree with basically everything raptor wrote in his response word for word. And while I hate to nut hug, there's enough of that on NVG, he is probably the most successful player who took the time to respond to this thread.

no

no u

quality > quantity. you aren't learning if you aren't thinking about the implications of your decisions.

to s.boxer, speedlimiter, mr. fantastic, and any other haters who like to look at my PTR profile and laugh at my stats, and the time i spent playing micro stakes. (id like to point out that PTR does not track the millions of rush hands i played.)

i am playmoneychark, i never deposited a penny on full tilt or any other poker site, which means my Roi is higher than yours. yes, i spent many hours playing, but better poker than world of warcraft or some other game was how i saw it. i started with 0$, played free rolls, cashed twice totaling 4$ (if i remember correctly) and turned that into over 9,400$ when black friday hit. my goal was to duplicate the ferguson challenge, i also had over 600$ on absolute poker also built from nothing, it was a cooler that my two bankrolls added up to almost exactly 10,000 when black friday hit.

yes i probably would have been better off if i spent x# of hours looking at poker forums, analyzing HEM databases, looking at the illegal PTR type sites, plugging numbers into poker stove and watching training videos,but i did not have time for that, i had a goal, and my own style of playing, and i stuck to it.

Its seems from the poll, that a lot of players dont use PT or HEM.
Just like me.

This.

what about all the old guys..
10K hours over 30 years is like 1 hour a day, or around one 6hr session a week.. of slow... careful.. methodical play.

I am not European. I have never seen apostrophes used in that way to pluralize nouns.

I no. Its ridiculous when people people can't use grammar or spelling correct. Theirs even a thread somewhere hear about grammar in OOT.

LOL_dogmatic-nonsense

A couple of my buddies told me about this book and I thought it was pretty stupid. How does the author come up with the idea "the more you do something the better you get at it" and write it in a book like it's a new idea and he came up with it.

This 10k hours thing is complete bs. Someone's success cannot be measured in such a simple manner. Bill Gates didn't get his success because of 10k hours he got it from being a ****ing genius.

There are plenty of long term losing poker graphs where the players have spent 10k+ hours but are still losing at the same rate they were when they started. According to the book these players would be experts. Many of them are probably experts in other fields because of the amount of money they've lost. This would show it comes down to where and how you actually apply yourself would be a better measure for success. The player applied themselves to their profession and make money. They don't apply themselves to poker and lose money.

Bill gates was at right place and right time like just about all the other super rich, he's luckier then a lottery winner even if he is highly intelligent.

I dont think you make bad points or anything though

not sure if this has been mentioned ITT already, but the distinction between online and live play and the volume of hands played per hour is a relevant factor here

10,000 hours of live play would be closer to approximately 2000 hours of online play, or something like that

The whole theory sounds like total crap, meant to give people false hope at competence when they're not really gifted enough to achieve it. Good for getting self-help book sales, bad for actually helping people. Some people really are a lot more talented at some things, due to winning the gene lottery and being naturally disposed to them, and that's why they keep working at those things for thousands of hours, but that doesn't give hope for people who didn't win that lottery.

I would suggest the 10,000 hour rule has as much to do with giving your body and brain the time to absorb and assimilate what you have learned. Playing 50 tables for 400 hours is not playing for 10,000 hours, it's playing for 400 hours.

I don't think that's true. Someone who plays 60 hands an hour for many hours no doubt becomes more skillful at multi tabling, but I haven't seen any proof that it increases the rate at which you improve your game. Yes, you see more hands, but you think about each hand less and you give your brain less time to process each hand. No doubt there are plenty of 24 tablers who have played more hands in a year then doyle brunson has played in a lifetime, but that doesn't mean they are better, or they improved at a faster rate.

all of the elite players have 10k+ hours

No one in the thread has mentioned the second part so to speak of the "rule" (more rule of thumb) that Gladwell popularizes: 10000 hours is needed + you have to be above a certain IQ threshold needed in the first place to master the discipline. For example to become a Nobel Prize in economics you have to have an IQ>130 (just enough to be able to complete a decent Phd program) + the 10000 hours. If you're under this 130, the 10000 hours are not going to mean anything. So for poker you have to have to become an "expert" 10000h of focused, intelligent practice (whichever form it takes and obviously as this thread shows people have very different approaches) plus have an IQ of at least x (any guess I'd make would be biased by the fact that I'd like to be above it).

If u dont have 10k+ hours of deliberate practice/honing a skill at some sport/game or any understanding about the concept, shut your ignorant mouth. Go back to multitablegrindingclickingbuttons because posting in these threads could actually lead you to evolving as poker players/human beings and I (after reading most of the stupid posts itt) dont want that.

I like Gladwell.. very much the contrarian..wikipedia has a page on him and another on his book Outliers.

Rather than the other element being intelligence, he seems to be saying a person's environment is crucial to success. An example is someone with an IQ of 195 ending up with a horse farm.
-------

But be that as it may, perhaps 10K hours of experience is enough to determine how high a person of any IQ (plus environment) will rise in that endeavor... but it has little to do with achieving success, or mastering it.
So, after 10K hours of practice, a person has risen about as high as can be expected.

The 10k hour rule reminds of the bs in the art world. Modern art. Think of the movie "my kid could Paint that" if you've seen it. And if you haven't seen in, see it.

The rule and the movie create an easy conclusion that subjective art judgement is either complete stupidity, or a pure scam, or more likely some combo of both. But any smart person knows that?

I would bet most people don't understand the rule quoted out of context, the thread title/poll being an example

Most of the time grinding at the table wouldn't count because you aren't learning much most of the time, you're waiting for cards to play or guessing or confirming what you already know. Time studying away from the tables would count.

10,000 hours is 10,000 quality hours of focused 'deliberate' practice. I.E you are gaining skill from it. In the sports world this usually takes the form of coaching sessions, not actual match practice. There are millions of people who play thousands of hours of sports and are still crap amateurs because they did not do deliberate improving practice, they just practiced.

Possibly because many of us don't believe IQ tests are meaningful? Getting a PhD is far more about being a nerd i.e motivation than any inherent ability, but nerds don't like to believe that line, because then they aren't special any more.

Go and look up deliberate practice and understand what people studying expertise are talking about. I don't know how valid this particular book is but the reearch methods are sound for other psychologists in the area.

And the reason books like this exist and the debate exists is because people argue the opposite (and in fact the opposite is generally held by the public in their ignorance). People generally overrate talent because they fail to notice how much DELIBERATE practice experts made - i.e learning practice, usually by having fortunate access to coaches/teachers, or by having the ability to figure out what the coaches/teachers know themselves by reflective practice. The man on the street also doesn't even know the difference between thoughtless practice and deliberate improving practice and can't appreciate teh learning process in poker or sports.

Doesn't it depend on your thesis?

An original perspective on something isn't about being a nerd.