I was interested to hear this quote from PA:

“No one has ever taught me a single thing about poker. I’ve never read a book, not a single page. I’ve never taken a lesson from anyone. It’s very good to play to figure out yourself. You have to use your own imagination, think all of the situations through, and [determine] what would be the best options. When you make mistakes, you try to remember those and not make them again.”

It made me think, a lot of the guys I see on TV just don't strike me as the type of person who would sit up all night examining calling ranges on equilab or poring over equilibrium charts and ICM calculations. You can sort of spot the young geeky types who clearly have read everything out there and know all the formulas and calculations off by heart but do you think there are a lot of very successful and famous pro players who have a similar background and approach to Antonius?

And would you say that these guys are maybe starting to get overtaken by a generation of supernerds who have virtually solved the game or is the natural instinct and talent of some people still able to prevail?

There are two separate parts to Patrick's statement. First is that he never read a book. Second is that he spent a heap of time working through things and learning them himself. Just because he didn't read a book does not mean he spent no time examining calling ranges and working through spots - if anything that's precisely the thing he says he does and that spending that time rather than reading it from someone else is what made him a good player. No easy way to the top via special instincts or superpowers, everyone there has had to work at it.

I think "See Spot Run" is a classic starting out book if you are looking at helping him learn.



EDIT:

Yea, I'm being a dick there. Sorry.

"It made me think, a lot of the guys I see on TV just don't strike me as the type of person who would sit up all night examining calling ranges on equilab or poring over equilibrium charts and ICM calculations."

Dollars to doughnuts, almost every very strong player spends a good chunk of their study time performing 'nerdy' poker analysis. It could hardly be otherwise, do you think they got to be good by clubbing in LA and driving fast convertibles in a glamorous manner?

This kind of 'well they don't look geeky' judgement is just ridiculous, top professional sports stars are the least geeky looking people you will ever see but guess what, they spend hours and hours performing tedious technical analysis of their game and that of their opponents.

Ah ...

Depends who one considers to be a "very strong poker player" and what one considers to be "nerdy poker analysis".

Not really a game to be teached in my opinion. We all make mistakes and if you need someone to tell you hey, what you did there was fcken stupid.. well maybe poker isn't for you. Gonna be trial and error. I feel everyone goes through this phase. Some give up or don't want to fix their mistakes.

Some trial and error is unavoidable. But pure self trial and error, not probably the best way to learn poker. There is a ton of variance. You can play great and lose. You can play poorly and win. I don't think pure self trial and error is the best way to learn such a game; even if you do use it to some extent.

well from my experience books are a waste of time. Better watch videos from DC or something, see how the pros play and try to play like them.

Isildur1 never read a book either, do you know how he got that good? He player with the best and studied his own hands where he misplayed. Just by playing against the best or watching the best play you'll learn a lot.

I would think everyone has a different way of learning. Some people are just much more comfortable jumping in and learning by doing. Some people are very good at interpreting information through text. Some people need visual instruction (videos) and deep explanation of the thinking behind it.

Most people are best with some combination of multiple sources. For example, I like trying things myself, getting a feel for things, then reading more advanced theories and the math behind it that I might not have realized by myself. Then I like going back and trying to apply it and figuring out if it works or doesn't, and why it doesn't.

In other words, do what works best for you.

Yep, learning is individualised, what works for one may not work for another, sure as heck not everybody is going to be able to adopt Antonius's approach to learning poker effectively.

It's amazing how everyone thinks they are a unique little snowflake.

You mate are very unique

Just because my post is below yours doesn't imply that replying to you.

These threads are just boring, there are very few ways to get good at something and all of them require very large amounts of effort.

To imply that there is nothing of any use from any poker books is a joke, the fact that people can be so up their own arse that they think they have the ability to work out everything that has already been discovered is funny, to think that working it all out from scratch is the most +EV is hillarious.

Justifying why you're ****ter than you should be, i.e. "I did it all myself" and then framing it as a good thing just comes across as them being a dick.

Bold is clearly a lie.

Italic if it means he's never had specific one to one coaching then neither have lots of people, if it means he's never learnt anything from anyone it's a lie.

Underlined is true but all of these things he said aren't needed are not ways to sidestep this. They are ways of speeding up the process and getting you better quicker.

"I see further by standing on the shoulders of giants"

Your DNA disagrees with you. But I don't find it a joke you think that way

Poker on TV is basically a reality show. Trying to learn the game from watching edited hands at a made for TV event is pointless. Also, the majority of poker on TV is years old. You're watching reruns of Real World? How could that be valuable? Watch poker for entertainment. If you want to learn it, your chances are much better reading the FAQ here and ignoring the existence of pokertanment.