Cardner Challenge
Concept No. 4: Setting goals is important to achieving success at the poker table.
Setting monetary goals and doing everything in your power to achieve them is obviously ridiculous. You used an example in an interview to the effect of someone setting a goal to win $100,000 by the end of the year but only being up $20,000 in November. Now he has to gamble super hard to get to his $100,000 goal.
You could also misconstrue this concept to say if the guy is up $100,000 in March, he should quit for the year.
If you think that is what the section on goal setting entails, you have a problem with reading comprehension or are deliberately being dense.
As an example of goal setting, a large number of poker professionals have a difficult time putting in volume. Setting volume goals is an excellent way to stay motivated to put in hours. Other players have a problem setting aside time to study. Study goals are also excellent.
From Real Poker Psychology: One way that mental toughness may be helpful to poker players is the idea that mentally tough people are willing to do what it takes to persevere. One of the reasons that we play poker is that it’s fun to play, at least it is on those winning nights. But if a mentally tough player is willing to give up a fun night so that he can study and improve his overall knowledge of poker, then being mentally tough becomes a good thing.
You have again taken this concept blatantly out of context.
Concept No. 5: You need “to concentrate intently during games.”
This goes back to playing difficult games compared to playing simple games. It makes perfect sense that you would think you don’t need to concentrate, given you say most of your poker experience is from middle stakes limit hold’em.
This goes back to playing difficult games compared to playing simple games. It makes perfect sense that you would think you don’t need to concentrate, given you say most of your poker experience is from middle stakes limit hold’em.
Again, you'll need to read Real Poker Psychology. I make it very clear that when playing poker, and this includes virtually all forms, you do need to pay attention.
You may be surprised to learn that if you are not paying attention, you will not pick up reads based on your opponents’ behaviors. You will also not know if someone is a super nit or a maniac.
Concentrating is important unless you are attempting to implement a GTO strategy, which currently isn’t known in deep-stacked games and even then, almost certainly isn’t the way to win the most money possible.
Going back to the Mindset Advantage with Fedor, he laughs at your statement that focus is not needed and goes on to say it is the worst statement ever.
From Real Poker Psychology: So this brings us to poker. Suppose you’re one of the best players in the world and you play in tough high stakes games featuring other top players. Will focus make a difference? Well, in my opinion, it might make a small difference especially if you happen to notice something unique about one of your opponents.
Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, it won’t turn a marginal player into an expert. To do that will require greatly improving your understanding of those concepts that govern strategic play and then some experience in applying those concepts at the poker table (and doesn’t this sound familiar).
Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, it won’t turn a marginal player into an expert. To do that will require greatly improving your understanding of those concepts that govern strategic play and then some experience in applying those concepts at the poker table (and doesn’t this sound familiar).
He then says that everyone who is a professional would say this is just plain wrong. I completely agree with Fedor’s statement, as does essentially other world class professional, including, but certainly not limited to, Daniel Negreanu, Brian Rast, Terrance Chan, Isaac Haxton, Ed Miller, Mark Herm and many others (You can hear all of them discuss their thoughts on “mindset” in the previously mentioned podcast). Perhaps the reason you have developed your way of thinking is because you primarily discuss poker with out of touch players who play simple games?
When Fedor was asked about your statement that in sports you need focus because there is movement involved but in poker you don't because you are sitting down, he again laughs and replied that whoever said that never played poker.
http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/list...hp?episode=391
and the interview with me starts at about 1:16:00
The host of the podcast correctly replied that you have actually played live limit for 40 years and fedor responded "I guess that's why people end up playing mid stakes stuff like that.”
As I stated in the in one of the many other threads you started to promote your book, you have legitimacy no experience playing high stakes big bet games.
You have stated many times that the vast majority of your experience is in live middle stakes limit games. That simply isn’t the game that the vast majority of poker players play. I found it quite funny that you continuously say Cardner doesn’t know how to play poker well despite never playing with her. She has amassed $145,000 in live tournament winnings despite only playing in her spare time.
I tried looking up your results on the various poker databases but I couldn’t find anything. Do you go by a different name when playing live? If you have $0 in tournament cashes, it seems insane that you have to confidence to think you have a clue about the mindset of any tournament player, especially world-class ones. Your statement about how blind confidence can be a bad thing certainly applies in this situation.
It should be obvious, but Positive Poker was written to help amateurs develop the mindset of high stakes professionals, not to try to get them thinking like a recreational middle stakes limit hold’em player. Again, the cited concept is taken out of context.
More to come.
Mason
Concept No. 6: Successful players are self-confident.
If you look at the best players in the world, most of them are self-confident. This is simply a true statement. You mention that some bad players self-confident, which is also true, but obviously that doesn’t negate the fact that successful players are self-confident.
Concept No. 7: You need your brain to be firing on all cylinders.
This again goes back to your middle stake limit hold’em mentality. See Fedor on concentration from #5. It seems like you are trying to restate concepts using slightly different language to fill pages.
This again goes back to your middle stake limit hold’em mentality. See Fedor on concentration from #5. It seems like you are trying to restate concepts using slightly different language to fill pages.
Concept No. 8: “Sleep deprivation reduces judgment and performance on complex tasks.”
If you don’t sleep well, you can’t focus well. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever stayed up longer than 18 hours. This again goes back to you applying your middle stake limit hold’em mentality to all forms of poker. Perhaps you are much more of a machine than everyone else?
If you don’t sleep well, you can’t focus well. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever stayed up longer than 18 hours. This again goes back to you applying your middle stake limit hold’em mentality to all forms of poker. Perhaps you are much more of a machine than everyone else?
Also, here's another concept from the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter:
From Real Poker Psychology: Concept No. 32: “Being well rested has been shown to be helpful to all types of athletes and performers, so it should benefit poker players.” It’s obviously good to be well rested, but this is much more important when timing, speed, and coordination are involved, and that’s not the case with poker.
There’s also a great counter example to this. In 2010, Phil Laak played 115 hours straight and finished with a profit of $6,766. Notice that this comes to almost $59 per hour which would be a good win rate in most games.
There’s also a great counter example to this. In 2010, Phil Laak played 115 hours straight and finished with a profit of $6,766. Notice that this comes to almost $59 per hour which would be a good win rate in most games.
I make sleep my main priority when traveling the high stakes tournament circuit. I get on the correct sleep schedule for whatever time zone I am going to before I leave. I make a point to get to sleep at least 10 hours before my next tournament starts. I know for a fact that I focus better when I sleep well. Of course, if you think focus is irrelevant, then you don’t need to sleep. You might as well play drunk and on drugs too.
As for focus, here's an excerpt from the "Focus" chapter:
From Real Poker Psychology: So this brings us to poker. Suppose you’re one of the best players in the world and you play in tough high stakes games featuring other top players. Will focus make a difference? Well, in my opinion, it might make a small difference especially if you happen to notice something unique about one of your opponents.
Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, it won’t turn a marginal player into an expert. To do that will require greatly improving your understanding of those concepts that govern strategic play and then some experience in applying those concepts at the poker table (and doesn’t this sound familiar).
Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, it won’t turn a marginal player into an expert. To do that will require greatly improving your understanding of those concepts that govern strategic play and then some experience in applying those concepts at the poker table (and doesn’t this sound familiar).
Concept No. 9: Eating grains will make you want to go back to sleep.
This is accurate.
This is accurate.
Concept No. 10: Eat your food without the unhealthy sauce, tortillas, etc.
If you eat healthy food, your brain functions better compared to when you eat unhealthy food. This has been proven over and over. This again goes back to you using the incorrect mentality for no-limit hold’em.
If you eat healthy food, your brain functions better compared to when you eat unhealthy food. This has been proven over and over. This again goes back to you using the incorrect mentality for no-limit hold’em.
Now you may think I'm making fun of you but I'm not. This is the exact type of question I asked myself when working on Real Poker Psychology and I ran across advice like this. It just has very little value, and I wonder what Phil Laak ate during his marathon.
Concept No. 11: “Many top poker players are in excellent shape.”
This is accurate. Fedor also discusses this in the podcast episode. He discusses how he feels refreshed when he works out and mediocre when he doesn’t. If you look at the best players in the world, almost all of them are in excellent shape. I can guarantee that if I didn’t have to work out to be in excellent shape, I wouldn’t work out. I don’t enjoy it. However, I realize it helps me feel good and think clearly, which in turn helps me play better poker. I treat it as part of the job. Given you are out of shape and overweight, it boggles my mind how you can confidently state that being in shape isn’t useful. Perhaps this goes back to the over-confidence issue you seem to have.
This is accurate. Fedor also discusses this in the podcast episode. He discusses how he feels refreshed when he works out and mediocre when he doesn’t. If you look at the best players in the world, almost all of them are in excellent shape. I can guarantee that if I didn’t have to work out to be in excellent shape, I wouldn’t work out. I don’t enjoy it. However, I realize it helps me feel good and think clearly, which in turn helps me play better poker. I treat it as part of the job. Given you are out of shape and overweight, it boggles my mind how you can confidently state that being in shape isn’t useful. Perhaps this goes back to the over-confidence issue you seem to have.
Here's another excerpt. This comes from the "It's Not What You Eat" chapter.
From Real Poker Psychology: The same should also be true for sleep and exercise. I think we all agree that good sleep patterns are necessary for a healthy life and regular exercise can do wonders in this area as well. But again, I highly doubt if it helps you play poker better.
But there is something that occurs which can trick some people into thinking this stuff is important. Suppose you’re someone who does have a regular exercise program. You go to the gym regularly or perhaps you participate in a sport like tennis and play several times a week. What kind of person are you?
Well, there’s a good chance that you’re well organized and do many things in a structured manner, and this probably includes learning how to play poker. Thus, it’s easy to look at a number of good poker players who are also physically fit, stick with a good diet, and have good sleep habits and conclude that this has a lot to do with why they are successful. But I believe the reason for their poker success is that the discipline that they apply to many things includes learning how to play poker well, and not this other stuff.
But there is something that occurs which can trick some people into thinking this stuff is important. Suppose you’re someone who does have a regular exercise program. You go to the gym regularly or perhaps you participate in a sport like tennis and play several times a week. What kind of person are you?
Well, there’s a good chance that you’re well organized and do many things in a structured manner, and this probably includes learning how to play poker. Thus, it’s easy to look at a number of good poker players who are also physically fit, stick with a good diet, and have good sleep habits and conclude that this has a lot to do with why they are successful. But I believe the reason for their poker success is that the discipline that they apply to many things includes learning how to play poker well, and not this other stuff.
Concept No. 12: Keep “accurate records of all the hands you play.”
Looking at the high stakes no limit forum on 2+2, over 2/3 of the posts on the first page are hand history review questions. I imagine the other forums are similar. You have mentioned that you should learn a set of tactics that you can then apply to all situations. This works great for simple games, like tic-tac-toe and limit hold’em, but it fails miserably at big bet games.
Looking at the high stakes no limit forum on 2+2, over 2/3 of the posts on the first page are hand history review questions. I imagine the other forums are similar. You have mentioned that you should learn a set of tactics that you can then apply to all situations. This works great for simple games, like tic-tac-toe and limit hold’em, but it fails miserably at big bet games.
I say in many places in the book that remembering a couple of interesting hands a night and then thinking about and discussing them with someone else can be highly beneficial.
But all the hands you play? That should be a huge waste of time and it should drive you crazy.
I want to make it as clear for you as possible that no one is saying you should ignore learning to play fundamentally sound poker. Roughly 90% of my large body of poker educational content is devoted to teaching people to play fundamentally sound. You seem to have taken the fact that Dr. Cardner wrote a book on mindset to mean that she thinks it is all that matters, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The main disagreement seems to be that you think mindset accounts for almost nothing whereas she thinks it counts for much more than nothing. I, along with basically every other high stakes professional, agrees that mindset is significant, especially once you are competing at a high level.
From Real Poker Psychology: Put another way, as long as this recent poker psychology material doesn’t hurt you, if you’re someone who plays live, in my opinion, it might be worth as much as one-tenth of a bet an hour. But if it causes you to neglect those areas of poker where you need to improve, then its negative effect will lower your potential future win rate by much more than one-tenth of a bet per hour. And if it encourages you to participate in games where your expectation is negative, then it’s beyond bad.
If you ever make it to the high levels, or even discuss poker with people who regularly succeed at the high levels, this will become obvious to you.
MM
Thanks for your post and my comments are embedded below.
confidence: Obviously it's bad to be delusional about your skill level, but confidence doesn't have to mean irrational confidence. It can also mean objective confidence.
A person shouldn't usually be playing in a game in the first place if they aren't objectively confident that they have an edge in that game, and I think it really is important to maintain that confidence even when you are running bad or there are opponents that you never win a hand against.
A lot of people go off the rails and build other players up to be gods in their mind when they're really not, or even worse, throw away all the work that they've done because they irrationally lose confidence in their process over some bad short term results.
goals: This one depends entirely on how it's presented. I agree with you that results-based goals can be pointless since setting those goals does nothing to make them actually happen. But, like someone else already said, that's not the only kind of goal that can be made. There's no reason that can't apply to your process for improvement and also no reason that your improvement can't be measured to some degree by your long term results.
sleep: I think you're just wrong about this one. Being tired absolutely makes a difference in how people play their hands. It will have less effect on a prolific grinder, but it has some effect on everyone. If this wasn't true, then it really would be best to constantly concentrate as much as possible, but that's just not efficient in most cases because it wears you down and you lose more due to deteriorated play than you gain from some extra small edges vs. pacing yourself and saving the intense concentration for times when you really need it.
On the other hand, I certainly don't recommend that you stay up for days on end playing poker.
Not only do people not notice or remember as much of what's going on around them when they're tired, but they're also more vulnerable to tilt and simple mistakes like misreading community cards or their own hand.
A good player in a good game can still have a pretty big edge anyway, but I don't really think it's even debatable that playing tired is a very tangible negative.
I agree with you that the food and health stuff is probably not a big deal, but who cares. That's pretty much my overall sentiment also. I don't really see why any of this is being called out.
Best wishes,
Mason
I'm sorry, but I'm going to pass on commenting on your post. It's not that what you say doesn't have value, it's that Jared Tendler's book(s) is not the purpose of this thread.
Best wishes,
Mason
I got a feel that new book is dedicated to live poker player and a lot of a mindset related topics are not that important there.
Also, my ideas are covered in other people posts too. As I see in general poker players tends to disagree with those statements.
NP. I am just comparing this to a Jareds book, because I find everything in a Jareds book applyable for me, online poker player.
I got a feel that new book is dedicated to live poker player and a lot of a mindset related topics are not that important there.
Also, my ideas are covered in other people posts too. As I see in general poker players tends to disagree with those statements.
I got a feel that new book is dedicated to live poker player and a lot of a mindset related topics are not that important there.
Also, my ideas are covered in other people posts too. As I see in general poker players tends to disagree with those statements.
I believe the way my book is written that many of the topics presented are generic in the sense that it doesn't matter what game is being played or whether you're on the Internet or playing live. However, while I think that Tendler's first book (I haven't read his second) certainly has value, there are a number of things where what I state is different from what Tendler states.
Best wishes,
Mason
The paraphrase did the job nicely actually.
I find it quite humorous that the person you are actually paraphrasing, in this case me, has told you that you are taking them out of context. Yet, you claim that your interpretation is indeed correct. This is not how you frame an academic argument, and I suggest you use the direct quote feature in the future to avoid this mishap. I don't really have the time to answer someone in detail who clearly is not interested in learning or being constructive.
Fluff about the number of books someone has written or their background is of no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
Someones background is very relevant to who I decide is worth listening to.
Both sides do well when addressing the meat of the argument and stop flanneling at the edges with comments on how many words they have published, what games they play or what acamdemic discipline they come from.
Believe it or not this stuff does somewhat matter in the greater picture. However, I understand your point and agree with the general sentiment.
It's poor form from both sides when it happens, innit.
Glad you like using 'innit' after every post. I've actually never seen it used before you but I feel like a dinosaur with regard to some of these internet acronyms. This one seems a bit unnecessary. Nevertheless, if you would like to continue this discussion privately, that's fine. However, I do not want to detract from the thread any longer.
Thanks
I find it quite humorous that the person you are actually paraphrasing, in this case me, has told you that you are taking them out of context. Yet, you claim that your interpretation is indeed correct. This is not how you frame an academic argument, and I suggest you use the direct quote feature in the future to avoid this mishap. I don't really have the time to answer someone in detail who clearly is not interested in learning or being constructive.
Fluff about the number of books someone has written or their background is of no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
Someones background is very relevant to who I decide is worth listening to.
Both sides do well when addressing the meat of the argument and stop flanneling at the edges with comments on how many words they have published, what games they play or what acamdemic discipline they come from.
Believe it or not this stuff does somewhat matter in the greater picture. However, I understand your point and agree with the general sentiment.
It's poor form from both sides when it happens, innit.
Glad you like using 'innit' after every post. I've actually never seen it used before you but I feel like a dinosaur with regard to some of these internet acronyms. This one seems a bit unnecessary. Nevertheless, if you would like to continue this discussion privately, that's fine. However, I do not want to detract from the thread any longer.
Thanks
.
Fiery Justice/Jonathan Little is about the most obvious, transparent charlatan you'll ever come across.
Kudos on fooling the suckers, I guess.
Kudos on fooling the suckers, I guess.
Mason,
Confidence
If you were aware of the confidence issue listed (getting in bad if you are worse than your opponents) because David wrote it 14 years ago, why were you unable to recall that simple example? It is funny how you can know something but not be unable to recall it when it matters, unless again, you were being dense on purpose. (Stating someone is being dense is not an insult. It is how you come off when you take fairly obvious concepts out of context.)
Limit vs No-Limit Difficulty
Bots can beat humans at:
Tic-Tac-Toe
Checkers
Chess
Heads-Up Limit Hold’em
Full Ring Limit Hold’em
Bots cannot beat humans at:
Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em
Full Ring No-Limit Hold’em
Magic: the Gathering (likely a more difficult game than NLHE, which I have extensive experience at)
Of course, you may not think being able to program a bot to beat a human has any significance. Instead, thinking back to your concept of Limit Hold’em being more difficult because your opponent is always getting great pot odds, this means that your opponent can usually do reasonably well by simply not folding any decent hand, which is obviously a simple strategy. You have said in interviews that in Limit, most decisions are usually quite close, which of course is true due to the huge pot odds. This is why win rates in Limit are small compared to No-Limit, where your opponent has the opportunity to make gigantic blunders on every street. The ability to make giant blunders is typically what makes a game more skillful.
Goals
You failed to see that you took the section out of context.
Concentration
In terms of how much “focus” is required, your question needs to be clarified.
In no-limit, you have to focus on all betting rounds because the information you gain on the later betting rounds is vitally important to future situations. For example, if someone never bluffs on the river but you assume he bluffs the optimal frequency, you will make huge blunders. Notice in Limit, if you are in this same scenario, you will only make small blunders.
In 7-Stud, you have to pay attention to the board cards, which requires you to focus more on the early betting rounds. Is this not obvious to anyone who has played the game?
In Limit, you simply don’t have to pay much attention to anything because as you previously stated, you are always getting great pot odds. Of course, you do get to actually put money in the pot more often than in no-limit, but, as all good players know, you are playing even when you don’t have money in the pot.
In order to win the most money possible in poker, when you are playing against non-excellent opponents, you should get well out of line to exploit their tendencies. Playing in a GTO style is not the way you produce a huge edge. My training products aim to teach players how to exploit their weak opponents while playing in a manner that is difficult to exploit versus excellent opponents. If you develop a GTO strategy and never deviate from it, you will win versus weak opponents, but you won’t win nearly as much as possible. This is why loose-aggressive players are usually bigger winners in soft no-limit games compared to tight-aggressive players in today’s environment. Most people fold too often. When playing against strong opponents who don’t fold too often, reverting to a tight-aggressive style is usually ideal.
You cite in your previous post that focus will make a small difference when playing in tough games whereas every high stakes pro I know (I discuss poker with numerous high stakes world-class pros on a regular basis, see Excelling for the most obvious "proof") will tell you it makes a huge difference. I imagine most middle stake limit pros will say it doesn’t make a difference because in that game, it probably doesn’t.
Saying you don’t play high stakes and you don’t associate with high stakes players isn’t an insult. It is simply the truth, assuming you didn’t lie in the various interviews I listened to (I have listened to all of them). Also, saying you have no tournament results isn’t an insult, it is the truth. If you have no experience playing tournaments, you probably shouldn’t discuss the skills it takes to be a tournament player. I am thinking back now to how Fedor got a real kick out of you saying tournament players don’t tilt. If you never play tournaments, how could you possible know this? Perhaps you rationalized your thought by wordsmithing what most people view as tilt?
Sleep
Yes, you will play your hands differently if you are fully rested compared to when you are extremely tired. The same goes for if you are drunk, high, or mad at your spouse. This is primarily because you will lack focus. Believe it or not, but most people aren’t machines as you seem to think you are.
If you eat trash, you will be tired. If you are tired, you will focus less. This again goes back to you thinking focus isn’t important. At some point, when essentially every high stakes professional disagrees with a concept you present, do you even consider possibility that you could be blatantly incorrect?
Being in shape
It is not an insult to say you are overweight. It is simply the truth. If I said you were a gigantic whale, that would be an insult which also happens to be inaccurate. If someone tells me I am short (I am 5’7”) I would not take that as an insult. It is simply the truth. If someone tells me I am a charlatan because I produce poker content that helps a wide audience of players, that is an insult which is also inaccurate.
It is important for readers to know you are overweight (for whatever reason) when you are saying that being in shape isn't relevant. This is similar to how it would be important for readers to know the author of a PLO book has actually never played PLO, but instead only plays O8.
Keeping records of your hands
In the past I would write down every hand I played in tournaments. I eventually realized that most of the hands are not worth recording unless I put in more than 3 big blinds because I play preflop quite well (as do most players). I now record only hands where I put in more than 3 big blinds. When I take on a new student, I have them write down every hand they are dealt. This is to find preflop leaks, which some of these players have. After you realize you have few preflop leaks, recording those spots becomes less important. Most people in no-limit have big errors on the turn and river, which is likely why there are a huge number of hands posted on 2+2 dealing with those spots. I imagine this forum with have significant fewer posts if you delete all posts relating to poker hands. Reviewing hands is vital to becoming a highly successful pro.
From reading your posts, it seems like you enjoy taking obvious concepts (such as goal-setting and hand reviewing) to the extreme in order to present other authors’ works in a negative light. If you took the idea of reviewing hands to think that you should record every single hand you are dealt for the rest of your life, you are again either being dense, or you lack common sense.
Not providing products of value
If anyone thinks my poker training products do not provide significant value, please know I offer a 100% money back guarantee on all my video training products and my books are all quite cheap in the ebook format to make them accessible to anyone who wants to learn. My goal with my books is not to make the most money possible, but to have a positive impact on people who want to improve their poker skills. If you think the concepts in my training products geared toward advanced players are too simple for you, you are likely already winning at the middle or high stakes no-limit games. If you aren’t, you are probably disgruntled. My products are not aimed at people with high win rates in the high stakes because that market is small and those players already know how to study their and their opponents’ play in order to continuously improve.
Confidence
If you were aware of the confidence issue listed (getting in bad if you are worse than your opponents) because David wrote it 14 years ago, why were you unable to recall that simple example? It is funny how you can know something but not be unable to recall it when it matters, unless again, you were being dense on purpose. (Stating someone is being dense is not an insult. It is how you come off when you take fairly obvious concepts out of context.)
Limit vs No-Limit Difficulty
Bots can beat humans at:
Tic-Tac-Toe
Checkers
Chess
Heads-Up Limit Hold’em
Full Ring Limit Hold’em
Bots cannot beat humans at:
Heads-Up No-Limit Hold’em
Full Ring No-Limit Hold’em
Magic: the Gathering (likely a more difficult game than NLHE, which I have extensive experience at)
Of course, you may not think being able to program a bot to beat a human has any significance. Instead, thinking back to your concept of Limit Hold’em being more difficult because your opponent is always getting great pot odds, this means that your opponent can usually do reasonably well by simply not folding any decent hand, which is obviously a simple strategy. You have said in interviews that in Limit, most decisions are usually quite close, which of course is true due to the huge pot odds. This is why win rates in Limit are small compared to No-Limit, where your opponent has the opportunity to make gigantic blunders on every street. The ability to make giant blunders is typically what makes a game more skillful.
Goals
You failed to see that you took the section out of context.
Concentration
In terms of how much “focus” is required, your question needs to be clarified.
In no-limit, you have to focus on all betting rounds because the information you gain on the later betting rounds is vitally important to future situations. For example, if someone never bluffs on the river but you assume he bluffs the optimal frequency, you will make huge blunders. Notice in Limit, if you are in this same scenario, you will only make small blunders.
In 7-Stud, you have to pay attention to the board cards, which requires you to focus more on the early betting rounds. Is this not obvious to anyone who has played the game?
In Limit, you simply don’t have to pay much attention to anything because as you previously stated, you are always getting great pot odds. Of course, you do get to actually put money in the pot more often than in no-limit, but, as all good players know, you are playing even when you don’t have money in the pot.
In order to win the most money possible in poker, when you are playing against non-excellent opponents, you should get well out of line to exploit their tendencies. Playing in a GTO style is not the way you produce a huge edge. My training products aim to teach players how to exploit their weak opponents while playing in a manner that is difficult to exploit versus excellent opponents. If you develop a GTO strategy and never deviate from it, you will win versus weak opponents, but you won’t win nearly as much as possible. This is why loose-aggressive players are usually bigger winners in soft no-limit games compared to tight-aggressive players in today’s environment. Most people fold too often. When playing against strong opponents who don’t fold too often, reverting to a tight-aggressive style is usually ideal.
You cite in your previous post that focus will make a small difference when playing in tough games whereas every high stakes pro I know (I discuss poker with numerous high stakes world-class pros on a regular basis, see Excelling for the most obvious "proof") will tell you it makes a huge difference. I imagine most middle stake limit pros will say it doesn’t make a difference because in that game, it probably doesn’t.
Saying you don’t play high stakes and you don’t associate with high stakes players isn’t an insult. It is simply the truth, assuming you didn’t lie in the various interviews I listened to (I have listened to all of them). Also, saying you have no tournament results isn’t an insult, it is the truth. If you have no experience playing tournaments, you probably shouldn’t discuss the skills it takes to be a tournament player. I am thinking back now to how Fedor got a real kick out of you saying tournament players don’t tilt. If you never play tournaments, how could you possible know this? Perhaps you rationalized your thought by wordsmithing what most people view as tilt?
Sleep
Yes, you will play your hands differently if you are fully rested compared to when you are extremely tired. The same goes for if you are drunk, high, or mad at your spouse. This is primarily because you will lack focus. Believe it or not, but most people aren’t machines as you seem to think you are.
If you eat trash, you will be tired. If you are tired, you will focus less. This again goes back to you thinking focus isn’t important. At some point, when essentially every high stakes professional disagrees with a concept you present, do you even consider possibility that you could be blatantly incorrect?
Being in shape
It is not an insult to say you are overweight. It is simply the truth. If I said you were a gigantic whale, that would be an insult which also happens to be inaccurate. If someone tells me I am short (I am 5’7”) I would not take that as an insult. It is simply the truth. If someone tells me I am a charlatan because I produce poker content that helps a wide audience of players, that is an insult which is also inaccurate.
It is important for readers to know you are overweight (for whatever reason) when you are saying that being in shape isn't relevant. This is similar to how it would be important for readers to know the author of a PLO book has actually never played PLO, but instead only plays O8.
Keeping records of your hands
In the past I would write down every hand I played in tournaments. I eventually realized that most of the hands are not worth recording unless I put in more than 3 big blinds because I play preflop quite well (as do most players). I now record only hands where I put in more than 3 big blinds. When I take on a new student, I have them write down every hand they are dealt. This is to find preflop leaks, which some of these players have. After you realize you have few preflop leaks, recording those spots becomes less important. Most people in no-limit have big errors on the turn and river, which is likely why there are a huge number of hands posted on 2+2 dealing with those spots. I imagine this forum with have significant fewer posts if you delete all posts relating to poker hands. Reviewing hands is vital to becoming a highly successful pro.
From reading your posts, it seems like you enjoy taking obvious concepts (such as goal-setting and hand reviewing) to the extreme in order to present other authors’ works in a negative light. If you took the idea of reviewing hands to think that you should record every single hand you are dealt for the rest of your life, you are again either being dense, or you lack common sense.
Not providing products of value
If anyone thinks my poker training products do not provide significant value, please know I offer a 100% money back guarantee on all my video training products and my books are all quite cheap in the ebook format to make them accessible to anyone who wants to learn. My goal with my books is not to make the most money possible, but to have a positive impact on people who want to improve their poker skills. If you think the concepts in my training products geared toward advanced players are too simple for you, you are likely already winning at the middle or high stakes no-limit games. If you aren’t, you are probably disgruntled. My products are not aimed at people with high win rates in the high stakes because that market is small and those players already know how to study their and their opponents’ play in order to continuously improve.
All my comments will apply to No-Limit-Holdem, because this is my game of expertise.
I trust Elliot so I was sure that he wouldn't ever deceive me into commenting on something that is not the truth or lie about something or try to "bash" someone. Thats why Im going to comment here once to clarify things.
Where do you get this knowledge from? How can you say it doesn't matter? Every professional high/sky-stakes player is at "98%" already (although we probably rather are at 70% if you compare it to GTO.)
The difference between 98% and 100% "confidence" in the things you're doing (not only 3 options of "check/fold/bet(raise)", but thousands of options with different betsizings and raisesizings possible will be the difference between those players that are slightly winning or winning a lot. Examples below.
Thats just a wrong example that is making your point - but has logical flaws.
Counter-example: You have 100 decisions in a tournament - 98 vs 100 percent confidence would just be 98 vs 100 right decisions. Still it wouldnt be visible and for us humans we would probably view it as the same result - although it isnt. The more you play on a really high level the more selfreflecting you get with the help of programs. Obviously I do mistakes and think I played hands bad that I didnt or the other way around - but thats also a reason why most of your statements just are not applicable to the best poker players and it doesnt seem like you have any experience with nowadays experts and their work and reflection in poker. It is very comparable to other sports and Id have a better point to compare these two things, being a professional/competetive player in both sports and poker.
Another key thing you didnt mention - the different grades of options are way more than what you point it out to be. Its not like choosing either A, B or C. You have tons of different betsizings in Holdem AND % of times you want to do smth with a certain hand (maybe 60% check, 40% bet). The difference between playing 90% and 100% could just be exactly being a little more off both in how often you should choose what option, and what option you should choose in the first place.
Nice try - but wrong. My perception might be worse than the reality (because im imperfect as we all are), but the tendency is definitely existent. I have a database of online sessions aswell as live sessions where I write down hands and then (mathematically + socially) analyse them - rate my game and compare it with my winrate (mostly chips because its more accurate), aswell as my mental feeling. Im not going too much into detail but My winrate when I rated myself playing 8-10 is more than twice as much as (>10evBB over sample) when I rated myself 1-4. (<5evBB)
Nobody did and will say anything against that statement. Speed, timing and coordination are more important in sports - in the same way they are more important in some sports than in other sports. They matter in different forms in poker aswell - mainly focus. Your body/mind is one part, one entity - you need both in all type of sports, one of them better trained than the other - but if you want to be the best both trained to the maximum for your needed skill. In everything you do in life.
So who should buy your book? Jacks or Better pros?
I agree with that - small improvements can make quite a difference. Thats why you should work on the last "2%" - and thats what every expert who plans on becoming even better is doing right now.
Just from reading your comments I feel like you are commenting on mindset and approach of highstakes games or experts, where you dont participate in these types of games in any form at all.
The point you make loses most of its weight by saying that your experience is based on limit games and that you havent progressed to the highest games over the last years and that as far as I know you dont have a current connection to actual highskilled players and their games.
This is written with respect and not as an insult - I just want to clarify my point of view.
Have a good next year,
Fedor
I trust Elliot so I was sure that he wouldn't ever deceive me into commenting on something that is not the truth or lie about something or try to "bash" someone. Thats why Im going to comment here once to clarify things.
The difference between 98% and 100% "confidence" in the things you're doing (not only 3 options of "check/fold/bet(raise)", but thousands of options with different betsizings and raisesizings possible will be the difference between those players that are slightly winning or winning a lot. Examples below.
Another way of looking at 98 versus 100 percent is as follows. Suppose someone bets, it's now your turn and you're 100 percent confident that the best play is to raise. I think you'll raise. Now suppose instead of being 100 percent confident you're only 98 percent confident that the raise is the best play. Well, again, I think you'll raise.
Counter-example: You have 100 decisions in a tournament - 98 vs 100 percent confidence would just be 98 vs 100 right decisions. Still it wouldnt be visible and for us humans we would probably view it as the same result - although it isnt. The more you play on a really high level the more selfreflecting you get with the help of programs. Obviously I do mistakes and think I played hands bad that I didnt or the other way around - but thats also a reason why most of your statements just are not applicable to the best poker players and it doesnt seem like you have any experience with nowadays experts and their work and reflection in poker. It is very comparable to other sports and Id have a better point to compare these two things, being a professional/competetive player in both sports and poker.
Another key thing you didnt mention - the different grades of options are way more than what you point it out to be. Its not like choosing either A, B or C. You have tons of different betsizings in Holdem AND % of times you want to do smth with a certain hand (maybe 60% check, 40% bet). The difference between playing 90% and 100% could just be exactly being a little more off both in how often you should choose what option, and what option you should choose in the first place.
Holz then says he remembers when he busted out in something like 25 live tournaments in a row and then in the 26th tournament he was still playing "like well" but definitely not as good as he could have played. The question that Elliot Roe should have then asked is "Now what hands did you play differently than you would have played at the beginning of the streak and was this new way of playing these hands inferior to your former way of playing them?" I think with this question, Holz would have had trouble giving an answer and it would have been a far better interview with a specific question instead of what was asked.
Holz then says there's a slight difference between playing good which then immediately leads to him talking about soccer and basketball players (who all play well because of their skill set) who are not necessarily playing at 100 percent of their potential. It 's then pointed out that I only play live limit hold 'em and Holz states "that's what people end up playing when they say stuff like that." Well, in my book, there's a great deal of discussion on this and why things like speed, timing, and coordination are far more important in a sport than they are in poker.
Of course, Roe doesn't tell him exactly what my book says and he also doesn't tell Hoilz that I have logged many hours in other forms of poker besides limit hold 'em (and this includes no-limit hold 'em) and that there are many poker examples in Real Poker Strategy that feature a number of different poker variants (including an example from High Draw; Jacks or Better to Open).
In addition, I do say in the conclusion of my book that this poker psychology has a little bit of value. And if you're an expert player playing mostly in high stakes games against mostly other experts where your win rate in terms of betting units is quite low, then any small improvement in win rate can be worth a lot in absolute dollars.
Anyway, it's my guess that if Holz understood exactly what is written in the book and not what Roe told him, he would be much more in agreement with me. And that's all I'll comment on this interview.
Mason
Mason
The point you make loses most of its weight by saying that your experience is based on limit games and that you havent progressed to the highest games over the last years and that as far as I know you dont have a current connection to actual highskilled players and their games.
This is written with respect and not as an insult - I just want to clarify my point of view.
Have a good next year,
Fedor
All my comments will apply to No-Limit-Holdem, because this is my game of expertise.
I trust Elliot so I was sure that he wouldn't ever deceive me into commenting on something that is not the truth or lie about something or try to "bash" someone. Thats why Im going to comment here once to clarify things.
Where do you get this knowledge from? How can you say it doesn't matter? Every professional high/sky-stakes player is at "98%" already (although we probably rather are at 70% if you compare it to GTO.)
The difference between 98% and 100% "confidence" in the things you're doing (not only 3 options of "check/fold/bet(raise)", but thousands of options with different betsizings and raisesizings possible will be the difference between those players that are slightly winning or winning a lot. Examples below.
Thats just a wrong example that is making your point - but has logical flaws.
Counter-example: You have 100 decisions in a tournament - 98 vs 100 percent confidence would just be 98 vs 100 right decisions. Still it wouldnt be visible and for us humans we would probably view it as the same result - although it isnt. The more you play on a really high level the more selfreflecting you get with the help of programs. Obviously I do mistakes and think I played hands bad that I didnt or the other way around - but thats also a reason why most of your statements just are not applicable to the best poker players and it doesnt seem like you have any experience with nowadays experts and their work and reflection in poker. It is very comparable to other sports and Id have a better point to compare these two things, being a professional/competetive player in both sports and poker.
Another key thing you didnt mention - the different grades of options are way more than what you point it out to be. Its not like choosing either A, B or C. You have tons of different betsizings in Holdem AND % of times you want to do smth with a certain hand (maybe 60% check, 40% bet). The difference between playing 90% and 100% could just be exactly being a little more off both in how often you should choose what option, and what option you should choose in the first place.
Nice try - but wrong. My perception might be worse than the reality (because im imperfect as we all are), but the tendency is definitely existent. I have a database of online sessions aswell as live sessions where I write down hands and then (mathematically + socially) analyse them - rate my game and compare it with my winrate (mostly chips because its more accurate), aswell as my mental feeling. Im not going too much into detail but My winrate when I rated myself playing 8-10 is more than twice as much as (>10evBB over sample) when I rated myself 1-4. (<5evBB)
Nobody did and will say anything against that statement. Speed, timing and coordination are more important in sports - in the same way they are more important in some sports than in other sports. They matter in different forms in poker aswell - mainly focus. Your body/mind is one part, one entity - you need both in all type of sports, one of them better trained than the other - but if you want to be the best both trained to the maximum for your needed skill. In everything you do in life.
So who should buy your book? Jacks or Better pros?
I agree with that - small improvements can make quite a difference. Thats why you should work on the last "2%" - and thats what every expert who plans on becoming even better is doing right now.
Just from reading your comments I feel like you are commenting on mindset and approach of highstakes games or experts, where you dont participate in these types of games in any form at all.
The point you make loses most of its weight by saying that your experience is based on limit games and that you havent progressed to the highest games over the last years and that as far as I know you dont have a current connection to actual highskilled players and their games.
This is written with respect and not as an insult - I just want to clarify my point of view.
Have a good next year,
Fedor
I trust Elliot so I was sure that he wouldn't ever deceive me into commenting on something that is not the truth or lie about something or try to "bash" someone. Thats why Im going to comment here once to clarify things.
Where do you get this knowledge from? How can you say it doesn't matter? Every professional high/sky-stakes player is at "98%" already (although we probably rather are at 70% if you compare it to GTO.)
The difference between 98% and 100% "confidence" in the things you're doing (not only 3 options of "check/fold/bet(raise)", but thousands of options with different betsizings and raisesizings possible will be the difference between those players that are slightly winning or winning a lot. Examples below.
Thats just a wrong example that is making your point - but has logical flaws.
Counter-example: You have 100 decisions in a tournament - 98 vs 100 percent confidence would just be 98 vs 100 right decisions. Still it wouldnt be visible and for us humans we would probably view it as the same result - although it isnt. The more you play on a really high level the more selfreflecting you get with the help of programs. Obviously I do mistakes and think I played hands bad that I didnt or the other way around - but thats also a reason why most of your statements just are not applicable to the best poker players and it doesnt seem like you have any experience with nowadays experts and their work and reflection in poker. It is very comparable to other sports and Id have a better point to compare these two things, being a professional/competetive player in both sports and poker.
Another key thing you didnt mention - the different grades of options are way more than what you point it out to be. Its not like choosing either A, B or C. You have tons of different betsizings in Holdem AND % of times you want to do smth with a certain hand (maybe 60% check, 40% bet). The difference between playing 90% and 100% could just be exactly being a little more off both in how often you should choose what option, and what option you should choose in the first place.
Nice try - but wrong. My perception might be worse than the reality (because im imperfect as we all are), but the tendency is definitely existent. I have a database of online sessions aswell as live sessions where I write down hands and then (mathematically + socially) analyse them - rate my game and compare it with my winrate (mostly chips because its more accurate), aswell as my mental feeling. Im not going too much into detail but My winrate when I rated myself playing 8-10 is more than twice as much as (>10evBB over sample) when I rated myself 1-4. (<5evBB)
Nobody did and will say anything against that statement. Speed, timing and coordination are more important in sports - in the same way they are more important in some sports than in other sports. They matter in different forms in poker aswell - mainly focus. Your body/mind is one part, one entity - you need both in all type of sports, one of them better trained than the other - but if you want to be the best both trained to the maximum for your needed skill. In everything you do in life.
So who should buy your book? Jacks or Better pros?
I agree with that - small improvements can make quite a difference. Thats why you should work on the last "2%" - and thats what every expert who plans on becoming even better is doing right now.
Just from reading your comments I feel like you are commenting on mindset and approach of highstakes games or experts, where you dont participate in these types of games in any form at all.
The point you make loses most of its weight by saying that your experience is based on limit games and that you havent progressed to the highest games over the last years and that as far as I know you dont have a current connection to actual highskilled players and their games.
This is written with respect and not as an insult - I just want to clarify my point of view.
Have a good next year,
Fedor
I'm just going to comment on a couple of things. First, I thought your interview with Elliot was below par and that's because my book doesn't say things in the way they were presented to you.
Second, let's look at this 98 versus 100 decisions stuff and how a good statistician would look at it. First, in the 98 correct decisions, we're done. As for the two incorrect decisions the question that would be asked is how severe is the incorrect decision? If it's severe enough, and costs you all your chips, then you may need a lot of improvement in your game. But I doubt that this would be the case with a top player.
Real Poker Psychology is not a strategy book and it's not aimed at the small number of high stakes expert players. To give you a better understanding of this, here's an excerpt from the "Focus" chapter.
Suppose you’re a top golfer and your average score is 71 which means that some of your scores are in the 60s and some are much higher than 71. But now with focus, which you work on diligently, let’s suppose you’re able to improve your average to 70. This would be gigantic improvement for someone at this level and it should be enough to make you one of the premiere golfers in the world. It’s also why when you watch a TV interview of the golfer who has just won the latest PGA Tournament he’ll frequently make statements like “My concentration was superb” or “I was really in the zone.”
But let’s say you’re a more typical golfer and your average score is 82. Is focus going to make you into a 70 average golfer? No way. To improve your average score a significant amount, expect to spend a lot of time practicing.
The same is true with tennis where players get ranked according to how well they play. Someone who has a ranking of 2.0 is a raw beginner, and someone who has a ranking of 7.0 would be considered one of the top players in the world. At a typical tennis club, most players are in the 3.5 to 4.5 range, and someone who has achieved the level of 5.0 will usually be one of the best players around.
However, will focus help a 5.0 beat a 6.0? No. The 5.0 player would still get crushed. Even a 5.5 player would beat the 5.0 easily. I guess it might be possible for the 5.0 to become a 5.1 with a lot of focus, but to beat a higher level player will require a lot of repetition hitting a lot of tennis balls.
But let’s say you’re a more typical golfer and your average score is 82. Is focus going to make you into a 70 average golfer? No way. To improve your average score a significant amount, expect to spend a lot of time practicing.
The same is true with tennis where players get ranked according to how well they play. Someone who has a ranking of 2.0 is a raw beginner, and someone who has a ranking of 7.0 would be considered one of the top players in the world. At a typical tennis club, most players are in the 3.5 to 4.5 range, and someone who has achieved the level of 5.0 will usually be one of the best players around.
However, will focus help a 5.0 beat a 6.0? No. The 5.0 player would still get crushed. Even a 5.5 player would beat the 5.0 easily. I guess it might be possible for the 5.0 to become a 5.1 with a lot of focus, but to beat a higher level player will require a lot of repetition hitting a lot of tennis balls.
It is very comparable to other sports and Id have a better point to compare these two things, being a professional/competetive player in both sports and poker.
Let's just consider the luck factor here. While I wasn't a professional tennis player since I wasn't good enough, I have played since I was a kid and did play Division One Tennis at Virginia Tech which I attended on an athletic scholarship. However, against a top touring pro, even when I was young and playing at my best, ever winning more than a game or two would have been just wishful thinking (and I give a specific example of how I did against a top player when I was young in my book.)
Poker of course is not that way. The large short term luck factor does allow some very weak players to at times win significantly against the very best players. This is just a fact. But it's also a fact that in the long run, the best players will beat the poor players out of all their money, and that's a big difference.
Anyway, a better understanding of this large short term luck factor is one of the keys to improving the psychological area of most poker players' games, and when I say most players, I'm talking about the large number of marginal players who fill our poker rooms and who play on the Internet. I'm not talking about a small number of experts who already have a top notch understanding of stuff like this (even though they do get mentioned in a couple of spots in the book).
I think if you read Real Poker Psychology, you would discover that it's much different than what you were led to believe in that interview.
Mason
It seems like you didnt get my point and I feel like to keep answering your (missguiding) arguments won't get anywhere.
As a general statement:
Why should I suggest someone reading a book on poker that is written by someone who actually never paired "focus" with a high skill and made it work by being one of the best?
If I coach someone, he gives my words credit, because I have a background and reputation that is based on thousands and thousands of verifiable statistics. That doesnt mean that my background and reputation are NEEDED to be a good coach, but he doesnt question my arguments on a regular basis. I think everyone who coaches should have a RECENT success story behind it to verify his "receipt" tho.
You need to back up your statements. You don't.
As a general statement:
Why should I suggest someone reading a book on poker that is written by someone who actually never paired "focus" with a high skill and made it work by being one of the best?
If I coach someone, he gives my words credit, because I have a background and reputation that is based on thousands and thousands of verifiable statistics. That doesnt mean that my background and reputation are NEEDED to be a good coach, but he doesnt question my arguments on a regular basis. I think everyone who coaches should have a RECENT success story behind it to verify his "receipt" tho.
You need to back up your statements. You don't.
I dont understand all the references to what stakes people play or their lol hendon mob stats (but how much did you lose?). A guy could play 1-2nl and write a great book for 1-2nl players. This is basically Ed Millers gig no? Does anyone deny he writes great books for his audience?
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
I hate to get off topic, although frankly it may improve the thread, but why are "extreme maniacs" referred to as "Sigmund Freuds"?
I dont understand all the references to what stakes people play or their lol hendon mob stats (but how much did you lose?). A guy could play 1-2nl and write a great book for 1-2nl players. This is basically Ed Millers gig no? Does anyone deny he writes great books for his audience?
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
• Many players overestimate the importance of the mental game because they don't understand the game well enough and aren't able to see their fundamental weaknesses, WHILE
• The mental game is important at the highest levels of the game
In summary: Can't we all just get along?
You've put into words what I was thinking. Talking about poker is complex, not just because of how complex the strat is, but also because there are all sorts of games, stakes, players with different levels of seriousness and playing styles, etc. So it's very hard to talk about poker in a general way and have it be true for all poker-reading audiences. I think Mason and Little both make good points for difference audiences and the general truth (applicable to all audiences) is probably somewhere in the middle. In other words:
• Many players overestimate the importance of the mental game because they don't understand the game well enough and aren't able to see their fundamental weaknesses, WHILE
• The mental game is important at the highest levels of the game
In summary: Can't we all just get along?
• Many players overestimate the importance of the mental game because they don't understand the game well enough and aren't able to see their fundamental weaknesses, WHILE
• The mental game is important at the highest levels of the game
In summary: Can't we all just get along?
I dont understand all the references to what stakes people play or their lol hendon mob stats (but how much did you lose?). A guy could play 1-2nl and write a great book for 1-2nl players. This is basically Ed Millers gig no? Does anyone deny he writes great books for his audience?
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
So its entirely possible that both books are fine for their audience. Apparently the little/cardner book is written for elite tournament professionals and the malmuth book is written for midstakes grinders.
In my experience with up and coming midstakes grinders they basically should spend almost no time on mental game, they have such huge leaks in their technical game fixing those leaks should take up nearly all of their available time.
In my experience with high stakes live cash pros who are technically excellent they should basically spend most of their time getting invited to the games then studying specific opponent tendencies/tells because the player pools are so small.
I have no experience with tournaments, im guessing mental game would be very important because they drive me nuts.
Chances are they drive you nuts only after you have gone busto. No need for mental game other than in the pits or slot machines.
The Mental Game of Baccarat.
You've put into words what I was thinking. Talking about poker is complex, not just because of how complex the strat is, but also because there are all sorts of games, stakes, players with different levels of seriousness and playing styles, etc. So it's very hard to talk about poker in a general way and have it be true for all poker-reading audiences. I think Mason and Little both make good points for difference audiences and the general truth (applicable to all audiences) is probably somewhere in the middle. In other words:
• Many players overestimate the importance of the mental game because they don't understand the game well enough and aren't able to see their fundamental weaknesses, WHILE
• The mental game is important at the highest levels of the game
In summary: Can't we all just get along?
• Many players overestimate the importance of the mental game because they don't understand the game well enough and aren't able to see their fundamental weaknesses, WHILE
• The mental game is important at the highest levels of the game
In summary: Can't we all just get along?
For limon post as well
"The Mental Game of Fighting About Poker Psychology"
Anyone have thoughts on Mac v. Windows?
Anyone have thoughts on Mac v. Windows?
Mason:
Thanks for making this thread and saving me $22.46.
Best wishes,
baudib1
Thanks for making this thread and saving me $22.46.
Best wishes,
baudib1
Hi Everyone:
I'm just going to address a couple of things here:
I have no idea what you're even talking about when you say not being able to recall a simple example.
Don't change what I said to something else so you can explain what is wrong with it. In no-limit, you can always bet, assuming your stack is large, enough to give certain hands incorrect odds to call. That's not the case in limit. That's a lot different than stating that "your opponent is always getting great odds."
I never said this.
This isn't true either.
This statement is only true against terrible players. Those who understand how to play limit hold 'em at an expert level are also able to achieve excellent win rates.
Win rate and skillful don't have to be that well correlated.
If someone never bluffs on the river but I assume he bluffs at the optimal frequency, what will my results be? Well, against an optimal frequency bluffer my results should be the same (in the long run) if I call every time, if I never call, or if I only call some of the time.
Now if it turns out that the player never bluffs, I lose zero in river bets if I choose to never call, lose a lot in river bets if I choose to always call, and lose some amount in river bets if I choose to sometimes call. This looks to me like you have some misconceptions about Game Theory and how it relates to poker. Also, this stuff was first explained (to most poker players) in a book called Sklansky on Poker Theory which was first published in 1978. Today an updated version of this book exists under the title of The Theory of Poker.
So what's your point?
Again, I never said this and I've had enough of your changing what I say so that you explain what's wrong with it.
Okay. We were saying stuff like this over 20 years ago.
You should read the books we put out. You would see that this exact idea appeared in 2+2 books years ago.
Okay.
Okay.
There you go with the insults again. If you were to read Real Poker Psychology you would see two reasons given as to why tournament players don't tilt. Then if you want to explain the fallacy in these reasons, go ahead. But stop with the "wordsmithing" stuff.
Enough. Go Insult someone else.
MM
I'm just going to address a couple of things here:
Mason,
Confidence
If you were aware of the confidence issue listed (getting in bad if you are worse than your opponents) because David wrote it 14 years ago, why were you unable to recall that simple example? It is funny how you can know something but not be unable to recall it when it matters, unless again, you were being dense on purpose. (Stating someone is being dense is not an insult. It is how you come off when you take fairly obvious concepts out of context.)
Confidence
If you were aware of the confidence issue listed (getting in bad if you are worse than your opponents) because David wrote it 14 years ago, why were you unable to recall that simple example? It is funny how you can know something but not be unable to recall it when it matters, unless again, you were being dense on purpose. (Stating someone is being dense is not an insult. It is how you come off when you take fairly obvious concepts out of context.)
Of course, you may not think being able to program a bot to beat a human has any significance. Instead, thinking back to your concept of Limit Hold’em being more difficult because your opponent is always getting great pot odds, this means that your opponent can usually do reasonably well by simply not folding any decent hand, which is obviously a simple strategy.
You have said in interviews that in Limit, most decisions are usually quite close
which of course is true due to the huge pot odds.
This is why win rates in Limit are small compared to No-Limit, where your opponent has the opportunity to make gigantic blunders on every street.
The ability to make giant blunders is typically what makes a game more skillful.
Concentration
In terms of how much “focus” is required, your question needs to be clarified.
In no-limit, you have to focus on all betting rounds because the information you gain on the later betting rounds is vitally important to future situations. For example, if someone never bluffs on the river but you assume he bluffs the optimal frequency, you will make huge blunders. Notice in Limit, if you are in this same scenario, you will only make small blunders.
In terms of how much “focus” is required, your question needs to be clarified.
In no-limit, you have to focus on all betting rounds because the information you gain on the later betting rounds is vitally important to future situations. For example, if someone never bluffs on the river but you assume he bluffs the optimal frequency, you will make huge blunders. Notice in Limit, if you are in this same scenario, you will only make small blunders.
Now if it turns out that the player never bluffs, I lose zero in river bets if I choose to never call, lose a lot in river bets if I choose to always call, and lose some amount in river bets if I choose to sometimes call. This looks to me like you have some misconceptions about Game Theory and how it relates to poker. Also, this stuff was first explained (to most poker players) in a book called Sklansky on Poker Theory which was first published in 1978. Today an updated version of this book exists under the title of The Theory of Poker.
In 7-Stud, you have to pay attention to the board cards, which requires you to focus more on the early betting rounds. Is this not obvious to anyone who has played the game?
In Limit, you simply don’t have to pay much attention to anything because as you previously stated, you are always getting great pot odds.
In order to win the most money possible in poker, when you are playing against non-excellent opponents, you should get well out of line to exploit their tendencies. Playing in a GTO style is not the way you produce a huge edge.
My training products aim to teach players how to exploit their weak opponents while playing in a manner that is difficult to exploit versus excellent opponents. If you develop a GTO strategy and never deviate from it, you will win versus weak opponents, but you won’t win nearly as much as possible.
This is why loose-aggressive players are usually bigger winners in soft no-limit games compared to tight-aggressive players in today’s environment. Most people fold too often. When playing against strong opponents who don’t fold too often, reverting to a tight-aggressive style is usually ideal.
You cite in your previous post that focus will make a small difference when playing in tough games whereas every high stakes pro I know (I discuss poker with numerous high stakes world-class pros on a regular basis, see Excelling for the most obvious "proof") will tell you it makes a huge difference. I imagine most middle stake limit pros will say it doesn’t make a difference because in that game, it probably doesn’t.
Saying you don’t play high stakes and you don’t associate with high stakes players isn’t an insult. It is simply the truth, assuming you didn’t lie in the various interviews I listened to (I have listened to all of them). Also, saying you have no tournament results isn’t an insult, it is the truth. If you have no experience playing tournaments, you probably shouldn’t discuss the skills it takes to be a tournament player. I am thinking back now to how Fedor got a real kick out of you saying tournament players don’t tilt. If you never play tournaments, how could you possible know this? Perhaps you rationalized your thought by wordsmithing what most people view as tilt?
Enough. Go Insult someone else.
MM
Tournament players don't tilt?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE