I think this is an exaggeration of what I said but the principle is the same.

But people do this all the time. While not addressed directly in the book, it's known as "money management" and it costs many players a lot of money as they quit over and over again to preserve a win. In reality, it's actually a form of "pseudo tilt" which is discussed in the book where the goal of being ahead becomes more important to some players than playing with a positive expectation.

There you go again with your insults again. Obviously I have no problem with reading comprehension and your "dense" comments reflect on you and your character.

I agree with this. And while not exactly the same thing, the following is from the "Mental Toughness" chapter:

This is something I expected to be accused of. That's why I included a bunch of erroneous concepts and used direct quotes where possible.

There you go again with this same nonsense. You got upset when another poster in this thread accused you of something similar, so don't do it to me. By the way, which game do you think requires more concentration: limit hold 'em, no-limit hold 'em, or seven-card stud? and keep in mind that missing an upcard or two at stud can make a big difference.

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.

I just addressed paying attention. There's an 11 page section on tells. Weak tight players are addressed a number of times, and the book also explains how to play against maniacs and extreme maniacs (which I call Sigmund Freuds).

This is also mentioned in Real Poker Psychology. And as for applying a GTO strategy for deep stacked games, you should start reading Applications of No-Limit Hold em; a Guide to Understanding Theoretical Sound Poker by Matthew Janda. And yes it's a 2+2 book.

But the book doesn't say this. Here's a quote from the "Focus" chapter and it would sure be nice if people like Elliot Roe would present exactly what I state in an accurate manner.

There you go again with the insults. By the way, I don't know much about Fedor Holz, but do keep in mind that most professional players are not playing at high stakes against extremely tough competition. They're in games where their main advantage is from being technically superior players to their opponents which include what players like myself refer to as "tourist types." But keep in mind that this level of professional is generally not at the same level as a high stakes expert, and these are the people that my book is targeted for. And one other thing, isn't this the same level of player that all your products are targeted for?

Well I've played a lot of poker, and poker is a game of knowledge and applying that knowledge in the right ways. This doesn't require speed, timing, and coordination. By the way, here's a link I did on our TwoPLusTwo PokerCast with Adam and Terrence Chan. You might want to listen to the comments that Terrence made on this exact subject:

http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/list...hp?episode=391

and the interview with me starts at about 1:16:00

I already addressed this in another post.

Okay. While I have played a fair amount of hours in games that many would consider high stakes, and this goes back to $50-$100 jacks or better to open draw poker that I use to play in the mid 1980s when I lived in California, high stakes no limit is not something I have ever addressed.

I don't care if she is a gigantic winner. My judgement has to do with the words on the pages in her book.

There you go with your insults again. As I've stated many times I hardly ever play a tournament. And in the games around Las Vegas that I play in, they don't record your results and put them in a data base. But you already knew this.

I don't believe that Positive Poker will help anyone. In my opinion, it's easily one of the worse books related to poker I have ever read. Furthermore, I suspect that you're starting to realize this.

More to come.

Mason

I have no issue with what you're saying here but there's a little more to it than your statement. Self-confidence leads to over-confidence and there are chapters on both "Self-Confidence" and "Over-Confidence" in the Real Poker Psychology and they're worth reading.



Much of what's in the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter is discussed in much more detail elsewhere in the book.

Again you need to read the book. But the correct question is: Are you going to play some of your hands differently and is this different way of playing your hands inferior to what you normally would do?

Also, here's another concept from the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter:

By the way, the Phil Laak information is right out of Positive Poker which seemed somewhat ironic to me.

Good for you. As I point out in the book, good sleep habits are important to your long term health. But does it mean that you're now going to play some of your hands better. If you're an expert, I doubt it.

As for focus, here's an excerpt from the "Focus" chapter:

And one other thing, I don't recommend that people play drunk or when on drugs.

To me this was just a silly statement that appeared in Positive Poker. So you sleep a little more. How does it affect the play of your hands? I doubt it has any effect.

The right mentality when addressing something like this is to ask how does it affect the play of hands dealt to you? Are you telling me that you're now going to play king-ten offsuit UTG in a full ring game because you had some unhealthy sauce on your taco?

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.

First of all, I'm not out of shape in the manner that you describe (and I still play tennis five days a week). I'm somewhat over weight but that has to do with a thyroid issue and I've been taking thyroid hormone for many years. So thanks again for the insult.

Here's another excerpt. This comes from the "It's Not What You Eat" chapter.


Stop with this simple game stuff.

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.

It's a shame you haven't read what I've written because I do agree that at the very high stakes where mostly experts play and the real win rates in big blinds or units bet are quite small then this stuff is worthwhile. But, as I say in the "Conclusion:"

I knew you had to get one last insult in.

MM

Hi DaycareInferno:

Thanks for your post and my comments are embedded below.

This is fine and confidence can certainly be a good thing.

Actually, I agree with this too. But this can only happen if you play well, and that's what will produce the confidence, not the other way around.

While this certainly happens, the question is why? Experts won't lose confidence over some bad short term results and that's because they know their understanding of all things poker is top notch and they have the long term results to prove it. So if this happens to you or someone you know, my speculation is that they're really only a marginal player who needs to improve his knowledge of poker, and sometmes improve his knowledge by a lot. There's also more discussion of this very idea in Real Poker Psychology.

This sounds fine to me. As I put in one of my other posts, if a goal makes you study poker more than that can be good for your game.

I think the way to look at this is as follows. Suppose you're an expert player who (unlike me) does play for a living, but you have also been active all day. However, before you leave the casino to go home and sleep you spot a great game. Are you now going to say my being tired will affect my play so much that instead of having a big expectation in this game I'm now a loser.

On the other hand, I certainly don't recommend that you stay up for days on end playing poker.

Most poker hands are routine, so I would discount your first point. I disagree with your tilt statement but you'll need to read the book to get an understanding as to why, but it has to do with the actual cause of tilt, something that is greatly misunderstood. And for misreading community cards, I guess what you're saying might be true, but I can't remember the last time this happened to me. So I suspect that for a highly competent player, this would still be a rare event even when quite tired.

Okay. I think this is opinion.

When I first began to talk about Real Poker Psychology another poster asked me what diet had to do with poker psychology. My answer was that it was in these other poker psychology books so I addressed it as well. But I do agree at least somewhat with your "who cares" comment.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Ninja:

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

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.

Hi Ninja:

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

.

Fiery Justice/Jonathan Little is about the most obvious, transparent charlatan you'll ever come across.

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.

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

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.

I also want to comment on this statement:

It does not compare well, and that's one of the major points of my book. Poker has a very large short term luck factor, most other sports do not, and of course you don't have the issue of timing, speed, and coordination.

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.

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.

I hate to get off topic, although frankly it may improve the thread, but why are "extreme maniacs" referred to as "Sigmund Freuds"?

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?

I like everything except your summary. MORE FIGHTING PLEASE! im bored.

We have a bingo

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.

There's a book idea!

The Mental Game of Baccarat.

+1
For limon post as well

+1

"The Mental Game of Fighting About Poker Psychology"

Anyone have thoughts on Mac v. Windows?

Mason:
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

Tournament players don't tilt?