I don't know. But all authors/publishers are welcome to come on here and answer questions. But self-promotion is not allowed.

If it works out that way and our rules are followed then that's fine.

Once the word gets out there as to how bad we think the Cardner book is I doubt if it will help them.

Best wishes,
Mason

It is a decent amount. Thanks Mason!

When every well known high stakes pro who stops by this thread posts who the obvious winner is, it makes things easy on me.

And if you have made lots of money thanks to me, this website, and our welcoming of other authors/publishers here, again that's fine with us.

But, in this thread we have seen a number of statements which you attributed to me which I never said (and then you explained what's wrong with them), plus your insults. Lots of people have now seen this and you make a statement about who the "obvious winner" is.

MM

But I don't talk about tournament play or the state of mind about the tournament pool. You're making assumptions about Real Poker Psychology without reading it and don't understand what the book is really about.

The book doesn't contain advice on how to play poker hands. That's not its purpose.

This sounds like the pot calling the kettle ...

MM

Hi teddy:

Stuff like this is in the book, but it usually has more to do with a player getting over-confident and then going to a game much larger where the players in general are much tougher.

Here's a concept which comes from Cardner's book that made "The Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter that is along these lines:

You'll have to read the book. But those things you mention generally affect speed, timing, and coordination much more than your knowledge. Thus in competitive sports they must be much more important than they are in poker. However, keep in mind that if you don't sleep for a few days (or some very long length of time) you won't be able to do much of anything well.

Okay. In the world of mathematics there is something known as being "well defined." And when things are not well defined confusion can result.

So in Real Poker Psychology, "tilt," "pseudo tilt," and "searching" are "well defined" and the problems they cause are also (I believe) clearly explained. I think you'll agree after reading the book. By the way, I have never seen anything like "pseudo tilt" or "searching" in the poker psychology literature, videos, etc. But it may be there someplace, and if that's the case I would like to know.

Because you're playing rationally doesn't mean you're playing well.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Teddy:

Again, "pseudo tilt" is defined in the book with a very specific definition. I have the impression from reading this post that you think it means something different, like a weak form of tilt, and that's not the case.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm still not really sure what the "Cardner Challenge" is, but I have learned two important things from this thread.

1. Mr. Malmuth feels he is uniquely qualified to write a book "Real Poker Psychology" precisely because he is not a psychologist.

2. Genuine tilt (as opposed to pseudo-tilt) is produced by an infinite logic loop.

Regarding the first point, this is definitely a novel marketing technique.

Regarding the second point, I commend Mr. Malmuth on his bold rejection of the evidence gathered by literally thousands of clinical psychologists over several decades.

poker is largely - if not purely - about decision making though. and tiredness - even mild tiredness - has been proven to adversely affect decision making. same for poor concentration, focus, diet and health.

its not just decsion making that can be affected, but discipline. you can make choices that you know, rationally, are bad for you under these conditions.

all decisions in poker rely on information. i play some hands in radically different ways depending on available information. being intently focused on one table / task absouutely will impact on your ability to spot information on another - its why winrates drop with increased tables.

i alluded to this earlier in the thread:

if you disagree that attention to detail, mental processing power, decision making, memory, discipline are impacted by things like tiredness, health, diet, focus etc etc then you are going against a body of published, peer reviewed and academically sound work. i can forward some of that research to you if you like. an inquisitive mind like yours would no doubt find it interesting.

if you disagree that attention to detail, mental processing power, decsion making, memory, discipline etc etc are crucial to making sound decisions when playing poker well i dont know where to start.
this quote is baffling to me.

the application of gto concepts is incredibly difficult to implement. you simply are not going to remember the game tree of even a simple turn + river decision. once you start having to dissect ranges, appropriate mixing ratios, multiple bet-sizes whilst trying to remember similar solutions you have worked on, very quickly you are going to run into issues with concentration. especially if you have multiple tables on the go.

+1

For the record you should not think so highly of yourself.

Mason being wrong on some stuff does not mean you are the one they should be listening to. I respect CrownUpGuy input, aka Fedor holz, but no where does he advise or say anything related to you.

After reading many of your reviews and even reading a few responses from your critics in this thread, I am convinced you are more focused on marketing and less on producing good content. You have lost a potential customer and I hope everyone does their own research before considering buying anything from Jonathan Little aka FieryJustice whether they agree with Mason Malmuth or not.

Game theory doesn't require all this stuff. For instance if someone bets the pot on the river and you have a bluff catcher you flip a coin to decide whether to call. You are talking about exploitive poker.

And if you think being tired hurts you that much will you bet me that I can't stay up 24 hours, then jog 5 miles in an hour and then score above 750 on the math SAT? I'll lay 3-1.

So on the river all draws busted and you face pot sized bet.
Half of your draws busted, lets say 8 combos
And now you have 12 more combos of bluffcatchers.

So you flip a coin and it decides for you, that you should be calling 12/2 times from 20.

Is that GTO that you talk about ? :|
What about GTO actions on earlier streets ?

I wouldn't argue about gto with youth nowadays

That's a fairly simple river decision, however.

Gto on earlier streets does require mixing, multiple betsizes, evaluating your whole range, considering blockers etc. You cannot hope to remember game trees so have to remember similar situations you have ran simulations on and intuit a pseudo gto approach. It requires effort to do well.

It's not a matter of idly flipping coins and not having to perform mental tasks.

re your wager: I have no idea what a maths sat test is, much less what a 750 score represents. Nor do i know what you would expect to score under optimal conditions. Plus I don't think you make many -ev bets, squire. So I'll respectfully pass on wagering with you.

However, if you disagree that decision making / discipline / ability to perform mental tasks are negatively impacted by tiredness, lack of focus, poor diet etc then you are disagreeing with studies that have been widely peer reviewed, replicated and accepted by academics.

You don't disagree with the notion that playing multiple tables of competative online poker requires good decision making, discipline and concentration do you?

Do you disagree that someone who can beat 99% of humans in chess when they are fresh can still beat 98% when they are tired? The point is that if someone has their subject down cold their automatic pilot is only slightly worse than their A game.

The person who can beat 99% of humans in chess isn't going to be playing against most of the other 99% of humans though. He's going to be playing mostly against people close to his skill level. Often that 1% he can no longer beat now he is tired.

This is silly. If the 2% of the time you are wrong you are still close it hardly amounts to anything. And any player who is right 98% will be close the other 2%.

Depends on the game.

In the case of chess, the recent Short-Kasparov rematch was a dramatic demonstration that a tired Short's "automatic pilot" wasn't in the same ballpark as his A game.

Mason clearly have no idea about the topic he wrote the book about.
He plays the lowest variance game with the lowest amount of emotional pressure. Like I could not imagine game with lower standard deviation in poker and also he play like 20-30 h/h because he only play live.

Now compare it to grinding cash or MTT or spin go online where edges are way smaller swings much bigger and the emotional pressure is like 10/20 times bigger.
I mean the book is good if you play fixed limit live with the same regs for 30 years and some regular fish and occasional new faces. Thats basically it.
It is like me writing book about playing tenis because me and my bud play every Sunday and people in my club say I am decent.
So I will write a book about tenis "You all suck here is how to do it correctly". Because hey I know better.

Except that I really meant that experts go from beating 99% of opponents to 98% of opponents. Not humans in general.

David would you be happy to test your theory vs 1000nl on stars rather than a maths exam?

24hours awake, a run and 8 tables?

Why bring luck into it?

Do you at least know what you are talking about ?
Or maybe it is me....but:

The number 1 factor of variance is the win rate.
Win rate in NL is far superior than in limit.
So variance is more present in limit than in any other game...

There is a reason we say fish would have a better time playing limit than NL because they can play longer time with their money and playing too many hands hurts less in limit than in NL because it is harder to punish them in limit.

PS: spin go online ( turbo i guess on top of it?) , this is more like the lottery than poker.

Actually that is a good point on many levels in this discussion.

You are just wrong sir. In terms of standard deviation and possible swings (in terms of bb/buyins possible) by far limit holdem has the lowest amount of Variance.
The difference is that because of that people playing fixed limit play way higher stakes on average (I mean their buy-in for that particular table consist bigger part of their bankroll %). But the reason they can use more aggressive bankroll management is solely due to variance and standard deviation being lower.

It is very common for winning player in 6-max cash holdem (online) to have 5000-6000 bb swing while having the same swing in fixed limit is mathematically almost impossible. I would be suprised if wining fixed limit player can have swing above 1000-1500 bb.

David, why do win rates plummet with increased tables then?

That alone is empirical evidence that skill level is measurably impaired when your attention is split or ability to fully focus is hindered.

When you talk of the top 1% of chess players you are referencing a level of mastery and mental toughness way beyond the target audience of mason's book (or any poker book). Mason has said he is not writing for elite players. The average hobbyist poker player looking to improve really will play hands differently when tired, emotional, sugar crashing, not fully focused. The average professional will too.

I have a very decent ev winrate in my games and only play 3 tables,

I often misclick, make poor decisions etc ehen i rate myself as tired. When I review late night sessions i find I miss lots of HUD stats / play hands differently to how I would when firing on all cylinders mentally.

Again you are not merely going against a few sub 100 post 2+2 bods here. You are going against published, peer reviewed research. There are people with Nobel peace prizes writing about these concepts.