That is where the problem lies is it ?

"you can't compare BB/100. You need to compare games with equal win rates." This sort of concern appears to be one in which the player wants to achieve a particular win rate expressed in dollars per 100 hands or per hour or perhaps per month. Essentially, the concern is about bankroll fluctuation. Which game offers me less risk given that I need or want to earn a certain amount of money? Let's work with another example in which the player wants to earn $10/100 hands. Now let's say that this player must play a 5/10 limit game to earn that win rate but only a $1 big blind no limit game. If we use the typical SD numbers (15BB/100 for limit and 40BB/100 for no limit) then in dollars the limit game value is $150/100 hands but only $80/100 hands for the no limit game. When expressed in $/100 no limit appears to be the lower variance game."

Basically :"... it depends on the expression of standard deviation. In terms of BB/100 no limit is clearly higher variance. In terms of $/100, at a certain point as one moves up in stakes, no limit will offer lower variance."

I mean we pay our rent, food and play poker with cash not with BB...

Great article.

http://pokerworks.com/poker-strategy...-variance.html

Because gto wins at a slower rate than exploitive poker. But it still wins. If your opponents play at the 90 level and you drop from 96 to 93, because your tiredness or multitabling forces you into default strategies, your edge is cut in half. But your skill level only went down by 3%.

Notice though that if your opponents are 80s and you play your tired strategy you still win almost as much. That's why pros will play 24 hour sessions and more when the game is good.

i dont disagree there.

the problem for us mere mortals is most of us arent ever going to be a 90.

and games rarely are that good anymore. reg v reg play is very important in many formats.

i appreciate that there will be formats / variants of the game where that isnt true.

i do agree that focusing on technique [for want of a better word] is going to be more beneficial than focusing on mental game for the vast majority of player. but the two arent mutually exclusive, and there is more benefit to mental game learning than mason gives credit to in his posts in this thread.

mass tablers arent playing gto poker btw.

they simply arent able to exploit their opponents as efficiently as the inabilty to process the information available to them means they play hands differently than they would when one - two tabling.

it analogous to playing tired or when you arent focused.

LOL how can you guys be such tools.

A lot of you who speak against Masons book are just victims and ideologies- new age, western buddhism (sam the idiot harris), esoteric psychology etc.
I bet most of you believe that books like "the secret" are logical... omg what toolboxes
instead of listening to new propaganda why not learn to think for yourself?
You may be sad because you don't have real spirituality in your life so you need this fake buddhism and esoteric psychology to fill in the holes. How sad for you, but like the idiot new atheist who no longer exist you guys are falling victims of your own lack of education and you get aggro about topics that you do not understand.
All that you do when fighting to truth in this book is getting more into the ideology you have already fallen victims of. I say wake up and start to read real authors and don't believe what the rest of the world is saying on the money.

Just like on-line poker where 10-15% of the players are winners. Only a select few can or will have the time to read and understand why attacking this book is anti-humane. This a really big topic! As far as I am concerned, dumb people will always be against progress and they will do everything in their power to cut the head that is trying to get out of the dead hole of ideology.

LOL do you even think when you write?

do you know what GTO is?
do you know that exploiting peoples leaks is the opposite of GTO?

yes.

david insinuated the reason mass tabling winrates are lower than 1-2 tabling winrates is because mass tablers play gto poker.

i dont believe that is the case. they are playing exploitative poker, but arent able to exploit people effeciently as they miss reads / havent the time to compute correct adjustments. hence lower winrates

I get your point but I still agree with David.
My english is not good enough to explain how it works from my understanding.

Jonathan Little total TOOL as expected.
He won't beat nl25 zoom for 5bb/100 with his current skills. AND THAT IS A FACT!

Ive not read either Mason's or Cardner's new books, but I have heard both of them speak on podcasts about this material. I dont agree with everything Mason says as it contradicts some things we have learned from many studies in psychology, but at least he comes over as reasoned. Cardner comes over as cheerleader and seems to have no interest in differentiating between good and bad science.

For example, in interviews with Dave Tuckman, Cardner emphasized how she thinks that science has proven that meditation changes the physical structure of the brain. This is just nonsense. There are a very small number of non replicated and poorly designed studies that people use to make this claim, but read those study designs and it will be very clear that there was no way any of those studies were even designed to "prove" a connection between meditation and brain structure. A properly designed study would take many years and cost a fortune. Even some of the conclusions she quotes from better studies are highly exaggerated by Cardner.

Has Mason addressed the research on how how things like sleep, nutrition, etc affect mental performance? These studies generally have the subjects do very simple, but mentally demanding tasks like remembering random number strings, or solving math problems. It has frequently been demonstrated that even simple things, like not eating for a few hours, hurts the ability to do these simple tasks (there have even been studies that show how caloric deficit shows up in brain activity scans).

While nothing has been proven beyond all doubt, its pretty reasonable to conclude from the research that humans do better on demanding mental tasks when well rested, unstressed, have recently exercised, etc. Is "better" equal to big gains in poker profits - I doubt it but Ill take any edge I can get. I am less enthused about the research on meditation, but there have been some decent studies by Feidan and others showing cognitive improvements from meditation and I would not at all be surprised to see better studies that show benefit from meditation.

Mason - hypothetical. Imagine a well designed and replicated study shows a strong benefit from [ mediation, food - you pick] on memory (random number retention), and calculation (solving problems). Would you then think that since poker includes memory and calculation that it is reasonable for poker players to seek that benefit?

I agree that for most players, the benefit from improving skill is much higher than the benefit from things like exercise and sleep - but even if the benefits are small - what is the arguments against doing anything that might improve your overall game?

Hi fisherfolk:

I do say in the "Conclusion" of the book that there should be a small benefit from this mental stuff. But as you point out, the vast majority of players for whom the book is written will benefit far more from learning how to play better. And as a bonus, a better understanding of all things poker will solve many of the "mental" problems that these poker psychologists try to address with much of their, in my opinion, highly questionable and sometimes expensive advice.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Teddy:

I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. In Real Poker Psychology, it's stated that you're supposed to pay attention. But that's different than when competing in a sport like tennis where a hard hit ball is coming your way. In the tennis case, just paying attention is not good enough. And again, this is an example of the Cardner/Little types trying to equate poker to an athletic sport which it isn't.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Everyone:

This post is going to be longer than what I normally write, so please stay with me.

In the Post #48 in the "Book Review Thread" for Real Poker Psychology this same poster KptBomba wrote the following:

At least now he says:

So what is happening here?

When I decided to write and publish this book, we at 2+2 knew ahead of time that the personal attacks would come. And the reason for this should be quite clear. If the information that appears in Real Poker Psychology becomes widely accepted in the poker community, then it should be quite damaging to the businesses of Cardner/Little/Roe. And that's because it disputes much of what they advocate in the area of poker psychology.

Now I also believe the arguments and positions in my book are quite strong. If this wasn't the case then it would be easy for these people to address directly what I state and give counter arguments to what I claim. Instead, we read that I'm too old, out of touch, only understand how to play limit hold 'em as it was played years ago, and so on.

Here's an example. Earlier today the following tweet came from Little:

Now it turns out that watching TV is only quickly mentioned in one spot in Real Poker Psychology. It comes from the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter and the particular concept comes from the Elliot Roe chapter in Jonathan Little's Excelling at No-Limit Hold 'em. Here's exactly what it says:

I think everyone will agree that this is a lot different than what Little tweeted. And shame on him.

I also want to give another example. A couple of days ago a friend sent me this link to a Cardner article that was written some months back, and this was the first time I saw it:

http://www.drtriciacardner.com/psych...-goal-setting/

In the article, there's a list of seven benefits of goal setting. Here they are:

and if you read my book, you will see that I say that all of this has little value for most poker players and can be detrimental for some (if they locked into this stuff and fail to work on improving their overall understanding of all things poker [which includes strategy]). Furthermore, many specific reasons are given as to why I say this.

Next, from the Cardner article, there's another list of ideas/goals that "make sense for a poker player." Here it is:

Again, if you read Real Poker Psychology, I say that doing the first three things should drive you crazy, and that a bankroll of 100 buy-ins is way too much for most good players. Here's a short excerpt from the "Bankroll Management" chapter in my book:

So to end this post, I think it should be clear what is happening here.

Best wishes,
Mason

I have no connection with any of them. I read her book same as yours (which I didn't finish). Honestly I think that what Eliot Roe does has nothing to do with science and I am against all hypnosis/nlp stuff given it is like your book; nothing based on truth and research instead some guru opinions how things work.
If you honestly would like to link me with someone you should link me with Jared Tendler with whom I worked on and off for 2 years (haven't talked with him for a while tho).

But it is not like you bother to research your claims we know that already.

I still stand by what I wrote your book is extremely poorly written and there is nothing based on research you took your limited experience from the game played in enviroment that has nothing to do with masstabling online poker.
If you wrote in your book that it is for total begginers then I think while your arguments are poor your conclusion which is focusing on mastering the game itself rather than psychology aspect is sound advice.
For someone who is pro player the book is very bad.
Nevertheless it still doesn't change that there is nothing based on research/facts in your book. There are plenty of things that are clearly wrong and will harm even begginers.

Are you aware that Jared Tendler has publicly stated that "we are not that far apart?" I actually think that we're further apart than Tendler thinks we are, but that's a different issue.

Also, if you read Real Poker Psychology, you'll see that I constantly draw the contrast between the marginal player and the expert, and that the expert, since he's already an expert, won't need much of the advice that I give which is aimed towards the marginal player. And by the way, no matter what the form of poker, there are far more marginal players than there are experts.

MM

There is the thing I stated my opinion and you somehow decided to involve me in your conflict with people you bashed in your book. But I just don't think discussing with you is worth any of my time. I honestly hope people directly attacked by you will prove you wrong but I don't want to be involved because I have no horse in this race. I did wrote my honest evaluation of your book and why I think it is extremely poorly written somehow you decided to involve me as a part of the "Little,Cardner team" and I have nothing to do with them.
Anyway I am off this thread I have better ways to waste my time.

GL HF to all parties involved

Mr. Mason,

thank you for pointing out Jonathan Little's hypocrisy. I have too say that I am not surprised, he is doing everything to get more social media cloud and capitalize on his uneducated customers.

Losing money in poker is real. And this guy doesn't give a flying **** about how his writings will affect his customers bottom line. Same goes for this lady Cardner.

I was trying to say that they are at war with their believes, like zen master D. T. Suzuki. But now I think that they are more like Jim Jones.

In my eyes this people are the scum of the earth. They sell ideology but not knowledge and the people who support them will never open their eyes before they break the chains of the ideological programming.

After all in present days people need something "deep" and connected to their beliefs.
They will rather believe in positive psychology and learned positivism to fix their poker game, instead of solid arguments, raw facts and a clear black and white picture from a veteran in gambling.

Mr. nobody

Hi reziduer:

A couple of quick comments. First off, Mason is my first name and it's not necessary to call me Mr. Mason.

Second, I don't think all of Little's stuff is bad. In fact, at least some of it is pretty good. But I believe where he has gone wrong is, as you point out, all the marketing where he has gotten away from quality and, as it appears to me, is now putting out lots of products in an attempt to dominate the poker marketplace.

In my opinion, the best thing that Little can currently do is to review his business model and separate himself from those products which are questionable in nature. He may find this painful, but in my opinion it will be long term good for him.

And one last thing. We at 2+2 strongly believe in free markets. Competition is good and the consumer benefits. In fact, if you look at the picture in my avatar, it's of one of the greatest free market people of all time, and this website is modeled based on many of his ideas.

Thanks for the support and best wishes,

Mason

Hi fisherfolk:

I wanted to come back and address this paragraph a little more because I don't think you completely understand what I'm saying. In the world of poker psychology, there are a number of issues that the poker psychologists attempt to resolve or at least help some players with. And what I'm saying is that improving your knowledge of all things poker will solve issues like tilt. Here's a direct quote from the chapter "A Mathematical Model for Tilt -- Cause and Cure:"

So improving skill, which is just part of the "all things poker" umbrella, will not only allow you to play poker better, it can also help in solving some of these poker mental problems. And since you haven't read the book, I don't think this is what you understood was being stated.

As for sleep, exercise, diet, etc., I agree and the book makes it very clear that doing these things right is good for you. So there's no issue there. But what I've been pointing out is that it does not have anywhere near the value, in my opinion, that the poker psychologists claim. And the obvious example is if you're someone who plays poker for a living, it's the end of the day and you're tired, but you spot a very good game (where your expectation is high) in the corner of the poker room. If you sit down, I'm sure your expectation will still be quite positive.

Best wishes,
Mason

Both of the statements before the ALL CAPS declaration are actually opinions. But don't stop now. You're on a roll

No. You are right.
I was just angry and I apologize.

I think Cardner would consider players who do those things to be arrogant. On page 169 she warns against players who become arrogant and says that being arrogant and confident are not the same thing.

She also says on page 166 that confident players work harder. I would think a person who works harder is more likely to take the time to learn to play better.

If I have one really bad night of sleep (around 2-4 hours instead of my usual 6-8) I will often find it difficult to even stay awake at times at the poker table. Most decisions will still be easy, but following the action at the table when I'm really fighting to stay awake becomes much more difficult because a lot of things become much more difficult when I'm feeling that tired. I think that if I'm having a much tougher time picking up reads and betting patterns that some decisions which normally would be very easy become much more difficult.

If my diet suddenly becomes much worse, I stop exercising, and I sleep a lot less, I would still expect to beat the games but I suspect I'd be playing on autopilot a large percentage of the time simply because I'd constantly be so tired.

I always thought these psychology books would just give players an extra edge at best. I know I'm bad at PLO because I've studied and played it so little, and I'd never pick up a psychology book with the expectation that it would make me a good PLO player, for example. So I always thought the idea that learning to play better was incredibly obvious, and I know from watching some of her videos that Cardner does think that learning to play better is extremely important.

The criticism that someone might take something Carnder says and misunderstand it or misapply it in some way is a criticism that is true for a lot of poker books, and that includes many of the better books.

The idea that Mason only has his opinions because he has played limit so much is clearly wrong in my opinion. Limit is a much harder game that many no limit players think, and I've never seen a good limit player say that you don't need to pay attention when you're at the table.

Hi Steve00007:

Let me just address exactly what Cardner says about being arrogant.

First, to be complete, here's the concept again from the "Recent Erroneous Concepts" chapter in Real Poker Psychology and this concept comes the "Introduction" of Positive Poker, not from the area of the book where you are referencing.

Now I'm working from a kindle device so I don't have the page numbers, but I think this is the paragraph from Positive Poker that you are looking at:

Now the key to this paragraph is the last sentence which begins with the words "You may find yourself ..." Clearly, Cardner is confusing an athletic sport with poker. In fact, I agree that this is probably important for serious athletes, but what does it have to do with poker which is a game where things like timing, speed, and coordination are not important. Specifically, you don't need a warm-up to prepare for the competition and how much effort is needed to throw chips in the pot.

Now let's go on and look at the very next paragraph:

First, let's look at the sentence that starts with "You may make the theoretically right play and still lose, ..." Notice that you have not made a mistake if you make the right play. But does losing the pot affect your confidence?

Continuing with the sentence we have "or you might make a read that turns out to be wrong." Well reads are based on probability and a player's tendencies. So the result can be negative but the read is still correct.

Now let's look at the sentence "You may find yourself playing more cautiously in the face of mistakes." But your play is based on your knowledge of strategy. So if you make a poor play or a mistake, you usually won't know.

So pausing here, I think you can see why I have many, many issues with the book Positive Poker and have been extremely negative towards it.

I think this is the quote from Positive Poker that you are referring to.

I don't have any issues with this paragraph.

Best wishes,
Mason

I must confess, I've always assumed that pic was you, Mason.
I hope you won't regard that as an insult. Now that I've looked up MF, he was quite the debonair gent. (Talking about his appearance. I know nothing of his economics/politics.)

Good Luck.

No, it wasn't. You made a non sequitur that someone good at math and logic shouldn't make.

She didn't say, as you claimed, that taking a hot shower can help get you off tilt. She said that acknowledging and feeling grateful for some simple things that you have can help get you off tilt. There's a difference.

The only thing that's not clear is whether you weren't able to understand her comment, or if you intentionally misrepresented it because you're trying to present evidence against her to build your "case". Only you know the answer to that one.