I read those posts and I don't see any claims that his books have a lot of "fluff" in them. Maybe you're talking about his marketing/advertising content. I have 3 of Little's books (the 2 volumes of cash game play, and the low stakes cash book. I have some comments on them, pro and con, but the point being there really wasn't what I would call "fluff" in them.

He's a poker player and also running a business trying to make money. As far as I know, he hasn't lied, misrepresented, or cheated anyone. If you don't like the discounts and hype, fine, go somewhere else. It's just an advertising style and the guy is trying to make money, so what's wrong with that? All businesses try to get more of your business after you become a customer. He can as much free stuff and as much non-free stuff as he likes, in any manner or format he wants.

Correct. And obviously so. The fact that this tremendous waste of bandwidth even exists is what I find embarrassing.

I'd change your second point to read: "The better your technique becomes and the higher level you play at, the more important the mental aspects become."

This does not imply the mental game has no value for weaker players. In fact even if you're a beginner/intermediate, the mental game might have extremely high value for you, especially if you're prone to heavy tilt, and especially if it's the kind of tilt you're not really aware of.

Professional athletes say stuff like this all the time - about how the game is all mental. That's not true - most amateurs are so far behind most pros in technique it's a joke. That does not imply the mental game has no value for either amateurs or pros.

I find it funny that we even have to listen to questions about whether a healthy amount of sleep can optimize mental performance, geez what a waste of time!

If you have to "go around your elbow to get to your ass" three times in a definition of a simple concept, then the definition is no good.

Use Tommy Angelo's definition of tilt, and voila problems solved. Adding "pseudo tilt" because you can't really explain tilt is like physicists adding "the ether" because they didn't understand much beyond Newtonian physics. Not that figuring out tilt is as hard as figuring out quantum physics, mind you.

A much better attempt than your first try, I'll give you that. But still missing the point.

Even if your arbitrary numbers were correct (something we can't possibly know or ever prove), it's still pretty much a red herring.

If I got a little less sleep tonight than I should, and I can still drive home from work in the evening without falling asleep at the wheel 99% of the time, is that fine if I crash and die the other 1% of the time?

Hopefully you would have understood this is a silly debate before it started, but....

The fact that things like proper sleep, nutrition, and overall health and wellness are helpful to both physical and mental performance is beyond debate, and doing so is a tremendous waste of time.

Bottom line. Done.

But that doesn't imply meditation doesn't change the physical structure of the brain doesn't change the physical structure of the brain. In fact it's very plausible, and there seems to be evidence it might be true.

For an extreme example of a similar issue, scroll down to the image of "Brain Scan of Neglect".
http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/ec/...es-wild-child/

Ok. Deepak Chopra.

Read the thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...rrect-1576716/

and you'll see exactly what Cardner said.

MM

In the "Conclusion" of Real Poker Psychology I give an estimate of what the mental game is worth. The number is positive but small.

Also, as is pointed out in my book, poker is not an athletic sport, and many of these mental things that do help with speed, timing, and coordination have little value in poker.

Mason

Tilt is well defined in my book as is "pseudo tilt" and "searching." They are completely different states but can look similar to someone who does not understand poker well. You really should read Real Poker Psychology and understand what it says before you proclaim that the well defined definitions I use are wrong.

Also, thanks for the insults.

Mason

Can you tell me how you arrive at these conclusions?

You'll need to read Real Poker Psychology for the full answer. In that text you'll see how improved knowledge can solve problems that your brain can't process and that poker is not an athletic sport which means that attributes such as speed, timing, and coordination are not required.

MM

I look forward to reading it. I'm open to anything, knowledge solving problems in a person that the brain can't process will certainly be new to me.
I think I understand your second point, especially having watched 2 Poker Life vids with you in them today (interesting stuff). I think what you're saying here (previously with tennis as an example) is that Mental Game work (and 'improved diet') in athletic endeavors improves speed, timing, and coordination. Speed, timing, and coordination are not relevant to poker (we just throw in chips), therefore Mental Game interventions will have little relevance here..

Link to research that backs up Tendler's theories please?
Agree that Cardner's stuff is all just guru 'opinions' about how things work, apart from all the bits that emerge from an entire Doctoral Thesis on the poker 'mental game'.

Then why choose as a contributor to your book someone who says the opposite?

I didn't say the definition was wrong (what the heck is a "well defined definition" anyway?) I'm saying your definition is not good. There's a difference. Pascal apologized for writing a long letter, because he didn't have time to shorten it. But if you're writing a book, presumably you have the time.

In the world of mathematics, there is something known as being "well defined." So you'll just have to take my word for it.

Also, in Real Poker Psychology, the definition I use for "tilt" is completely different from the definition I use for "pseudo tilt." Plus, the definitions I use are short and concise.

MM

Resurfacing this thread just to add my two cents, for whatever it's worth. I have always had a lot of respect and still do for MM/DS but some of the statements and assumptions made ITT are literally appalling. My own personal opinion: a lot of self-interest and bias clouded judgment and fueled statements that I can only take with a heavy grain of salt if not discard completely as useless or even -EV.

What literally had me smh was in regard to tiredness/concentration and associations with optimal/sub-optimal performance. Diet, exercise, sleep.. Just absolutely of paramount importance to playing well, at the very least for me.. and to shirk those aspects of one's training regimen for a series of sessions or tournaments as if it doesn't really matter is wrong.

The 98/100% argument just cannot be used in this instance with any validity, i.e. when you're specifically discussing poker. The analogies to chess/tennis/driving whatever it is are, at teotd just analogies with certain parallels convenient for argumentative points but seriously shed light on a massive gap in understanding or enlightenment.

Cliffs: nlhe poker is still evolving; mm/ds are my goto for mixed games; but for nlhe I would take Holz insight over mm/ds anytime.

Hi zmicki:

Let's take a quick look at this:

1. Poker is mainly a game of knowledge. It's not a game of speed, timing, and coordination as well as other physical aspects that some sports, particularly those with a lot of contact, require.

2. It's my understanding that in the world of sports it's widely recognized that there's a big difference between being physically tired and mentally tired. Physically tired will happen much sooner than being mentally tired.

3. When reading Cardner/Little, Tendler, and Roe, in my opinion they don't seem to understand this difference and give advice that has very little to do with poker, and they don't know enough about the game to understand this.

4. An example is Cardner's 10,000 hour requirement to become an elite poker player which is similar to Tendler's unconscious competence. If you had to make all decisions at the poker table in two to three seconds they would be right, But that's obviously not the case.


So you're saying that an expert poker who almost always makes the right decision won't have a clue some small percentage of the time. Even if this was the case, probability theory tells us that he'll still, just by chance, make the right decision (or something close to the right decision) fairly often.

Now that Game Theory ideas are beginning to dominate nlhe, how does it advance beyond that?

Best wishes,
Mason

Poker is mainly a game of knowledge -- but the acquisition of such knowledge and quality of information gathered is absolutely relevant to speed, timing, and coordination. How is the acquisition and quality of information gathered on the felt unrelated to speed, timing, and coordination?

My only assertion was a professional nlhe player might be able to play at more the range of 50% peak performance when mentally fatigued (not 98%) as measured by dollar missed opportunities (domo) by merely satisfactory information gathering, incorrect interpretations, and contributing to disparity between maximum earning potential versus actualized earnings for any one given session. However, it very well may be more profitable to play live cash fatigued for 30 consecutive nights versus five A-game nights.

When I wrote nlhe is still evolving I was referring to tournament structures, incorporations of shotclocks, increased/decreased popularity amongst demographics, and that certain exploitive opportunities may be closing while others opening.

Hi zmicki:

You wrote:

Well, you don't need speed, timing, and coordination to throw your chips into the pot. Poker is not an athletic sport.

One way of looking at this is that you can divide games into two components. A knowledge component and an execution component. And the following is an excerpt from the "It's Not What You Eat" chapter in Real Poker Psychology.

I agree that if you were to stay awake for 72 hours you would be mentally fatigued and your poker would suffer. But don't confuse being mentally tired with being physically tired.

Suppose you're an expert poker player and have been playing all day and are now physically tired and perhaps a little hungry. But before you leave the poker room you notice and excellent game with an open seat and know that if you were fresh your expectation would be very high in this game. It's my contention that your expectation should still be quite good because you're only physically tired and not mentally tired.

I'm not sure what you mean by five A-game nights. But generally when the poker psychologists talk about your A Game versus your C Game they imply that some days you show up at the cardroom and have left your A Game at home and now play poorly right from the get-go. This just doesn't happen because it would mean that you will make plays that you know are wrong, and if you understand poker well it's funny to read this stuff. Also, I'm not talking about certain states, such as tilt, that some poker players will sometimes enter into.

I'm not an expert on tournament structures so I won't comment here.

While I agree that tournaments can probably be improved by the use of "shot clocks," I doubt if many (or any) hands would be played differently. On the other hand, if players had to make all their decisions in two or three seconds, which is the unconscious competence silliness that Tendler emphasizes, then things would be a lot different

This is something that constantly occurs in all poker. Right now, at least where I live, poker is contracting and the games are getting tougher.

I don't agree with this. No-limit hold 'em tournament poker has been around a long time, much longer than the current crop of no-limit hold 'em cash games, and I doubt if we'll be seeing much in the way of new exploitative techniques in the future. But perhaps you're right and I'm not.

Best wishes,
Mason

So just for my understanding; you believe mental and physical have nothing to do with each other? They are completely independent?

I never said that.

MM

Can you clarify this for me, please. Maybe I'm not understanding.

I noticed that you're affiliated with Red Chip Poker where they promote Cardner. Is this why you're having issues with simple ideas?

You need to understand that I've given many specific examples and have explained many specific ideas relative to poker psychology. This was done in my book and this has been done in a number of places on this website.

MM