I agree about learning.

If you've exploited the same tendencies hundreds of times before it is not really creative thinking working out how you're going to do it this time.

fully agree with you. if math is done before, there is not much of creative in our play. which is the case very often when we play mostly for earning money at stake which we beat. however in some case (for example high stakes HU matches between pro, maybe even highest stake of spin and go vs regulars etc) math simply cannot be pre-solved as best players learn too quickly from each other, as well matagames can change several time in the session. of course less brilliant players are or bigger gap is present between two opponents, more quickly "limits of creativity" will/can be reached and game will became "solved". but I am conscious that described scenario case is not exactly exploiting (as we cannot exploit something which we do not know yet how it works). I would call it creative dancing

Hi Mirikrom:

I'm not an expert on vacations, so exactly if and when one is needed is not something I can answer.

As for the future of poker, I have my doubts about what you're saying. In an athletic sport, over time athletes can get better, and we see this in virtually all sports. Jack Johnson would not do well against Denotay Wilder or Anthony Joshua. But in poker, you run into Game Theory, which puts a cap on where the best players can be now and in the future.

I think you're misunderstanding something. Eating a few Big Macs before you go and play poker shouldn't have any affect on your poker play. Eating a few Big Macs right before an athletic competition might make you a little sluggish and hurt your performance. But having a long term diet of lots and lots of Big Macs is not something I would recommend.

Again you're misunderstanding. If you don't sleep for a couple of days don't expect to play poker well. If it's the end of a day and you're a little tired but see a good game in the corner of the poker room and there's an empty seat, assuming you're an expert player your expectation should still be high. Something equivalent won't be so true for an endeavor where speed, timing, and coordination are involved.

I don't think that players who emphasize GTO would agree. What they're saying is to deviate from GTO on the fringes unless your opponent makes clear playing errors.

Almost. At 2+2 our intent is not to exaggerate but to use examples that clearly show certain concepts or ideas. In the real world, things may not always be so clear.

You're certainly correct here. But I see people charging high rates for their poker psychology services and to me their advice is highly questionable.

Your English is fine. I highly respect those people who have the ability to work in more than one language.

Best wishes,
Mason

When we say "a game is good" we often mean something like the skill difference is comparable to pros playing against amateurs, (regardless of whether we ourselves are actual professionals) and we think our knowledge will keep us ahead.

In the equivalent situation in athletic sports - if a hobby golfer wanted to bet money on his golf game against a tired Rory McIroy, we would still say that's a good bet for Rory McIlroy - so I'm wondering if this is really that different here.

I think part of the difference is that in sports we more often play against people the same level so conventionally measure skill on a zoomed-in scale where the smallest edge is magnified, whereas in poker we (should) be playing against a wide range of skill levels so measure skill on a zoomed out birds-eye view of the scale on which the tiredness stuff doesn't have a discernible effect - also in poker training there is still so much low hanging fruit that can improve our level far more discernibly by teaching us about all things poker if we can just be bothered to read a book or do some lab work - whereas there is no golf book that is going to help McIlroy so he should just go to bed early.