I grew up learning how to play poker with PrimordialAA a lot. We struggled through the stages together and eventually both became winners even though we went into completely different directions. While Primo became the multi-tabling analytical monster he is today I became what most players call a "feel player". This has caused quite a bit of tension between us when reviewing hands. Players like Primo always argue with math while my aproach is rather psychological. I don't usually adjust my ranges based on mathematical models, but rather based on gameflow and the emotional status I believe my opponent is in. So reviewing hands is pretty much impossible because you can never put yourself into the same emotional state you were when the hand happened.

My actual aproach to the game seems quite simple. Just get into the head of your opponent, analyze the game flow and use your opponents emotional swings against him. I believe most mistakes players make actually happen when they show emotions. Realizing and reacting to these is the whole point of the psychological aproach. Even though this aproach can be very successful, playing like this does come with a price. I really have to focus in on a single person and can not, to save my life, mutli table. Even with just two tables running my focus is decreasing dramatically. Where players like Primo can switch into auto-mode, I can't, because my style is so read dependent.

Also for the longest time losing would put me on absolute monkey-tilt because one tabling just feels so damn personal. Thanks to very good bankroll management I learned how to control myself now and am very happy with my game. Still, there is never much discussion going on about feel-based players so I'm wondering how common this aproach actually is? Am I a complete outcast or is this nothing unusual?

I don't think one can make a clear case that one or the other aproach is best but I'd be interested in what experiences other people have made with these.

(Tormentor87)

multi-tabling analytical monster > feel player

Sounds like you're just too lazy to learn to play poker. This is how fish play too.

livb = fish?

whatever wins the most monies is the best

I don't really think it is one or the other. Certain situations will depend on one or the other skill sets. If you want to be a talented player you need to play with both. If someone is clearly on mega-monkey tilt obviously you need to be somewhat adept and be able to pick up on that. Conversely you need to be making correct mathematical calls as well to be fully successful - especially in sngs.

Of course this can go more in depth but the point is any player who is one sided one this will be losing to the players who have both of these qualities. Though can still be winning players in their own respect and able to beat the fish.

I never intended having a discussion about which style is best. There are definitely benefits to both, so combining them is best imo. I played poker for 4 years now learning how to analyze other player's emotions and tendencies. That just means I chose a different way to beat the game than many others not that I am too lazy to learn poker properly. Clearly there is a huge psychological aspect to the game, exploiting that can't be "wrong".

Livb said somewhere that mathematical models get automatically implemented in his game when he is using his feel-game aproach. I never said that I don't know the math aspect behind the decisions. I'm not too lazy to learn those parts but it gets used rather passively with my style.

You have to have a balance of both and i believe that Bryan has a nice balance between being able to read gameflow, and knowing the theory and maths behind his decisions. Auto-mode isn't purely based on maths because you can still read gameflow and have good reads on your opponents even whilst 4 tabling for example.

Having your ability to read gameflow and understand your opponents thought process should really allow you to multi-table more effectively if you learn the maths etc to go with it.

Title says Math is Idiotic but you say seems a little weird. Having a good feel for your opponent is important. That's where you get your ranges from etc..

Depends what game you play. Feel players can do infinitely well at HU, it's just not possible at 6max.

I shared this story before on these forums that I was definitely a feel player for the longest time. I knew what implied odds were etc, yet I got so comfortable being a feel player I'd very often make -EV calls on the turn with a flush draw where even if I stacked villain 100% of the time, I lost money. Math has its place even in HU.

But regardless:

Emotional Control / psychological training trumps anything else.

Yeah, just figured I'd use the Greenstein quote from HSP to get a discussion going... no harm intended :P


Edit: And I'm definitely talking about HU games.

Math poker=ABC poker, psych poker=deviations from ABC?

More or less. But the reality is that the majority of breakeven/small winnings players fail at even the most basic ABC poker in practice.

Yea I hear you. As you said problem is u can play only 1 table effectively and those beats feel just brutal and unfair when u know 100% how to exploit the villain but just don't get enough situations or time or they just suckout over your brilliant set up.

Thing is, like over 90% of the decisions r very standard and although u think u need "feel" for them, usually they r just very simple and u could do the same on 2 tables if u just "think" of them for a few seconds. They don't have dozens of variables in play which u need to "feel", usually just two or three, which are just perfect number for your conscious mind.

Feel is mainly about empathy, but it's very hard if not impossible to be 100% empathic to 2 or more ppl at the same time. So I wouldn't even try it. I would try to learn different approach for multitabling (like learning to remember the main reads, like 3bet freq, barreling tendencies, bluffiness etc) and be happy playing 1 table from feel.

The biggest leak is the decision not even considered.

I have seen it countless times in my coaching career.

Student will have bottom pair on the river and villain bets:

Me: "Why did you fold?"
Student: "Because I had bottom pair!"
Me: "..."

Math gives you the knowledge to explore alternatives. If you know math you can calculate things on the fly and know just how often your bluff needs to work to raise in a spot like that, or how often you have to be right when you call etc etc etc

Feel can never do the same. When your off and you're a feel player, your game will change dramatically. Math players can feel confident about the vast majority of their decisions because they are mathematically correct.

How often do/did you actually make plays that go entirely against what math tells you to do? Besides the flush draws you used to chase on the turn...

Feel decisions are definitely incredibly situational. I'm just wondering if in some situations a decision based on your feel might even beat a decision based on math...? It sounds messed up because math is an absolute. But poker is a all about getting an edge on information and is it possible to get an information edge solely on your feelings....?

The math doesn't really tell you to do anything per say. There are certain situations where the assumptions that need to be made are huge, and the "math" kinda fails. I put math in quotations because the math actually works, it's the inputs to the math (the assumptions) that fail.

A great example is trying to figure out someone's double barreling frequency in HU 3bet pots OOP. It's not very static so you sort of have to guess sometimes.

But to answer your question, if the math was staring me in the face and I knew about it, I'd go against it 0% of the time.

It sounds like we view poker the same way but are articulating things differently. Especially in HU, I completely agree that there are situations where math has no relevance and you have to go by feel. One of those spots would be calling down extremely light. The only hard and fast math available would be their barreling percentage and your immediate pot odds.

Yeah, this. Everything can be answered with math. When math players make mistakes, it's because they're not doing the math correctly. "Math player" versus "Feel player" just means "this math mistakes a player concentrating on the math usually makes" versus "the math mistakes a player concentrating on feel usually makes".

I can relate alot to the original post..

I think maths has its place based in certain contexts, particularly when villains lines are gonna be pretty fixed like 'if X river comes (X amount of outs), I can v-bet Y and he will call Z% of the time, I know this because there hand is face up and I know how they play. If A river comes, I can bluff, and it will get through enough % of the time for it to be profitable (working out your tripple barrel range etc..). The benefits of have solid maths understanding is probably more important vs fish that play v face up..

When it comes to preflop play and 20-30bb region, I think playing a maths regulated style is prob +ev vs most fish but not close to optimal I find (like ok, I limp every button, and his raise % is this, so I limp/jam this range, call off this range and muck this range vs X sized raises etc..).. Because when you play this way vs good players you will just get penetrated (anally)

I also feel like my edge drops a fair amount when adding more tables.

I've never understood how knowing something additional could possibly hurt your play if you are reasonably intelligent. People improve their poker play with all kinds of outlets math is another way to do strengthen your poker play and IMO given the amount of highly successful players who use it often, it would be unwise to discount it as beneficial.

i think feel players can justify -ev calls/bets more which leads them to not relising why it was -ev (by going through poker stove/posting on forum etc..) and keeps a results orietated mind about the game.

It will obviously never hurt to know something additional. Math is a huge part of the game and I never denied that.

I actually think the most dangerous part of a feel-aproach is to be in constant danger of out-leveling yourself. Basic decisions can make my mind go nuts at times and I'm thinking 1 or two levels above a relatively easy decision. Should have just looked at the situation, make an easy math-based decision and move on.

It's all situational that's for sure.

Then I guess I dont get this thread. "Math is idiotic, except its kind of helpful?"

<3 Al


@cwar, the quote was obv just a joke, he knows math isnt idiotic, and can analyze hands reasonably well and prolly work out alot of the math around it, he just doesnt actively implement it into his game that much

gotta love this monkey
<3

Ah ok, I prob should have actually read the OP