Al's best article

[gergery]

This month's article was by far Al's best yet. Good stuff.

I like it better when he sticks to the psychology, rather than straying to economics or negotiation.

As an aside, I think the single biggest piece of value I've gotten from Al comes from his book and relates to this month's article on listening. It's examing your own motivations, which i think of being at its essence, really listening to yourself.

Sometimes I'll find myself reading someone's post and getting alittle annoyed and getting ready to fire a reply back, and i often find it helpful to ask, "but why I am doing this, what really if I'm honest with myself, am I trying to accomplish here?"

Asking that often totally changes what i would have posted.

And that's why Al's article this month, which is really about listening to yourself and listening to others, struck me as particularly good.

--Greg

[BarronVangorToth]

Al might be one of the best poker writers out there that ... rarely talks about poker. Surprisingly enough, even with my passion for the game and my knowledge that he rarely (if ever) will even passingly refer to anything that would be remotely misconstrued as strategy, when I see his name anywhere (CardPlayer, 2+2 online mag, wherever) I immediately always go there.

You're right, this was above and beyond Al's normal high quality mark.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Rasputin]

I would concur with the general assessment of the good Dr's work.

I had a nice little epiphany moment reading PoP and realizing that I'm playing poker because I want to be good at something as much as I am because I want to win money. It led to a tendency to try to get cute too often and in games where it wouldn't pay.

Of course, I'm really just not that good yet which brings me to a suggestion for a future article/column somewhere.

Everyone knows that there are a number of things that should be considered before acting. I find that when playing I ignore half the things I am supposed to be considering, usually to my detriment.

If there are tips and tricks people have used to train themselves to consider everything, I would love to hear them.

I think verbalizing your thought process is a great place to start but I'm thinking there must be more and I would love to hear it.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a nice little epiphany moment reading PoP and realizing that I'm playing poker because I want to be good at something as much as I am because I want to win money.

[/ QUOTE ]


Absolutely. ANYTHING you do just to make money oftentimes (most times? always?) you won't do as well compared to those things you do that you enjoy.

People that play poker that don't enjoy it but do it to just make money can still be successful ... but not really, especially not in the larger scheme of "successful."

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. ANYTHING you do just to make money oftentimes (most times? always?) you won't do as well compared to those things you do that you enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough but at some point if you're doing things to make yourself look and feel cool and they're costing you money then you have to realize that winning the money makes you look and feel cooler than trying to put fancy plays on where they don't belong.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a nice little epiphany moment reading PoP and realizing that I'm playing poker because I want to be good at something as much as I am because I want to win money. It led to a tendency to try to get cute too often and in games where it wouldn't pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realized I play for the intellectual challenge of it. I loved strategy games like Chess, Hearts, Diplomacy, Warcraft, Civilization, etc. growing up.

What I've found is that I'll continue playing for the intellectual stimulation when i should quit because I'm either a) no longer fresh and playing my best, b) on tilt, c) now in a rock garden, d) wanting to match myself up against the best players to see how I do.

All of these are bad for your bankroll.

While I agree that pursuing something you love will always be more profitable in the long-run than just pursuing something for money, in this case, pursuing something you love and get intrinsic satisfaction from can create motivations that are not profit maximizing.

The way around it that I've found is just be aware of it, try to notice when its happening, and force yourself to take the appropriate corrective action (ie. I try to review table characteristics frequently and make sure i leave the rock garden).

-greg

[imported_Robert Andersson]

Really nice and useful article! I think it takes comprehensive knowledge to reach the top.

/Robert

[Al Schoonmaker]

The problem is that it is literally impossible to consider everything. In one of his essays books Mason discussed a critical difference between players: The really good ones just think faster. Their mental speed gives them a huge edge over the rest of us.

If you don't think that fast (and I certainly don't), the single best thing to do is SLOW DOWN. Poker is not like chess. There is no timer, and a few seconds thought can immensely improve your decisions.

Roy Cooke does a superb job of describing the way he thinks about a hand, and he is extremely slow. In fact, he has admitted many times in print that he goes into a huddle to think about what to do.

Regards,

Al

P.S. Thanks to everyone for the kind words.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized I play for the intellectual challenge of it. I loved strategy games like Chess, Hearts, Diplomacy, Warcraft, Civilization, etc. growing up.

[/ QUOTE ]


A bit off topic, but as a general gaming geek, I hear this said a lot of "I liked these games when I was young / growing up" -- and I always suggest people check them out / try to get in games even now that they're "grown up." Yeah, it's harder to get together for a game of Diplomacy ... but it's still a satisfying gaming experience and worth pursuing.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
This month's article was by far Al's best yet. Good stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreee. It's funny that it goes in hand and hand with Lorinda's article.

Lack of objectivity may be the aspiring badass poker player's worst enemy.

For me, this is definitely true.

A lot of poker colleagues around town say, "[censored] 2+2, they are all just a bunch of assholes."

Occasionally, this is true, but more often, they post only to get confirmation of a bad play, theory, etc, and when correct criticism comes their way, they readily ignore it.

The friend who turned me into a winning player is just like this, and I guess it's no wonder he's still making a living off of the micro-limits 2 years later.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
"[censored] 2+2, they are all just a bunch of assholes."

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be filed in the "slogans never to be used on T-shirts" folder.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[StellarWind]

Al writes a lot of good stuff.

Like an ancient mariner sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, learning from other people is a dangerous journey between two great dangers. Al has highlighted one of those dangers: closing your mind to the truth because it does not meet your preconceptions or emotional needs.

But there is another peril that is just as dangerous. Opening up your mind so far that you accept whatever people tell you. Even the greatest authorities in a field are often wrong. Of course most books, articles, and 2+2 posts are not even written by any kind of authority. Not to mention genuine authorities who advise outside their area of expertise without warning you. BTW, my degrees are in math, not psych /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

There is no absolute solution for distinguishing between good and bad advice. Perhaps my experience as a chess player has helped me at poker. I know I paid a terrible price for the mistakes I made while studying chess books. But I think I've done better with my poker books. Anyway here are a few suggestions:

1. Don't accept poker advice you don't understand. I may need to accept that the power brakes on my car work without ever understanding why, but poker is a simple game. Nothing is so complicated that a good player is incapable of understanding it if he makes an effort. Now of course you may need to provisionally accept Ed Miller's advice that you should raise TT UTG in a small stakes game. After all you want to play tonight and you have to do something when TT comes up. But don't file it away as an immutable fact. Revisit the question from time-to-time until you truly understand why it's the right play. Or perhaps you will come up with a better answer or at least one that better suits your needs.

2. Read widely and take input from many different sources. Many experts are terrible about not distinguishing their personal opinion from accepted expert opinion. If you have lots of sources you are much more likely to recognize whether the advice you are receiving is routine or controversial.

3. Do your own research. Try to figure things out for yourself. You'll develop both skills and a deeper understanding of the subject. But remember that the primary benefit of the research is usually not the results. It's the process and the work that went into them that makes you a better player.

4. Play within your limitations. Don't make plays you don't understand. If you are a winning player you should know a reasonable way of dealing with the current situation. Just do it. Don't worry about looking weak, or passive, or what the strategy forum gurus would say. Just do something you understand and move on. You can always study the clever alternative you heard about but don't really understand at a later time. Remember that even if the play you don't understand is correct and actually applies to the current hand, it won't help you much if you have no idea how to play the next street.

5. Don't disparage people with offbeat opinions. This is a real 2+2 collective failing and I cringe when I see it. Many posters are extremely dogmatic about fundamental strategic ideas. Well I have news for them. Hold'em is an immature game. I know what chess and bridge players used to believe when the theories of those games were in a similar stage of development. I assure you that a tremendous amount of currently accepted theory will be discredited or replaced in the next few years.

Listen to the eccentrics and the innovators, especially the ones who argue their cases well. You don't have to adopt their ideas but you need to remember them. Someday you might find a use for something you heard once. Especially in poker, a wrong idea is often just a good idea waiting for a slightly different structure or game conditions.

[imported_Robert Andersson]

nice post StellarWind!

[Al Schoonmaker]

As always, your post was clearly stated and comprehensive. I just wish you posted more often.

Thanks,

Al

[ipp147]

Fantastic post

[ QUOTE ]
5. Don't disparage people with offbeat opinions. This is a real 2+2 collective failing and I cringe when I see it. Many posters are extremely dogmatic about fundamental strategic ideas. Well I have news for them. Hold'em is an immature game. I know what chess and bridge players used to believe when the theories of those games were in a similar stage of development. I assure you that a tremendous amount of currently accepted theory will be discredited or replaced in the next few years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting point. Does anyone have any ideas about what this might be - one for the theory forum?

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
Fantastic post

[ QUOTE ]
5. Don't disparage people with offbeat opinions. This is a real 2+2 collective failing and I cringe when I see it. Many posters are extremely dogmatic about fundamental strategic ideas. Well I have news for them. Hold'em is an immature game. I know what chess and bridge players used to believe when the theories of those games were in a similar stage of development. I assure you that a tremendous amount of currently accepted theory will be discredited or replaced in the next few years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting point. Does anyone have any ideas about what this might be - one for the theory forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

in this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2300851&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=13#Post2364333) thread, many of the forum regulars dismiss the player (a LAG) in question as riding the mother of all hot-streaks rather than exploring the idea he may play a differing style that has merit.