"Playing Poker": Theory and Practice

[W. Deranged]

So I decided it was about time to make a long-winded, musing type post about poker that didn't involve any specific hands or anything like that. Three things have inspired this post. The first was the really gut-wrenching online session I just played, where I played horribly from start to finish, never felt comfortable at any table, and seemed to be making unsatisfactory decisions every fifth hand or so. The second was my lengthy live poker playing experience in Vegas this weekend, which reminded me why I prefer playing live so much more than playing online (and the answer is not simply free Yager shots). The last is my new, and apropos, title of "posts better than he plays."

While started kind of as a joke this weekend, the title is basically true. I post much better than I play. Not that I think I "play bad," but simply that I think my general ability to break down, analyze, and articulate poker concepts after the fact or divorced from actual playing situations is much better than my ability to apply the same methods of analysis to real-time situations and hence play sound poker. I am constantly feeling, particularly when playing online, that I am making bad decisions; sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. The important thing is that many times while playing I just feel like I have no idea what's going on. I sometimes feel like I just lose the analytical poker skills on which my game is based and start to shoot from the hip.

What I've come to realize is that playing poker is very much a two-part endeavor, at least for me. To put it in Aristotelian terms, there's a "theory" and "practice," which, in my opinion, are separate things.

The theory behind poker is what we do every day on these and the other forums here. We talk about pot equity and odds and relative position and value-betting and so on and so forth. This theory can be removed from it's context and applied to abstracted poker situations, which we can talk about slowly and deliberately without the pressure of making decisions. We can run spreadsheets and go to Pokerstove and do Bayesian analysis and argue about reads and so forth. Even seemingly momentary poker skills like hand-reading have a theoretical component, one which is becoming increasingly technical and increasingly abstract with the growing sophistication of statistical poker software. (Can you ever imagine, for example, Johnny Moss talking to Amarillo Slim about how a player's post-flop aggression factor needs to be calibrated to his VPIP?)

Personally, I love the theory behind poker. I would almost find it a fascinating thing if I never got to play it, and could actually only discuss it in forums like this. This is part of the reason I "post better than I play." But, to put it crudely, musing about theory and speaking in poker abstractions alone can't make us any money. We need to put the theory into practice.

And this is really the point of my post: the practice of poker. Every day when we all play poker we are forced to integrate a ton of concepts into very quick decisions, analyzing many different factors (hopefully correctly) and ultimately coming up with a decision. The kind of analysis that we all do at the table is in some sense fundamentally different from that which we do on these forums. We have no recourse to statements like "well, it's very read-dependent" or "meh" at the table. We have to make decisions immediately and hopefully correctly. Those of us who multi-table have an even greater challenge on our hands.

So what I've determined is that, as confident as I am in my grasp of the theory behind poker, I often feel like I'm a total fish when it comes to the practice of it. Part of this is experience. I don't doubt that by number of hands I'm one of the least experienced among us. I play many fewer hands than many of you probably do (I think my Pokertracker has less than 50,000 hands for me over the past 6 months or something). Poker is not my job or my primary interest, so the experience part is just something I'll have to take care of on my own.

But there's more to this discussion. And I'll offer it as a challenge to my beloved Small Stakes Forum:

How can I (and everyone else) become better at the practice of poker ? How can we get better at making decisions at the table? At prioritizing the various data we must deal with? At having confidence in our decisions? At screening our emotions from our reason? At paying attention to the most important things (a particularly important consideration for multi-tablers)? At feeling comfortable while playing?

Just a few thoughts. I'd love to hear any comments from anyone about times that they felt they started to play the game better, which is a very different thing from understanding the game better.

[sweetjazz]

Sounds to me like you need to slow down the pace of the game and force yourself to spend more time thinking about your decisions. Obviously, you can't spend 10 seconds on every action, so it sounds like you should work on focusing all of your attention on the hand in question.

I don't know if you are multitabling, but playing one table at a time would be a start if you do multitable. Work on keeping track of all the available data in your head and consciously force yourself to think of the action in terms of a 2+2 hand post. If it helps, try visualizing the action so far as it would appear in a converted hand history.

Putting theory into practice is supposed to be the easy part, though I think there are many people whose play is significantly worse than what their theoretical understanding of the game would lead you to believe. So there must be something to it.

[newhizzle]

very good post

i actually feel the same way, and i dont think i come near to posting or thinking about the game as good as you do

i think i play a bit to LAGgy in actual practice, i generally always think i can knock my opponents off their hands and make too many questionable call-downs because i think they play the same way, ive gotten better about it though

i also dont tend to think very much about the theoretical value of my options or my opponents possible holdings at the table, or at least not nearly as much as i would think before making a post, it would be nice to find a way to have a bit more discipline at the table and actually think things through in each hand, like if i were replying to someones post

[sweetjazz]

just curious...how many tables do you usually play at a time online? how often, if ever, do you 1-table?

[newhizzle]

i play 4 usually, i probably should play less, but i got a 2001FP coming in the mail soon, so that should help

[sweetjazz]

my hypothesis is that the people most affected by deranged's gap between theory and practice are those who multitable all the time. it's hard to make good decisions multitabling. i multitabled a lot at the lower limits and have done so a bit in the mid-limits trying to build bankroll. but i also do a lot of 1-tabling and 2-tabling. i find my game improves from playing 1 table significantly more than 2 tables and exponentially more than 3 or 4 tables. i get better reads and incorporate betting pattern reads into my decision-making if i am just playing a single table. sometimes i can have one or two of the live ones down like a book (though i probably overestimate that a bit...since i usually only seem to have the fish down when i am running good)

i think that playing one table for a prolonged period of time is vastly underrated on these boards. basically the cut in your current hourly rate has the potential to be completely dwarfed by an increase in your future hourly rates. and besides, it really is more fun to play one table well than to make slightly more going through the motions at four tables.

that's just my opinion.

[shant]

I was just joking. And might've been drunk. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[newhizzle]

this is definately something to consider, i dont know if this is could be part of deranged's problem also because he was also talking about playing live i believe

but i think you make a good point, every now and then ill start a session by 1 tabling a 3-handed or so game and i think i play pretty well in these games and i get my some of my opponents actions and betting patterns down almost perfectly, then when the table fills up ill open some more full games and start the grind, by the way, if i try to multitable these games it just dosent work

i should also probly stop posting while playing too

[newhizzle]

so are you changing your avatar every 5 minutes or so now?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Seriously some people with no card sense, intuitive ability, or talent (me) can only circumvent this by my work away from the table. You need to know everything so cold that you don't have to make irregular decisions on a regular basis. This takes a lot of time, but so what, you use what you're born with. The only benefit from my absolute zero talent is I can play almost any poker variation at an intermediate level within an hour or two of picking up the rules due solely to my understanding of theory. Intuitive players have no chance of that. Also my game selection abilities own because of this.

Realize what your talents are and tailor your poker around them.

[bigalt]

Aside from the pace differences between considering hands on the forums and while playing online, the format and settings are entirely different as well.

I personally think that posting hands and responding to hands on here can only take you so far. The threads that have really helped me are the ones which turn into an argument where people attack the situation from many sides and eventually zone in on a fundamental issue. But for a lot of the hands we see go through, we're training ourselves to "see" the situation in words on the screen, looking at the entire picture at once-- "let's see, the conveniently identified villain open limped in MP and then called the flop and check raised the turn, so..." i.e. the information is expressed very differently than in the game.

Which leads to my biggest problem when trying to truly focus playing on the table. I just don't know when to pay attention. Even on hands that I'm involved in, it's not until something interesting happens that I start to pay attention-- "oh crap, i just got check-raised on the turn. now what exactly happened leading up to that...?" You really have to work to remember the sequence of events, and though you probably can recall it, it's just that-- a sequence, rather than one big picture. Much different to read, IMO.

Man I'm tired, and I have no idea what I just typed. This is the sports betting forum right?

[Pharity]

Sounds like ur playing on autopilot. Maybe too many tables? Or maybe ur not just paying enough attention. Have you read Schoonmakers book? I think the chapter about "thinking visibly" was really helpful to get rid of the autopilot. And yea.. This is the sports betting forum..

[Moozh]

Good post. I've definitely thought about this also. While you seem to think that it's a bad thing that you're great at theory and bad at practice, I don't think you're looking at it the right way.

While I imagine it's possible for someone to master the 'practice' without the theory, I would expect that person to be very rare. I think the addage "learn to walk before you learn to run" applies very appropriately here. You shouldn't expect to be able to immediately turn your knowledge of theory into immedate practical use.

I think learning the theory behind poker is really one step in the development of a player (yes, perhaps obvious). What I want to make clear though is that I think the ability to put this knowledge to use is a completely separate step that comes after mastery of the theory is achieved.

Thus, you shouldn't despair that you post better than you play. I imagine that a vast majority of the people here are the same way. I also think that the practical ability isn't something that is innate, but rather something that must be developed over time. There are two ways to do this.

One is by continuing to post here and to take the time outside of a game to think about hands on multiple levels. This should give you practice with the thought process required during a game.

And thus, naturally, the other step is to make sure you are trying to apply this same thought process that you are developing here to the games as you play. This shouldn't come naturally because you don't start with experience doing it.

Over time, if you make the effort to try and think about hands while you play (and not just let yourself auto-pilot), you should become more and more comfortable at approching hands on a higher level during a game.

Well if you don't mind a sports analogy. A year or so back when Tiger Woods was not doing so hot. People would ask him about his swing and he would say that on the range he was hitting shot after shot perfectly and that the swing changes were taking hold. He called himself ranger rick. Eventually he started translating how he was hitting the ball on the range to real play.

Take from this what you will. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Moozh]

Hmm, just wanted to say that after reading my post again, it kind of comes off as a direct reply to Deranged. I just wanted to say to the OP that I realize this is more of a general statement and that my post should be read more as a statement to anyone (including myself) who feels the same way about posting better than you play.

[thejameser]

poker is as much a practice of discipline as it is an application of theory.

[flair1239]

Deranged,

Another good post. I felt as if you were talking about me, as I feel I am in the same boat.

I think in one of the Poker Essays books, Mason talks about how important thinking away from the table is, and in the First Super System (I have not read the 2nd one and have no interest in doing so) Brunson talks about how the subconsious mind cues information for you without you knowing it (The more I play the more I think this is true).

I four table (usually a couple full and a couple short handed games) and many times during a session I will be faced with two difficult complex situations at the same time. The funny thing is that I ususally know if I made a bad play about a .5 second after I click the button (I say damn it.. why did I do that). But that too is educational, as those moments beome less and less.

I think just constant refinforcement and thought about poker concepts gradually matriculates over into your real life game.

A side effect of this actually has me posting less. Many of the hands in my sessions that I find interesting are unpostable. Because there were so many factors/concepts involved in my decision(s), and so read based (and especially in shorthanded games rhythym based... meaning the "flow" of the game had an affect on my decison .. which is probably a controversial topic all by itself... but you guys know what I mean), that posting them would have very little content. However the those decisions are the end product of the simultaneous application of several simple individulal concepts. If that makes sense.

So learning the concepts is one level and then integrating them is another... eventually this brew of thinking, posting, playing ferments into "card sense" where in the heat of the moment you may make a decision without being able to verbalise exactly everything that was involved in the decision. But it is because your subconsious poker mind autopiloted the simple stuff, threw it to your active brain to make the judgement on a important issue... then you made the decision... the reason you could do it quickly is because the basic concepts are now imprinted on your pokermind to the point of being instinctual.

[toss]

I think playing good poker is like taking a multiple choice test. You shouldn't spend too long on the question and you should try to make as best a decision as you can with the alotted time. You have to be confident in your decision and keep your thought process in order. If you get overwhelmed with the tables then I'd start closing some down until you feel you have control again.



Good post. Posting is a lot easier since we have ample amounts of time and all the info. laid out neatly in front of us. When I'm playing 3 or 4 tables I'll often have to guess how my opponents play since I play at non-friendly PT sites. I also have an irrational fear that if I take more than 3 seconds to make a decision my opponents will figure out what I'm thinking.

As for getting better at the practice of poker I've grown the most playing .05/.1 at a Prima skin. I had lost hundreds at Party and Pacific and decided to really learn the game. I made concise notes on all of HPFAP and completely broke down SSH. I thought of scenario like flush draws and overcards and specifically tried to apply it to my game. The result is that I gradually built my bankroll up to $75 or so then won a couple of freerolls to bring my roll up to $345. Then I hit Party .5/1.

It seems everytime I move up a limit I have to improve or adjust my game. When I moved to 5/10 I almost never made any attempts to hand read at all. I learned that it was vital as I found myself frequently Stealing and Defending blinds.

[brazilio]

Jason Pohl's article on emulating good players goes into this somewhat, and I thought it was awfully applicative to my current situation. It's called A Secret About Winning. For me the practice has always been something a bit different, more intuitive and less logical, especially as I've moved to 3 and 4-way games where the automation of 6-max and full ring don't apply much.

[MaxPower]

I don't know how long you have been playing, but experience has a big effect on what you are talking about.

When I first started playing, there were concepts that I understood from reading Theory of Poker but I could not use them at the table. The more you play, the more you automatize the basic decisions which frees up your cognitive capacity and then you will have an easier time applying the concepts at the table.

I think playing live poker is the best way to learn how to apply concepts.

[RatFink]

I'm glad you post better than you play. I enjoy reading every one of your posts.

As for getting theory into practice, it really is time invested. While you can't run your poker-stove analysis at the table in the Bellagio for every decision, the more often you do so post-game the easier it is to feel very comfortable with the estimates that you must rely on in-game.

Basically keep doing what you are doing, and soon the in-game decisions come faster and without as much thought or analysis. Play hands. Play them at a slower rate so you can consider all of the variables in your decision. If you logged 100,000 hands in a month and never really considered much in your turn play other than "pots too big to fold now" then those 100,000 hands aren't developing you as a player anyway.

It isn't that much different than learning a new language. It's a struggle and a lot of learning and time invested early on. You learn how to conjugate all the verbs and proper spelling and can pass tests and write basic compositions. You can even correct other peoples assignments. Then you speak to a native speaker and they can't really understand a word you are saying. But you press on, and soon you can pick up the meanings of new words you've never heard because of the context they are used in. You don't have to refer to the theory of the language, because you live it. Wow, what a long drawn out analogy. Hope it helps make some point somewhere.

[JojoDiego]

Great post. I've been searching the archives for help with this, and even thought about making a similar post. I struggle greatly with applying theory to real hands. I only single-table because of it.

I once read a post or article that discussed pattern recognition. I think it said that in a real hand, unless you are Big Blue, you can't use a logical, conscious thought-process to crunch all the available info and make the correct decision in a timely manner. What we all do instead is look for patterns--e.g., "ooh, I've flopped a flush draw w/undercards between players with a 6-SB pot"--and compare that pattern to similar situations we have archived in our head. So theoretically, if we've studied, read and played a lot, we have a big archive and we get better and better at recognizing patterns and making appropriate decisions.

In my desperation to improve, I recently started talking the flop through out loud like a weirdo: What's the pot, is it big or small, what do I have and how coordinated is the flop? Then I try to work what I know about my opponents into the mix. I felt like I needed a structured system to help me process all the info, and I'm hoping repetition will burn it into my brain so I'll do it more subconsciously. I think it's helping; at the least, it takes me off autopilot.

Thanks for taking the time to write this post. I was tabling between 4-8 tables on Party 2/4 last night and lost $400 making a bunch of bad choices. (Including folding AKs in LP preflop accidently as a table popped up on me)
I told my wife this morning what an ididot I am and how I was going through the motions and being to impatient.
I hear the rags to riches stories, love the game, love the lifestyle and would just like to not have a day job. I want all of this to happen overnight.
This post has two important messages for me.
1)Put the time in going over your results and planning what you will do in various senarios.
2)Play less tables.
Sometimes the longest way home is the shortest.

[callmedonnie]

If it makes you feel any better, I post bad and play worse. Look where that has gotten me.

But in all seriousness, I wish I had more time often. Especially at live games, where whenever I need a second to double check the odds the dealer is sitting forcing me to decide. I hate that.

Multi-tabling I think makes things difficult on occasion, but in the long run I think makes more $. And usually I think I can make decent decisions. But I play 2/4, so what do I know. Maybe you should try playing a single table as an exercise to improve this. I am about to do that w/ 3/6, to get acclimated and be focused. Another thing about online play, is that from my experience there are usually better players online than live.

[Mike]

Ditto

I quit responding to how I would play a hand a few years ago because of the great differences between the book and the table. If I were to write a book, I have a certain group of players in mind. I use the common terms we all accept as correct, and then go on a long drawn out discourse of how to play correctly.

Then you read my book, don't know any better and assume what I talk about applies to your table(s). It doesn't work so well, and "What the hey, isn't this the way to do it?"

When I wrote about it, I envisioned a mix of three, three, three (player styles). The tables you sit at are a mix of six, two, one (player styles), or any combination in between depending on what your time slice is of the check in on player types.

I think the leap from the book, and this forum, to the table is absolutely huge. Everything we do is or should be player dependant for that single hand, ie, who is in the hand, and how do they play. Not, this is the way we do it, period.

I think online multitabling helps balance things out and hides this fault because you are looking at overall results more than single player results. On a single table, live at least, if you do not tailor your play to players in the hand, you tend to not do your best, because an average approach only brings average results. Or at least this is the way I see it.

[droolie]

I sincerely hope we all post better than we play.

You have the hard part down. You understand not only the very difficult theory behind perfect ABC poker but also the tendencies of flawed players and how to exploit their weaknesses and tendencies. This takes a very long time to absorb and the sheer volume of this knowledge cannot be underestimated. Putting it all into practice without error is incredibly difficult because there is so much to remember and you have so little time to make a decision.

Putting what you know into practice is a gradual thing. You get better and better at it the more you play. It's just a matter of speeding up the information analysis process. This requires practice and repitition. As a part-time player (and admitted multi-tabler) you do not play enough to expect to be able process all these extremely contextualized decisions so quickly that you will never make a mistake. Keep heart though, no one plays perfectly, we all make mistakes. The key is just making less mistakes than the competition you are playing against and making less mistakes as you develop as a player and move up in your competition level. I suspect no matter how many mistakes you are currently making you are making far less than your average opponent already.

You will make plenty of mistakes but the important thing to do is to try to recognize those mistakes as soon as possible after they happen. Ask yourself after every hand, "Could I have played that better?" If the answer is "yes" write a quick note down as to what you felt you did wrong. For me I frequently miss river value bets. I know this is a major leak in my game and I am constantly trying to work on recognizing situations in which I have value bets and forcing myself to have the courage to click the "BET" button.

If mutlitabling does not allow you to analyze your play in real time drop tables until you find the right balance. I usually play 4 tables because I know I will make more money for that session, mistakes and all, over just playing one or two tables. I realize that this short-term greed comes at the expense of development of my poker skills but I like to strike a balance. I play the large part of my sessions on multitable auto-pilot and a part of them on one or two tables to work on my game, usually at a higher limit than my home limit.

When I work on my game a go into hyper-paying-attention mode. I'm looking for patterns to develop in the game. I'm looking for unusual moves players make and putting them into context. That 35/12/4 guy in seat 2 C/R the flop with air on a AKT board into a pfr. Later he donks the turn when an A hits and it turns out he has the A. These are things that in time start to say something not only about that specific player but that specific player type. In the future I will be able to exploit these types of tendencies and feel more comfortable in uncomfortable situations when players put me to the test.

I wrote a pretty long post on this in micros a while back that might explain process of finding these patterns better than I could in this post... Paying attention (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=3158790&Forum =f21&Words=%2BAttention&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main =3158790&Search=true&where=sub&Name=15411&daterang e=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bo dyprev=#Post3158790)

[Mister Z]

This concept reminds me a lot of playing music. In practice and in theory you can sit around and analyze why this phrase works over these chords and how these concepts relate and so on. But when you sit down with other musicians or get up on stage all that [censored] has to go out the window. You really do have to forget all that theory and just play and interact and keep your eyes and ears open. If you're up there on stage thinking about what scale you should be playing in over this type of chord and the theory behind what you're doing... you're really screwed. Now, poker is not music, but there are a lot of parallels. Who here hasn't made a decision based on a line or concept you might have been reading about recently only to find out that you were ignoring some pretty important factors? Playing poker is really improvisational and largely abstract - too much analytical thinking can get in the way.

That being said, all that time you spend AWAY from the poker table (or away from your instrument) is so that some of the theory behind the theory can creep into the parts of your brain that make those instant decisions.

[jason_t]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.---Yogi Berra

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto

[/ QUOTE ]

Hedley Lamarr: My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.

Taggart: Ditto.

Hedley Lamarr: DITTO? Ditto, you provincial putz?

Will

[W. Deranged]

Fantastic discussion, guys. Thanks.

[brettbrettr]

I'm way to tired to read this right now. Tomorrow for sure, and then maybe even something constructive shortly thereafter.

I would however like to point out that Jager is spelled with a "J."

That is all.

Brett

[callmedonnie]

I'll spell MFUYA.

[Dagger78]

W., you've responded to basically every single post I've ever made and helped me a bunch with thinking out the process of hands.

My opinion is just continue with your out of game analysis (which is excellent) of hands and try to relate these to real in-game situations. I've been recently noticing I've been making plays that are correct without deep analysis at the time the hand is occuring. I don't know if this "feel" is escaping you at the moment or if you just aren't feeling comfortable at the tables.

I would suggest slowing down your pace of play until you start feeling more comfortable with your decisions. I think you're an excellent player and you might also but just doubting yourself at the table(I find I do this semi-often even though I know I'm a winning player).

The things that have done the most to increase my confidence.

I got a huge boost the first time I made a quite advanced play without requiring much thought. It was a situation I'd seen discussed on the forums and the play just "felt right"

I like to occasionally look at pokergrapher while I'm playing. It reminds me I'm a solid winnner and that swings seriously suck.

I try to replay the hands I lost to confirm I palyed them correctly given the information available at the time.

Good Luck, I'm sure you'll be fine

[meep_42]

When I've thought about this very same idea in the past the answer that came to me was something akin to a story I heard about CMI's favorite golfer, Tiger Woods. From an early age it was ingrained into him that on every shot he needed to take several specific things into account. Now, I'm not a golfer so the specifics meant nothing to me at the time, so I don't recall them -- but, after time Tiger didn't need to actually think about these things as he prepared for a shot. They became just part of what he does -- keeping his mind clearer, less cluttered and more able to relax, or focus on some other important detail specific to the situation.

This board, to me, is preparation. Concepts and cold analysis get pushed into our brains the more we encounter them, and on more than one occasion has a single phrase resonated with me and changed my entire view on a situation. Like flipping on a lightswitch. Taken out of the context of what i've experienced, read, and learned, they probably mean nothing. But, to me they do, and it allows me to play a little better, to actively think a little less about one thing and concentrate on others. To build intuition.

So, to sum, I think that these boards, this theory and cold analysis is exactly what may make us better, beyond the typical book-reading sense.

Anyhow, it's late and I have work in a few hours.

-d

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you don't mind a sports analogy. A year or so back when Tiger Woods was not doing so hot. People would ask him about his swing and he would say that on the range he was hitting shot after shot perfectly and that the swing changes were taking hold. He called himself ranger rick. Eventually he started translating how he was hitting the ball on the range to real play.

Take from this what you will. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear I didn't intend to make 2 Tiger references in one thread.

-d

[brettbrettr]

Hi Will,

This is a good post, and like others have said, I dont think posting better than you play is in any way exclusive to just you.

Like others, I agree that integrating into a real-time desision what become so obvious away from the table is merely a matter of practive and experience. Doing EV calcs, posting hands, replying to hands, these are all just excercises, "time on the range," if you will. And I have to think that the gap between doing what you do and doing what you know you ought to do closes the more time you spend at the table FOCUSED, and refusing to play on auto-pilot.

Oh, and whoever said Slim and Moss talking about VPIP and things like this, you should understand that poker players 40 years ago recognized the same leaks we do now, they just talked about them in a different language.

Brett

[chief444]

Good post WD.

I doubt if anyone plays as well as they post. Some get very close to it. The gap between playing ability and posting ability is much greater for some. But experience closes that gap. If everyone played as well as they posted there would be no point in reviewing our own sessions. Posting and reading the forum, along with reading and studying the game...and I'll add thinking INDEPENDENTLY about situations...help us identify our own mistakes. Experience helps minimize those mistakes and in turn closes the gap between playing and posting ability. But you need the knowledge and understanding of the game to first realize what those mistakes are.