12-06-2001, 04:28 AM
I am going to preface this by saying i'm drunk,
so you need not read anymore if you have read
a drunk's post before. However, maybe thats shallow. After all Bill Smith was a drunk yet he
won the world series of poker in 1985. Furthermore
Stu Unger won 3 times and it's no secret he had his demons.
So if your still here, im going to take you on
a little trip. Two things have lead me to be drunk
right now a high i.q. and a photographic memory.
Now lets talk poker.
First of all I only play hold'em now. A good book wont turn any particular player into a winner. The reason is two fold, you cant teach anyone money management. You can either manage your money or you can't. If your always broke, or
live pay cheque to pay cheque, you simply cannot
manage money. Let me be a little more specific.
Let's say you have a low paying job and you smoke.
somehow you find money to buy cigarettes. I live
in Canada the tax is heavy. A small package of cigarettes costs 5 dollars. Assume a 20 year old
starting to smoke who can't manage money and he
smokes a pack a day until 65. That would equal over $80, 000 dollars he could have invested.
Would he have invested this? NO! he can't manage money he would have spent it on something else, if he had never smoked. Going to give another example (i think im incoherent). There is about 200+ working days in a
year. A lot of people buy coffee (lots of coffee shops). Lets say you buy 2 cups a day at work, thats close to 500 dollars a year times about 40 working years (20 grand). In other words we find
a way to squander money. You could easily just have 1 cup of coffee a day which you made at home
at a fraction of the cost or go without it (you don't need it: no nutrional value). Moreover i remember (photographic memory) that when i hadn't
ever drank a cup that i woke up more alert than
when i woke up sluggish and then drank a cup.
Bottom line no one can teach you money management.
If you play over your head or under bankrolled no
one can gaurantee a win, even if you outclass your
opponents.
The second thing you can't reallistically change
is emotional control. If you get emotional when
your cut of in traffic and can't hold it back. Then you suck. This is tilting in poker. No one
can control how they feel. Not when they get emotional, and you either get emotional or you don't. This is where the saying "its a fine line
between love and hate" comes into play and statistically speaking your more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. Its
logical you can easily become enraged by someone you know.
Summary so far if your confused:
1-am drunk
2-you cannot or its very difficult to teach money
management.
3-It's impossible or difficult to teach emotional
control.
Now lets go to economics. Concept: diminishing
marginal returns. I will leave it up to the reader
to figure out what it is. But I would love this
take an inexperienced player give him one book. Let him play 1000 hours of holdem, then give him
another, let him play another 1000 hours, does his
rate go up or down? and so on...
So here's the thing, the best authors on poker are in my opinion sklansky and malmuth, Ciaffone,
and Caro. Now you get on this forum i've read the
following 10 books on poker whats next? Its like
hello if you've read and study those books you really don't need anything else, its diminishing
marginal returns. Your either a winner or your not. If your not you will never be because you
have either money management or emotion to blame
or you simply don't know how to study. A better
reply to what you should read next is that you
should simply re-read the books the books you already have and try to understand them (MY I.Q.)
Just going to ramble a little more. Feel like
attacking Inside the poker mind- John F's book.
First of all there is nothing wrong with the book.
So it's kind of hard to attack. What i mean by that is if i write a book and sell it for 25 dollars and all i write is pocket aces is the best
starting hand, no one can dispute that, But does the book have value? See what i am getting at?
I think i am right but i have been drinking and
its been months since i read it, John says something like Vito always had a tall stack of chips, many thought he was a winner but he was a loser, yet many after hearing he was a winner took the popular believe he was. Saying something
like so many took him as a winner no one wanted to
go against the grain. Well i kind of remember Mason advertising the book just before and/or just
after it was published saying something like we
were suprised just how good it was, and many posters following suit. Quite frankly the book isn't that good, yet there is nothing seriously wrong with it.
Okay i'll stop here since i am so drunk. But
if you want to agree or attack any part of this
post, i will defend it when i sober out, and i left the best stuff out which i'll post later.
Rocky
so you need not read anymore if you have read
a drunk's post before. However, maybe thats shallow. After all Bill Smith was a drunk yet he
won the world series of poker in 1985. Furthermore
Stu Unger won 3 times and it's no secret he had his demons.
So if your still here, im going to take you on
a little trip. Two things have lead me to be drunk
right now a high i.q. and a photographic memory.
Now lets talk poker.
First of all I only play hold'em now. A good book wont turn any particular player into a winner. The reason is two fold, you cant teach anyone money management. You can either manage your money or you can't. If your always broke, or
live pay cheque to pay cheque, you simply cannot
manage money. Let me be a little more specific.
Let's say you have a low paying job and you smoke.
somehow you find money to buy cigarettes. I live
in Canada the tax is heavy. A small package of cigarettes costs 5 dollars. Assume a 20 year old
starting to smoke who can't manage money and he
smokes a pack a day until 65. That would equal over $80, 000 dollars he could have invested.
Would he have invested this? NO! he can't manage money he would have spent it on something else, if he had never smoked. Going to give another example (i think im incoherent). There is about 200+ working days in a
year. A lot of people buy coffee (lots of coffee shops). Lets say you buy 2 cups a day at work, thats close to 500 dollars a year times about 40 working years (20 grand). In other words we find
a way to squander money. You could easily just have 1 cup of coffee a day which you made at home
at a fraction of the cost or go without it (you don't need it: no nutrional value). Moreover i remember (photographic memory) that when i hadn't
ever drank a cup that i woke up more alert than
when i woke up sluggish and then drank a cup.
Bottom line no one can teach you money management.
If you play over your head or under bankrolled no
one can gaurantee a win, even if you outclass your
opponents.
The second thing you can't reallistically change
is emotional control. If you get emotional when
your cut of in traffic and can't hold it back. Then you suck. This is tilting in poker. No one
can control how they feel. Not when they get emotional, and you either get emotional or you don't. This is where the saying "its a fine line
between love and hate" comes into play and statistically speaking your more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. Its
logical you can easily become enraged by someone you know.
Summary so far if your confused:
1-am drunk
2-you cannot or its very difficult to teach money
management.
3-It's impossible or difficult to teach emotional
control.
Now lets go to economics. Concept: diminishing
marginal returns. I will leave it up to the reader
to figure out what it is. But I would love this
take an inexperienced player give him one book. Let him play 1000 hours of holdem, then give him
another, let him play another 1000 hours, does his
rate go up or down? and so on...
So here's the thing, the best authors on poker are in my opinion sklansky and malmuth, Ciaffone,
and Caro. Now you get on this forum i've read the
following 10 books on poker whats next? Its like
hello if you've read and study those books you really don't need anything else, its diminishing
marginal returns. Your either a winner or your not. If your not you will never be because you
have either money management or emotion to blame
or you simply don't know how to study. A better
reply to what you should read next is that you
should simply re-read the books the books you already have and try to understand them (MY I.Q.)
Just going to ramble a little more. Feel like
attacking Inside the poker mind- John F's book.
First of all there is nothing wrong with the book.
So it's kind of hard to attack. What i mean by that is if i write a book and sell it for 25 dollars and all i write is pocket aces is the best
starting hand, no one can dispute that, But does the book have value? See what i am getting at?
I think i am right but i have been drinking and
its been months since i read it, John says something like Vito always had a tall stack of chips, many thought he was a winner but he was a loser, yet many after hearing he was a winner took the popular believe he was. Saying something
like so many took him as a winner no one wanted to
go against the grain. Well i kind of remember Mason advertising the book just before and/or just
after it was published saying something like we
were suprised just how good it was, and many posters following suit. Quite frankly the book isn't that good, yet there is nothing seriously wrong with it.
Okay i'll stop here since i am so drunk. But
if you want to agree or attack any part of this
post, i will defend it when i sober out, and i left the best stuff out which i'll post later.
Rocky