Mr. Cooke v Mr.Sklansky

I think this topic has been mentioned before on the forum but anyway...

in the latest edition of Card Player there are conflicting arguments by

Roy Cooke and David Sklansky regarding discipline or "going on tilt".


Roy Cooke argues that playing your best game consistantly is a huge advantage

over more emotional players and shows an example in which out of 3 players

the least skilled wins the most money over time, due to "emotional control

and mental strength".

Mr Sklansky argues in his Pros vs Wannabes article that lack of discipline

is just a convenient excuse among losing players and that he finds it hard

to believe that potential pros would risk the possiblity of a successful career

in poker by steaming on occasion...which as we all know, can be very costly.


IMHO I think that regardless of poker expertise and talent, there are many players

out there (hopefully not reading this) that fail to break even or reach their

full potential down to the single fact that they steam, go in tilt, lose

control, lack mental strength or whatever you want to call it.

Is "going on tilt" something that all aspiring players can overcome even if they

are emotionally weak and have a tendency to lose it after such a run of bad beats

"you wouldnt beleive it!" I dont think so. Isnt the reason many players with the skill

and knowledge to succeed blow up is because they enjoy the action too much and cant

resist seeing the turn in case that miracle card hits?

And on the flip side of the coin isnt this the reason that the consistent grinders who

nearly always play their A1 game (not a superstars A1 game)can earn a living playing

poker even if they may not have the skill of

the talented tilters.

So in this case, I would agree with Roy Cooke's arguement, and though it hurts me to say,

(seeing as I own and have read Mr Sklansky's books like gospel) think that discipline

is one of the biggest differences that seperates the pros from the wannabes.


Any views on this please?

I agree with you and Roy and disagree with part of David. As you paraphrased:


"Mr Sklansky argues in his Pros vs Wannabes article that lack of discipline is just a convenient excuse among losing players ..."


That part I agree with in the same way -- but to a lesser degree -- that an alcoholic could use his addiction as an excuse for drinking too much and too often. The objectionable word is "convenient."


" ... and that he finds it hard

to believe that potential pros would risk the possiblity of a successful career

in poker by steaming on occasion...which as we all know, can be very costly."


I find it hard to believe that David finds this hard to believe. Smells of sanctimony.


Tommy

Perhaps Sklansky views emotional control a "choice" that one has easy control over. Emotional control is not a choice but a personality trait and part of one's physcological makeup that is very difficult to change. Some have it others don't.

Sklansky has good emotional control and this is why he can't see why others do not also .


I agree with Cook's example also .

Sklansky is still the genious and is universaly correct, he just dismisses the emotional control issue as an "excuse" for lack of poker success.


For great reading on this read "Zen and the Art of Poker "

The use here of "emotional control" is rather generic, although we all have an idea to what this alludes.


Someone with a schizoid disorder, or another person simply lacking in ambition both could be guilty of a lack of emotional control in poker. The schizoid subject can exert much less personal will over his/her affliction, while it is arguable that the other person lacking in ambition might simply be lazy and able to play better if he/she simply tried.


As for excuses, willpower and the tendency to go on-tilt I think that a strong resolve and desire to get ahead can compensate somewhat for a lack of skill. Likewise, self-defeatist tendencies can be rationalized to one's self by excuses such as "I was emotionally distracted." Regardless, it is those competitors who push themselves to perform their best at all times that will prevail.


Some people are simply stronger-willed than others and that's the way it always will be. The thrill of the gamble will always be there to lure otherwise proper players away from the correct play, and it is the resistance to this stimulus among others that helps separate the winners from the losers in poker.

I was just reading Jim Brier's excellent article "On Tilt" in his book "Inside The Poker Mind".I think every player should read it, even good players who don't think that tilt is a problem for them.


Jim makes great analogies and gives excellent advice that make it easier to avoid even the slightest tilt.

Pierre, I wish I could take credit for writing "Inside The Poker Mind" but I cannot. John Feeney wrote that excellent book. However, I agree with your assessment.

Although I do not see a conflict between Roy Cooke's article and David Sklansky's, I fully agree with Sklansky. While there are people who have emotional problems this is not what separates the big winners in the game from the small winners or break-even players. Patience, discipline, bankroll, playing your best game, not going on tilt, and so forth are attributes that many players have. The key is learning how to play properly. Success at poker involves playing correctly not putting yourself in some altered state so you can remain emotionally stable. However, many authors are reluctant to write articles which explain in detail how to play correctly. This is done for a couple of reasons. First, they do not want it known to any degree of detail how they play or think since it could cost them money at the poker table. Second, the more specific you get the more exposed you become and the more vulnerable to criticism. If you write an article whose theme is "play your best at all times", well who can argue with that?


As an aside, I am a big Roy Cooke fan and believe he is one of the best middle limit players in the country so this is not meant as a criticism of him at all.

I think that there really is no disagreement between the Cooke and Sklansky articles. Having the capability to "play your best game always" and to be always disciplined, is IMO just as important as knowing how to play well. Instead of arguing who's correct in terms of which qualities are higher up in the list of "what it takes to be a successful poker player", we should instead be more concerned about HOW to do both and be both simultaneously and consistently.


But there is one important skill not mentioned in either of the articles: ALERTNESS


In S/S Doyle Brunson says, "The ability to stay alert for long sessions can be a major factor contributing to your earning power, and it has been a KEY to my own success".


Think about it, "reading hands" well, "reading thoughts" accurately, "understanding multiway forehead type problems", "knowing when to isolate", "using logic", having the sense of timing to "steal small pots" successfully, knowing when to be "slightly tricky", "knowing when to fire two or three barrels", "always consider the size of the pot", and knowing your opponents enough so you you'll know precisely how to "get others to play badly" are not possible without ALERTNESS.


You can be the most disciplined player in the world but if you're not alert, you're like a General who is making decisions without using the inputs of spies or any reliable intelligence gathering system. Alertness will give you the sensivity of your opponents' behaviors that will in turn give you the power to implement your skills and knowledge when they are most appropriate.


Besides, if you're alert and observant, you will be too busy with focusing your attention exclusively on the present moment, you won't have time to think about the bad beat that you experienced a few minutes ago.

The altered state of ALERTNESS is the difference that makes the difference. Alertness gives us the ability to mobilize our skills and implement our expertise during the only time in which it is correct to do so, AT THE RIGHT TIME.


Discipline, or more accurately, the appearance of being disciplined is a product of knowing how to play well. And if you take two players who have equal knowledge and experience in the area of "how to play well poker expertly", the one with the more alertness, awareness, and mindfulness will perform better.

I posted the exact same thing on the medium stakes forum some 10 days ago.


I agree with you and Roy.

see what happens when you become an elite poker author...lol..gl jim...gr8 book...a must buy...gl

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I agree that ALERTNESS is very important to

ones earning potential. To generalise hugely,

knowing how to play is obviously the difference

between pros and wannabes but amongst the skillful

player who have all got game DISCIPLINE must be a

factor in earning power and in many cases the

difference between a winning pro and the field.

Mr Brier,I cannot see where there ISNT a conflict of arguments seeing as Roy Cooke dedicates an

article to the importance of consistant play and

discipline where as Mr. Sklansky dismisses it

as merely an excuse for lack of success on the

poker table. Dont get me wrong, If you havent

got the game, discipline will not get you far,

but if your a skilled player, its necessary to

success and without it, your not gonna make it

as a pro.

Oops, i was thinking about ordering your book and i got mixed up...