pyschological key to poker?

[Kenshin]

Hi all,

I must first preemptively apologize if you either consider this post redundant or find survey-type questions boring.

Which psychological element of poker do you believe is the key to successful play?

Obviously I cannot truly distill a game as complicated as poker to a single trait; however, I would claim patience is the key to limit poker.

The ability to fold 2nd pair to a raise from an obvious player or to muck Q8o on the button after being cold decked for 2 hours represents an essential skill derived from patience (IMO).

Kenshin

[Dan Mezick]

honest, disciplined introspective self-examination of play before, during after poker sessions is teh key skill, leads to all the others needed. the wide variance inherent in poker results decouples immediate results from intentions. accordingly, results do not always = intentions. thus one can be misled my short term results.

without the real-time and automatic introspective self-exams, a short-term winner will not improve his game and may actually make huge mistakes based on short term positive results.

self-exam even when winning eliminates that hazard and plugs leaks.

recognized need for patience etc becomes an output of this process. without this process you may never improve.

[Kenshin]

Interesting DrNorm,

Do you believe a specific pyschological type possesses the faculty for truly introspective examination? For instance: other than a desire to win, do the players on this board share a common personality trait that allows for self-criticism?

Kenshin

[StellarWind]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I think it's the ability to play differently than your personality might dictate. Naturally, I would be very loose aggressive. I have to tone down the aggression a LITTLE bit, but have to play MUCH tighter than i otherwise would.

It ties into discipline of course.

al

[Dan Mezick]

First of all let me reiterate that the strongest skill— really more of an innate attribute— to have, is the ability to self-exam in a rigorous, continual way, not simply an event driven way; for example not driven by big losses or steady losses from running bad. The key thing to have is automatic, continual examination of your play, winning or losing. Luo Krieger discusses this in his book More HoldEm Excellence. But he just scratches the surface. More work needs to be done in this area as it pertains to personality.

I think there is probably an optimal mix of personality characteristics for successful poker. It's an area that needs much more research. My essay on my web site about introverts and poker is at attempt to provoke and instigate such research by people more inclined than me to do it.

I strongly suspect that the majority of good players have a much-more-than-minimal weight of introvert in their makeup. Say there is a population of top cash players in the world. I suspect at least 60% of these have at least a middle-weighting of introversion in their makeup. As an example, consider Howard Lederer. He is representative, I think.

Introversion= introspection= ”Winning at Poker”. Of course, we all know it’s just not that simple.

Even so, let’s get in the ballpark by avoiding granular detail (for now) and keeping the discussion about this at a high level.

My point is that there is probably a set of hypothetical player personality types for whom playing winning poker is somewhat natural. By this, I mean the player has few innate characteristics that he must control, squelch or manage in some sense to win at poker. Take the total extrovert. I suspect this type is at war with himself when he plays winning poker. After all he has to shut up… and consider others—for long periods of time.

There is likely an ideal mix of personality traits that facilitate winning poker. In terms of introvert/extrovert, that ideal player is likely somewhere in the middle. But Intro/Extro is just one axis of personality measurement. These are not the ONLY measures of total personality.

Take a look at the web site that contains the “personality test link” that follows my essay. There are 4 basic personalities and 4 subtypes with the 4 major types for a total of 16. I strongly suspect that a minority of these types are very likely predominant at the top of poker today.

Further research needs to be done by academics etc. Say such research proves me right—say there are 1,2,3 types that are best suited—then it gets interesting.

If it turns out for whatever reason that a good measure of introversion is the ‘secret sauce’, then this is going to radically alter the way introverts view themselves and also how the world views them.

Suddenly, players will strain to act and think more along the lines of the poker personality profiles.


As for the players at 2+2, I would have to say that this population is likely at least somewhat self-examining, at least those that read and post actively for 6 or more months. And I would conclude from this that these players are probably much better than average for focusing on this key aspect of the game.

Etc. I welcome vigorous discussion on this topic and I’ll watch for replies. Imagine a world where the research has been done…perhaps we could discuss a hypothetical future that contains indisputable research that there really ARE a few personality types that are best suited to develop the skills needed for winning poker.

In what ways would the world of poker be changed? How would YOU change?

I really do believe that as a result of discussions like this that prompt important new research, we are going to see poker in the future played at a level that is literally inconceivable to us today.

[Soggy Salmon]

False pride.

I believe false pride is what tells losing players they are winning ones, even though they could sum up their wins and losses and find out differently.

It is what tells players it is just bad luck, even though that "bad luck" has gone on for hundreds of hours. And it is what tells them it is their skill that brings them the wins when it is mostly good luck.

I think it is one of the causes of tilt. "I am the best player at the table! These guys suck! There is no way they can be winning against me! How can they play that garbage?!"

False pride will keep players from looking too critically at their play. They might find out they are not so great after all and are just like all the rest of the "stupid fish".

It is why you will rarely hear anyone admit to being a poor player.

It is tough to come to the realization that you aren't as smart as you'd like to think. That you are not a "natural born poker champ". That there are a lot of better players than you. That it is going to take a lot of work and time and patience to get good at what "should" be easy for you. That you are not immune to the swings. That you, too, can go on tilt.

Very tough. But I am getting there.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Although I agree that ruthless self-examination is highly desirable for a poker player, the poker culture is extremely anti-introspection.
More importantly, I doubt that any one characteristic is overwhelmingly important.
My current book, "Business is a poker game," deals with a large number of ways that winners are different from losers. They are more intensely motivated and much more controlled than losers.
This motivation and control affect everything they think, feel, or do. If I had to use one word, it would be "disciplined," but it would be a gross oversimplification.
Regards,
Al

[Dan Mezick]

This post about pride goes directly to the topic of beliefs, the content of your inner game, upon which your entire game is built from the ground up.