[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
The question im asking here is that, given very strong raw ability (which i think we've roundly agreed is necessary for big game success) is learning by emulation (which is a necessity if you plan on posting to get better) actually detrimental long-term.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as the information that a person is obtaining from others, be it through discussions or books, is CORRECT, there is no way that it can be detrimental, except under one circumstance to be discussed momentarily.

Here is an analogy. On one end of the spectrum, we have tic-tac-toe. It probably doesn't take much longer to figure out an optimal strategy for tic-tac-toe on one's own than it would take to read an essay on the subject. On the other end of the spectrum, we have stuff like geometry, physics, etc. Certainly, it is possible for someone to come up with something such as the Pythagorian Theorem on one's own (Pythagorus clearly did so at some point), but it saves years of study to read it in a book.

Poker is somewhere in the middle. It is possible for someone to figure out the Theory of Poker, shania, pot-commitment, etc. on one's own, but it is a lot faster just to read it in a book or learn about it on a discussion forum. And, FWIW, figuring out poker isn't the monumental task that many have made it out to be. Many people did it to varying degrees before books, etc., and many more people continue to do so without books or 2+2.

So, if the question is that, if you have two equally intelligent people and one gets to read ToP while the other doesn't, who will end up better off, the answer is CLEARLY the guy who gets to read ToP. They might end up at the same place eventually, but the guy who has the theory handed to him will get a jump-start on how to apply it properly, etc.

The reason that I use ToP as my example is because it is the one poker book that I don't believe can make a person a WORSE player (although, sadly, there are probably some people out there who defy that assumption...). The single circumstance to which I alluded to above where a smart person is probably better off left to figure things out himself would be if the information that he is given is wrong or if the individual somehow draws incorrect conclusions from a book or discussion.

An example of this is limit poker books. People grow up reading HPFAP and other limit books, and IMO, these books have the potential to stunt the growth of a no-limit player. When most people with a limit background try to use their limit knowledge to infer the proper strategy for no-limit, they end up drawing incorrect conclusions and have a tougher time learning concepts that don't fit into the framework that they are used to. Thus, someone with a cluttered mind could conceivably have a tougher time learning no-limit than someone who began learning no-limit without any preconceptions. I believe that someone with a limit background would probably become a DECENT player quicker than someone with no background, but I also think that a limit mindset can put a ceiling on a player's development. So, unless the person is astute enough to avoid misapplying what he already knows, he might have been better off knowing nothing at all.

I think that the preceding paragraph is what the OP was getting at. Is there something about learning via books and 2+2 that clouds peoples' minds and, while elevating them to "decent-ness" quicker, holds them back from achieving greatness?

My answer is that this may be the case for some people, but for most, they will end up FAR better off from reading books and 2+2 than they could fare on their own. The reason being, most players, if given their whole life, probably couldn't become true experts on their own. Their only chance at becoming an expert is to learn concepts from others. More commonly, a player lacks the ability to be an expert, no matter what. Such players lack the intelligence, instincts, etc. So, if being an expert is out of the question, it is better to be decent quickly by learning from others than to have to figure things out for one's self. They might not end up understanding the game especially well, but they weren't going to no matter what...

Then, if we examine the subset of people who DO have the potential to become experts on their own, I still think that books and 2+2 are beneficial, because such people are also generally smart enough to avoid misapplying concepts. So, generally, experts are going to end up as experts no matter what path they choose.

There is, however, a small subset of people who are smart enough to become extremely good at no-limit but aren't quite smart enough to figure it out for themselves and also aren't quite smart enough to break through the barriers that books and discussions might set up for them. For those people, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

Mike