Do poker players need a "thick" skin in order to beat the game?

[Mike Gallo]

I work in a very challenging environment. In order to succeed in my industry my employees need a "thick" skin. They need to handle criticisms well. They need to deal with adverse situations and solve many different problems. I analyze hand histories in the same manner in which I would analyze the work an employee has put into an account. The only difference that exists between the two, my colleagues consider me an expert in my line of work and my poker game needs constant improvement.

I do not mix words at work and some find me hard to work for.A known lurker who has worked for me can respond since he has first hand knowledge. I quickly point out my employees mistakes and sometimes need to discipline certain mistakes. People consider me tough but fair. I never critisize an employee personally I critize their action or poor performance.

Last night I read a post where a new poster incorrectly folded the nut flush draw.

Most posters explained why the poster made such a bad player. However none of them really got the point across the way Dynasty did. By no means do I intend to attack Dynasty or denounce what he did. One poster questioned the manner in which Dynasty answered the post and he replied. Nothing personal its just poker.

All of this leads to my question. Do poker players need a thick skin in order to survive and learn from the pitfalls associated with the game?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[bernie]

I think one should also give kudos to the good stuff as well as pointing out the mistakes. If one only hears about the mistakes, there's no reinforcement of the good. Positive reinforcement seems to be underrated/underused.

I hope you commend your employees when they do something good. I did this with my old employees and it gave more validity in my criticisms when they did something wrong. It makes the criticism carry more weight and justification, imo. I found they trusted me more. Otherwise, it's just constant bicker that they can/will eventually tune out. Other dynamics are involved, but im not going into that here.

But there is quite a difference in a working situation, where you are constantly dealing with an employee where it's more pertinent to find a balance, and a single post.

Jim Brier, imo, (and others, but im not going to make a list) did this well. He criticised and commended/encouraged pretty good.

The post in question, i think when all but 1 poster in the responses, out of many responses, are saying it's a bad play, it should be obvious it's a bad play. Dynasty pretty much put the exclamation point on it when the play was defended by the poster for the 2nd time. There was no gray area for his play as far as how he chose to play the hand. I think it summed up the frustration of many responders who tried to set the guy str8. He still may not get it even after that. Who knows.

I havent checked the thread yet today to see if anything has developed.

b

[Mike Gallo]

I hope you commend your employees when they do something good. I did this with my old employees and it gave more validity in my criticisms when they did something wrong. It makes the criticism carry more weight and justification, imo. I found they trusted me more. Otherwise, it's just constant bicker that they can/will eventually tune out. Other dynamics are involved, but im not going into that here.

Thats what I mean by my fair comment. I commend a job well done, I critique a job done poorly.

[toots]

I don't know if poker players need a thick skin, but those who choose to post here would certainly be well served to develop a thick skin.

I have to say that these forums pretty much take the cake within my experience for rudeness, hostility and arrogance. Then again, I s'pose that's just a natural part of the game.

[Mike Gallo]

I have to say that these forums pretty much take the cake within my experience for rudeness, hostility and arrogance. Then again, I s'pose that's just a natural part of the game.

You have never walked or worked on the floor of a "boiler room". [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I work with the most rude hostile and arrogant people imaginable.

[toots]

I wasn't talking about boiler rooms. I was talking about online communities.

I just came to realize early on that it'd kill many of the posters here to act in a respectful fashion, and have come to expect rudeness.

Although I'm sure that a lot of people will be quite creative in coming up with totally unique rationalizations for such hideous behavior.

[risen]

MG, you're a plumber?

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "these forums pretty much take the cake within my experience for rudeness, hostility and arrogance."
Broaden your experience by going to RGP. As more than one person has said, "After going there, I feel like I need a shower."
We're tough here, but flame wars are relatively rare, and highly personal remarks are rarely made.
Regards,
Al

[toots]

Saying that RGP is worse doesn't really excuse the behavior here.

Then again, the consensus is that no one is asking for apologies.

I can certainly tell the difference between a blunt answer, a "slap in the face to wake you up" answer and just downright rudeness, hostility or arrogance.

If I'm remembering Dynasty's response correctly, I would have termed it a "slap int he face" response, and therefore at least useful. Responses like that make me wince, chuckle, and think "oh, those boys."

What I'm really more concerned about are just the pointless expressions of hostility: the need to refer to all other players as "idiots," the endless debates over whether someone they saw on TV is really stupid, whether she's a "whore," and the continuous need to laugh at someone else's expense.

For whatever reason, these forums show a very real need on the part of their participants to character assassinate. A lot of it's done in person, through less than helpful but highly insulting posts, and even more's done behind the backs of people who don't post here.

Even setting aside the basic level of background guttersniping, this hostility bleeds over into the interpersonal interactions in here in the form of direct or sideways insults, which are later explained away with "It's not personal; it's just poker."

Well, maybe it should be personal. If it were personal, people might have to develop some social skills or at least take responsibility for their own boorish behavior.

But, I'll excuse it as follows:

Consider it training for playing real poker. If the people here have poor social skills, it's just a glimpse at the total absence of social skills you'll find in a real game.

Yeah, poker players should have a thick skin. While I'm always amazed at the level of hostility and arrogance in these forums, it doesn't bother me because I've developed the appropriate thick skin, and as I said, I just see this as training for the real tables.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if poker players need a thick skin, but those who choose to post here would certainly be well served to develop a thick skin

[/ QUOTE ]

This board is full of all kinds of personalitys, some nice and soothing and others that just give you the cold hard facts.

Perfect example: I posted "ahem" advice on a certain NL tourney hand and Ed Miller pointed out in "his" own words that it was incorrect. I also read between the lines and thought to myslef "If I dont know how to swim, how can I teach others?"


As for having thick skin, I imagine it helps but is not a must. However if you cannot accept constructive critism AND you want to improve, well you are screwed.

This board is AWESOME and the amount of help I have recieved is immeasureable. Hell one guy even called me on a Friday night to go over strategy for a tourney.

Keep up the good work guys, and thanks a ton.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]