Is Memory the thing that distinguishes the REALLY good players?

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
how many times do you run against the same players? maybe this is true on the tournament circut where you see the same faces, but playing online, not really...

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! This thread is the part of the answer to what I've been searching for. I believe that memory, attention and awareness of the other players is a HUGE part of the game. At least for me.

I do very well at live games, but seem to flounder along online. I've never been able to understand exactly why, and I don't want to quit the online play because its good hand practice (staying in tune with the relative value of hands and the probabilities of drawing to, or getting outdrawn by, better hands).

I need to see real people and faces, and associate quality and history of play with faces. It comes from how a player dresses, acts, bets, whether they are suddenly quiet or talkative, facial expressions during the hand, and dozens of other little bits of information. Like in Brunson's quote, you just get a "feeling" about what the other player has rom observation and repetition.

I don't believe you have to play regularly with people or be part of a tournament circuit to reach a stage where you can get a decent read on a player. At a real table, I can routinely get a decent sense of the relative strength of another player's hand after about 2-3 hours at the same table with them. Its far from dead-on accurate after a short span of time, but its infinitely more accurate than if I were playing against the same group of people online.

This level of information is almost complete absent at an online table.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
This level of information is almost complete absent at an online table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. That's why so many online players leap to discount it. As well as people who are not good at reading people. (And some pretty good players aren't.)

I wouldn't call it a "level" of play, though. It is in a sense, but it's more an aspect of play, and within that aspect of play, there are different levels of understanding.

People online can do well despite minimal social cues compared to those available online because that aspect of play isn't nearly as important online. If a keen attention to one's social environment and good judgment about it were a "level" of poker and not an aspect of it, the level of poker online would be very low, instead of online poker simply being a slightly different game that just emphasizes different aspects of poker in different proportion.

[Matt Flynn]

blarg, i think you are confusing skill and talent. memory cannot be learned and can only barely be practiced. if you have the talent good for you. but it is not an earned virtue. you got lucky.

so did i.

matt

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
if you have the talent good for you. but it is not an earned virtue. you got lucky.

so did i.

[/ QUOTE ]

People just suck at thinking in the ways that makes it possible for them to have a good memory.

~D

[Lazymeatball]

I read in Andy Bellin's "Poker Nation" how the example of Stu Ungar was used as an example of how memory is an aquired trait, not an inate talent.

Ungar was said to have had "total recall" and the passage goes on to explain how this was a result of Ungar childhood being brought up around gambling. His father was a local bookie and Stu would watch and memorize all the numbers and bets as he would get in trouble if he was caught writing them down. He learned to play gin rummy by watching over his mother's shoulder. It would seem this constant practice is what helped form his memory. Memory is a devoloped skill, not an aquired trait.

And as far for online poker vs live B&M, using software like Pokertracker which saves every hand you've ever played with someone online, you can develop a much larger database of information of someone's play online, the stuff that counts, like preflop betting habits and folding the BB to a steal attempt, then you ever could judging someone's dress or mannerisms. I realize though that this is probably more of a personal preference thing.