Why aren't you better?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

wrong. the only way to play perfectly is to know your opps hole cards every single hand. it doesn't happen. you are 100% incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it depends on how you define perfectly, obviously. If you knew the ranges of hands that everybody would make certain actions with exactly, then you could play perfectly with that level of information, for example. I do agree with your general point that there aren't perfect poker players, though, simply because it's a really nebulous concept. How well you do and how well you play really depends heavily on who you match up against. To get enough information about these players to allow "perfect" play would take an unrealistically large number of hands; to be sure, much information can be gleaned from fewer, but perfect is a pretty lofty standard.

Back to the original topic: there are many ways that I could improve. Poker has been recreational for me, and as such I've enjoyed some pretty execrable bankroll management ($30 rebuys several nights in a row was perhaps not the strongest of plans) and occasionally poor game selection. I'm working on improving the first. I also tend to fall into fancy play syndrome and enjoy playing lots of hands. This isn't too bad until either a) I decide I should win more of them, or b) I think that the average player I'm up against is making huge adjustments to me and consequently I end up making incredibly boneheaded calls. I like calling.

[bestcellar]

I'm not better because every time I think I have this game figured out I embark on the coldest streak in human history

[ QUOTE ]
There really needs to be a balance between time playing, time thinking about, and time away from the game.

[/ QUOTE ]Use of time is very important also. Either way, generally worse players don't spend as much time as those who are better.

[ QUOTE ]
Any yahoo can read Theory of Poker, but it takes a special person to realize when he is playing badly.

[/ QUOTE ] That'd fall under talent.

[SlackerMcFly]

[ QUOTE ]
Any yahoo can read Theory of Poker, but it takes a special person to realize when he is playing <font color="red">at the top of his game and capitalize on that knowledge.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Big Limpin']

WHy am i not better?

I think the neurons in my brain have grown in a specific orientation based on my expieriences in poker over several years. I'm probably 90% perfect. But those neural pathways are used over and over again, getting solidified every time. For me to improve requires only small adjustments (nothing groundbreaking left to learn), so its difficult for the brain to use the shoulder of the 4 lane highway thats its constructed. I can "learn" some improvement, and at the time i "get it", but when in a game, and that situation arises, the default play (the one i've been making for years) seems "right" again, my brain goes " you play this hand this way, always have, and you win $, so just to that". Or something. Upon rereading, this post doesnt convey exactly what i meant, but i'm not sure i can descibe better.
Old dog...new tricks.

[Big Limpin']

This is better:

Its very difficult to make small changes to something you have done many many times. Takes alot of work (to burn it in), and i havent been making a strong enough effort to do that.

Really, im not better becasue im lazy.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm really interested in what separates a very good 215er from a good 109er. What separates you from a winning player at a higher level, or what separates you from a winning player at a lower level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Adaptability.

Easy to say. Hard to do well.

Irieguy

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I'm really interested in what separates a very good 215er from a good 109er. What separates you from a winning player at a higher level, or what separates you from a winning player at a lower level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Adaptability.

Easy to say. Hard to do well.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that we have a winner.

Going back to my earlier post, I think that this is a very hard skill to teach.

Oh, and for the record, thank you Cit, I think that you're dead on.

[Cactus Jack]

Interesting thread. I was reading a thread yesterday by Major Kong, Mason Malmuth. He said micro-limit players don't crush small stakes games because they fold too much. A long thread in which confusion reigned. The advice appeared to be conflicting with the usual advice, but it showed up the conflicts that have to be sorted out in every poker player's mind. There are many.

Talent, sure, but isn't that pretty hard to define? What exactly is poker talent? Like porn, you know it when you see it? Probably. A person who has poker talent must be coldly calculating yet warm to the emotions of other people. He or she must be conservative, yet fearless. Love money, and care nothing at all about it. Want to win it and able to absorb losing it. The ability to play a gambling game with skill. That's an unusual package, to be sure.

First, you learn the basics. Then, you learn a little more and a little more, then learn what you didn't learn the first hundred times through. At some point, experience becomes more important. Some would say you have to have instinct. That's knowledge plus experience plus an intangible that some may say is talent. You also have to be absolutely fearless. And have a disregard for money. You have to want money, lots of money, but then not care at all about it. One of the many paradoxes.

Math is important, but more important than people skills? At $1/$2 limit, yes. At $109 SNGs? I'm not so sure.

Memory? You better have a damn good one. And the ability to forget.

Poker is a delicate balancing act. Maturity vs. youthful energy. Math skills and people skills. Desire vs. talent. Few can successfully maintain the balance. Probably somewhat like playing perfectly. Imperfect people playing with imperfect information. The player who makes the fewest mistakes while playing the most boldly wins. To be the best, you have to have a weird concoction of attributes that I'm not sure there's very many people in the world who have it. Like a novelist who must be extremely extroverted, yet able to spend hour after hour alone in a room. Rare is the person who has both of these abilities. I'd say the person who has all the conflicting qualities helpful (necessary?) to being a great poker player is even rarer.

Great poker players are probably the strangest people in the world who are fortunate to find something that fits their rather unusual set of abilities. Many, I think, find they are not as well equipped for anything else.

It takes a helluva person to play a helluva game. Everything else comes below it, esp stakes level. Play well at whatever level your bankroll allows, and the money takes care of itself.

If it's confusing, then I made the point. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

CJ

[Dr_Jeckyl_00]

When I am learning something new, it takes me a while to understand why a certain action is right in some instances and wrong in other instances. When I learned correct bubble play (probably not perfect by Raptor's standards) I understood that I needed to push and not be scared... but push 23o from sb... this did not come to me right away even though everone said push any two... and I pushed A7s from utg... but did not understand how important position was relative to hand strength. I am just finishing HOH v1 and I am once again all screwed up trying to apply some of his advice... not fully understanding all of the variables that make a certain action correct in one situation and wrong in another situation...