GiftofGab, Spirit Rock, Hassan Slask etc.

[GimmeDaWatch]

[ QUOTE ]
These players who are truly beating the biggest and hardest games never seem to come from poker communities. Are these players self-taught prodigies? is there something to being able to take an unbiased mind into analyzing situations? Is it simply more experience that makes the difference?

fim

ps- i know gab does post here, but he's not like diablo/bruiser etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that there were a healthy # of 2+2ers winning in rhe 25/50, 50/100NL games, as well as the 10/20 NL on Stars and Party. I think a good # of the other pros that play in those games obviously have been pro players for a while and consequently aren't the types that find their way to 2+2 as they come up through the limits and start to take poker more seriously. Also, when you say "poker community", what exactly are you talking about? Does that basically mean: posts on 2+2 or RGP etc? If so, thats a pretty limited view. Just b/c someone isnt on here posting hands and comments all the time doesnt mean he doesnt have extensive experience playing live, alot of knowledgeable friends/acquaintences to talk shop with, etc.
One possibility is that a top online player may
have come up the ranks playing live games, and by the time a really tough winning player begins to beat the high stakes online games he is sort of past the point (in his mind at least) of wanting or needing advice, comments, or discussion from other random players in an online forum.
Everybody's story is different, obviously, but I dont think there's really much to this correlation you're talking about.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a simple rebuttal to your assertion is this: if the game is so simple, then you must be able to beat it at any level. if your winrate assertions are indeed true, then you have an adequate BR for 50/100. why are you not playing this game HU (another expectation improvement) all day long against the above players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, please DO TELL!

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
you are over estimating the complicity of poker. its not rocket science for fucks sake.

[/ QUOTE ]
more likely, you are under estimating your talent.

[rockythecat99]

I am new to this forum mostly play sngs and mtts but I think this still applies. I like many of you learned poker by reading books (top,HOH,etc). The problem I have come to realize with this method is that it stunts your creativity.

Players who are self taught don't have any of the barriers we create for ourselves when reading book. For example a 2+2 utg will not raise utg with say 96o or something of that nature. A self taught player may have indulged himself and tried this play and may have found a way to make it work and +EV for them. But since most here follow Sklanskys or Harrington's advice they would never dream of doing such a thing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that at some point the cards for them don't matter anymore. Since they have no predetermined conditions that books instill on us. Tuan le(sp?) from wpt fame. He raises with 23o utg how many here would even dream of doing that in a 10k buyin tourney??? I be the answer is almost 0. He has never read a book in his life and is selftaught millionaire. A lot of people call him a lucky donk but he has to have some skill in order to have one twice.

It just seems to me that books hold you back from being creative. I have realized this and my poker books are gathering dust now and I am winning a little bit more. Eh but what do I know I am a fish.

[Mackerel]

[ QUOTE ]
For example a 2+2 utg will not raise utg with say 96o or something of that nature. A self taught player may have indulged himself and tried this play and may have found a way to make it work and +EV for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's much more likely that an aware, but unread player, just starting out will blow many buy-ins raising crap like that before the light comes on and he says to himself:

"Hmmm...everytime I raise 96o UTG I either just win the blinds or spew off a bunch of chips against much better hands. Plus, as an added bonus, several people I play against have figured out that I'm raising with all this junk UTG and now I'm getting played back at all the time. Maybe I'd better tighten up some UTG. Hmmmm"

Lesson learned, but the book would've been much less expensive.

And how in the hell did this thread come back to life anyway? I was sure this horse had been kicked to death long ago.

[rockythecat99]

But thats the point. He will learn a lot of things that don't work but things that will work that players who read a book will never learn because of their preconceptions learned in said book. Holy run on sentence batman.

[ QUOTE ]
But thats the point. He will learn a lot of things that don't work but things that will work that players who read a book will never learn because of their preconceptions learned in said book. Holy run on sentence batman.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, because people who read books are incapable of thinking for themselves, they can only do what they're told in the books.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
But thats the point. He will learn a lot of things that don't work but things that will work that players who read a book will never learn because of their preconceptions learned in said book. Holy run on sentence batman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the book players are rigid. A player with a book foundation can still see the value of trying some weird [censored] and learning from it.

Frankly, what matters a lot more than whether you learned first by reading a book is what books you read and how well you read them.

[rockythecat99]

Well think about it this way. Most pros never had any books to learn. They just learned on their own. They beat the game at the highest level. I am not saying that book readers are inferior. It just seems to me that reading a book makes your learning curve that much more difficult by giving preconceived ideas. I learned from books too so I am not knocking anyone here. I just realized that trying crazy $h!t as you call it I get better results. So as of now all my books are just gathering dusts although they were a nice foundation.

[Mackerel]

[ QUOTE ]
Most pros never had any books to learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is true. Of course, it is true of the old-time pros (Doyle, Slim, Sailor Roberts, TJ, etc.) but that is only because there weren't any books available to them. I've read many accounts of Doyle, Slim & Sailor sitting around in hotel rooms for hours on end figuring out odds, probabilities, best lines, etc. I'm sure, that accounts for much of their success (although I am not discounting the value of natural talent in any way). But now, that work has been done, and it is foolish to not take advantage of it.

And I don't believe that learning solid fundamentals early on is in any way an inhibiting factor in progressing to the highest levels. Simply understanding the fundamentals should not be a barrier to experimenting with creative plays, and I think that any player capable of competing at the highest levels without reading anything, would certainly not have been slowed down by reading other ideas.

Personally, I often deviate substantially from "book" play these days (sometimes even into classic chip-spewing [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]). But anytime I get on a significant losing streak (an infrequent occurance fortunately), I always go back to the fundamentals.

But if your point is just that now that you have the fundamentals, you want to expand you horizons by trying unusual lines and/or more LAG play, then I couldn't agree more. I just think that learning the fundamentals first is a necessary first step, no matter if you figure them out on your own (the hard way) or take advantage of the experiences and knowledge of others that are now available.

Just my $0.02.

Mack