natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

[TaoTe]

It's hard to imagine, but it's great to think about it because it gives ever wannabe hope.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Greg is a marvelous combination of talent and hard work. If you look at the back of any of our recent books, you will find this quotation from him: "I can say with full confidence that if it were not for Two Plus Two Publishing and their website, I would not have the 2004 World Championship bracelet on my wrist."

In addition to studying intensely, Greg posted thousands of times on our forums. His current count is much lower than that total because it includes only posts since we changed software.

Greg knows that there is NO substitude for hard work, including both study and the feedback he got on our forums.

If you want to make it to the higher levels, I urge you to follow his example. All of us at 2+2 are rooting for him to take another title.

Regards,

Al

[SittingBull]

Amarillo "Slim" reading and studying poker books. I really don't believe Stu had the patience to do so.
Slim is a product of the "hard knocks" school. So it is possible for a few to rise to the top without studying any poker books. However,MOST of us do need this theoretical background.
SittingBull



SittingBull

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. Very inspirational column (though I didn't finish it yet). CP might prefer that you link to their content rather than post it directly (feel free to PM me if you need help linking).

As to the whole skill vs. luck thing, I believe most people who rise to the top of their profession would in their more candid moments admit that it takes a lot of both to get to the top. Poker's no different, except that in the short-term luck plays a lot bigger role than in most pursuits. That includes the short term of one tournament, so even winning the WSOP is more luck-influenced than say winning a major chess tournament or winning the NCAA men's basketball championship, although luck plays its role in all three.

I'm just stating the obvious so I'll stop now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

While most of this is true, there is VERY little (if any) luck in winning a major chess tournament.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
While most of this is true, there is VERY little (if any) luck in winning a major chess tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alhtough I'm not a good chess player (I got bored around 1000 USCF -- glad I switched to poker!), I stand by my assertion. Pairings (in a typical Swiss system tournament) and choice of openings (i.e., one player playing an opening his opponent just happened to prepare for) are two clear areas where luck matters. Even in the huge round-robin tournaments they draw lots for the order in which they play. Now, if you're talking about the old-style World Championships, where the champion and challenger player 24 games or whatever, then I agree that luck is very minimal, though still present.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Amarillo "Slim" reading and studying poker books. I really don't believe Stu had the patience to do so.
Slim is a product of the "hard knocks" school.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, on the cover Slim also calls Hellmuth's Play Poker Like the Pros the greatest poker strategy book ever written. So no, I don't imagine he learned from books. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dan Mezick]

read this essay.

Is There an Ideal Poker Personality Profile ?? (INTJ/INTp Types)

Also this essay:

Poker and Introverts

[Marlow]

I'm very excited that there has been such active discussion on this topic. As a serious student and competitive amateur, I am heartened to know that other people have also thought about this issue.

I am an academically minded person, and I love this game. But it has not come easily. I was a losing player for the first two years that I played. Things turned around a few years ago (thanks again 2+2), and I've seen steady improvements since then. But it seems that I frequently read that this or that player "has never read a book about poker." This has always gotten me down because of a fear that there's some intangible "it" that if I wasn't born with, I can't cultivate. But from what I've seen here, this does not seem to be even how the pros view it. It sounds like they took their lumps. That they were not always winners. This is heartening.

There's another thing to consider as well. Just because someone has never read a book and is a great player (Tuan Le and Scott Fischman are noteable examples), does not mean that they are not students of the game. On the contrary, Tuan has one of the greatest mentors in the world (Barry Greenstein), and Scott has watched and played hundreds of thousands of hands as both a dealer and a player. I have also read elsewhere that both of these people give a lot of thought to their game when away from the table. So, they are students, but they are just using different methods than I am. And, of course, they are both fairly gifted as well...

Another reason that I'm happy to have this thread of discussion is that I have recently made the decision to play only for the sake of improving my game (and for fun, of course!). I'm not worried about money. As a result, I am no longer multi-tabling. I play mainly NL and play one table so that I can give 100% of my attention to my opponents and my own game. As a result, I really have been learning rapidly. Also, I am able to play at higher levels where I encounter (and must my self employ) more sophisticated strategy and tactics.

So this has turned out to be a fairly long post, but it's great to have the chance to communicate my internal fears/anxieties and decisions with you all.

Keep it coming!

Marlow
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. Very inspirational column (though I didn't finish it yet). CP might prefer that you link to their content rather than post it directly (feel free to PM me if you need help linking).

As to the whole skill vs. luck thing, I believe most people who rise to the top of their profession would in their more candid moments admit that it takes a lot of both to get to the top. Poker's no different, except that in the short-term luck plays a lot bigger role than in most pursuits. That includes the short term of one tournament, so even winning the WSOP is more luck-influenced than say winning a major chess tournament or winning the NCAA men's basketball championship, although luck plays its role in all three.

I'm just stating the obvious so I'll stop now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

While most of this is true, there is VERY little (if any) luck in winning a major chess tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because chess is a game of complete information.

Greg