ten years to master a game

[creedofhubris]

I just finished reading Word Freak, a fine book about competitive Scrabble players. Here's a quote from the book:

"In a pioneering study in 1973, Herbert Simon and William Chase of Carnegie-Mellon University concluded that attaining an international level of expertise in chess requires ten years of preparation, and they suggested it was no different in other domains. ... Other studies put the amount of requisite practice for expertise in many fields at ten thousand hours."

Aight. Now, obviously there are some games where this does not hold true; for instance, attaining an "international level of expertise" at tic-tac-toe can be done in approximately five minutes. But I wonder sometimes where hold'em fits in. Obviously there are newcomers who are crushing the game at a fairly high level, but do they really know what they're doing, or are they just preying on the other newcomers to the game who have not yet matched their ability?

I mean, I see some hands posted here on 2+2, and three or four of us tyros will post identical answers. People who've played for 6 months to a couple years, who've got ABC down.

And then sometimes I see one of Zee's comments, or Flynn's recent "trench warfare" post about preflop stealing and restealing, Cero_z talking about why you might call with 75s and reraise with k2, and they're totally different from the "party line", and I just shake my head.

[captZEEbo1]

Most of the great players say they have not mastered the game and learn stuff every day

Part of the "expertise" of the game involves game selection etc. I'd argue some of the "masters" of the game, such as Daniel Negreanu or Gus Hansen are just not "masters" of poker imo.

Negreanu wrote an article :
[ QUOTE ]
Seat 1: Doyle Brunson
Seat 2: Lyle Berman
Seat 3: Johnny Chan
Seat 4: Chip Reese
Seat 5: Me
Seat 6: Phil Ivey
Seat 7: Chao Xiang(sic)

[/ QUOTE ]
Good game selection Negreanu! You really have a lot to learn, this is in a 75k cap game, more than he's "comfortable" with. I'd have to say if he was taking a shot at the game, better spots to do it? Daniel is also playing in all those hu matches, a lot of them likely -ev.

I would not be surprised if Gus eventually goes broke either playing in all those high stakes games.

Although I guess there's something to be said for having fun and taking shots and trying to learn from the best...


Also, those threads like "trench warfare" are pretty overrated and not that great or useful. A title like "trench warfare" is just trying to glamorize a topic. Yes, it was well-written...Yes, there is more to poker than just playing the cards...No, I don't really have any better of a grasp at applying it then I do now (as I assume most do). People just see the name "Matt Flynn" or "El Diablo" and are like OMG THESE GUYS ARE TEH BEST. Listen up folks, they're not THAT special. Yes they are good, yes they usually offer good advice, but they are not holier than thou.

[JMP300z]

Good post.

I think youre definintely right about the "party line". I mean just look at some of the responses to my latest post about my "line not making sense". People on this forum tend to think there is an absolute way to play the flop and turn. I would love for my opponent's play to be absolute, thats why i do everything in my power to make them as predictable as possible.

-JP

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I guess there's something to be said for having fun and taking shots and trying to learn from the best...

[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyOC]

For me, poker is a lot like another stupid game I play. Ive played golf for my entire life. Since I was maybe 10 or 11. Obviously when I first started playing golf I was terrible, but I would always hit at least one or two shots during a round that would keep me coming back for more punishment. I would also usually have an amazing round once in awhile that would keep me up all night and make me feel like a champion. A lot of those scores that I would post really were not all that impressive, but at the time I thought I was the hottest motherfcuker ever.

Poker is a little different that golf though because there is obviously an element of chance, but also because people on TV post golf scores that are unrealistic for 99.999% of the golf world. As when you watch golf on TV, when you watch poker you believe(If you want to admit it or not thats ok with me) that these people you are watching are at the absolute top of their game. Then you watch them put themselves in the same situations you have been in over and over again. Even though you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg it makes you feel like you can play at a high level even though inside you are rational enough to know this is obviously not the case.

In the two years I have played poker on many different occasions I have sat and thought to myself. 'I am awesome, how can I possibly improve?'. Then during the next couple of months I run TERRIBLE and snap out of my cold streak a temedously better player having learned so many angles and aspects of the game that I could have never believe even exsisted before. What I am trying to say is that there are many many occasions when poker(as does golf) seems like the easiest game in the world and you feel like you on your way to greatest. Sometimes it may mean being a +5 handicap or sometimes it may mean beating the 1000-2000 in LV, but you know your on your way. Then you have a giant set back and you come crashing down from the clouds and realize how much you have to learn and how far you really are away from the highest level of your game. There are no complete players who have learned it all it. Everyone is still learning on some level and improving in ways they probably never thought they could ever improve. I think it is about breaking through to the higher levels of thinking(and sometimes ball striking) to even realize what is up there and what there is to learn. A lot of times you need to take a step or two back in order to make a bound forward. I dont know that much about poker, but I am 99% that I am going to be going through this cycle of running hot, get pounded, and then learn about aspects of the game that I never even thought exsisted.

[Yeti]

The key point here, of course, is that poker != chess.

I think once you reach a certain level, the majority of what else you have to learn is emotional control. I'm getting pretty good at noticing even minor indications that I may be about to go on monkey-tilt. Recognising this, and perhaps taking a minute or two out to go grab a drink is half the battle.

Another thing I notice is that a large part of this forum don't seem to realise how long the long run actually is. I know that sounds cliché, but when I see people posting about winrates from 20k hands it just confirms this. I think running bad for a long, long time is one of the greatest things that can happen to a poker player.

Now whenever the donks are playing awful and I'm crushing the game I make a mental note to look back on this when nothing is going my way, and to remember that it is indeed so easily beatable.

[Leptyne]

It may indeed take 10,000 hours of study to master the game but poker, unlike chess, lends itself more to the 80-20 rule: you can learn 80% of poker in 20% of the time. After your first 2000 hrs of study you could be a pretty good poker player and then spend a lot of time trying to become a master. For some, as with chess, there is no amount of study that will make you a master. It requires a "gift" to make it to the top. A big part of that "gift" is emotional control. Some people, and some "geniuses" will never be able to master this part of the game.