A few thought on Psychology of Poker

[davet]

I recently picked up Psychology of Poker and gave it a read- through.

Unfortunately, I felt abondoned from the first section, when Dr. Al stated that this book would be of little use to someone who is good at hand reading, and then went on with the line "for the rest of us."

I don't want to agree with that line of thought. Anyway, considering myself a good hand- reader, I read on anyway, and there wasn't a single statement I didn't agree with.

The section that interested me the most is the section on maniacs. I am obsessed with this strange breed of gambler, and I simply fail to make complete sense of these weirdos.

I have outlined a small theory, and sadly, Dr. Al didn't go this direction, but I think it is important. However, it should be noted that Dr. Al simply couldn't take this direction because it might offend some of his readers. He intended his book to be a work book and a help book.

Enough already, here is my analysis:

Before I embark on this, I would like to say that this is not meant to debunk anything Dr. Al has written, rather this is another branch/ continuation.

I think that maniacs are people who suffer several short- comings in life. I think that there is an inherent hate toward job, family, or some other chaotic part of their lives that they feel that they cannot control. I maniac feels small, and they wish to overcome these feelings of inferiority by flexxing their power at the poker table. A maniac is truly angry inside, and wishes to "show- up" anyone they feel are more powerful than they are. They realize that any player does not like chaos, this line of thought is realized because they do not like the chaos in their own life.

They are also envious of people that may be more successful than they are. They realize that a succeeder's life is build around a sturdy foundation of hard work and study. A winning poker player is of this breed. I think that a maniac has a natural tendency toward violent thougts, though they never go through with it. However, at the table, they are able to express this.

Toward weaker opponents, they are probably exibiting a jealousy toward people they know are weaker than they are. A maniac might be under the fist of a controlling mother, girlfriend, or boss, and they feel powerless against them. At the table, they are able to dominate "weak" people.

I guess I could go on writing an entire chapter on this theory, but I think that the readers of this forum could come to their own conclusions.

For help on the derivate thoughts, I broke this down from the perspective of gambling being a good "punching bag."

Anyway, I would like to know what thoughts you all may have on this theory.

[Sniper]

Most of what you say is silly, but this...

[ QUOTE ]
At the table, they are able to dominate "weak" people.

[/ QUOTE ]

... is exactly why there are "successful" maniacs at the poker tables. When playing against opponents that don't/can't adapt to their play, they simply clean up!!!

[davet]

Yes, and no. I have seen them "clean up" for a few hours, a few days even, but watched these same people get completely destroyed just as fast as they cleaned up.

Most "successful" maniacs I have seen are of the "hit and run" variety.

Play more live poker and you will see what I am talking about.

One thing that must be noted is that no matter what they are doing, they are playing more -EV hands than they are +EV hands. I think that if maniacal play was succesful strategy, then every one would play that way.

"The only person you can't beat is a drunk and a new guy." -- table talk.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
there wasn't a single statement I didn't agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you didn't actually learn anything.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if maniacal play was succesful strategy, then every one would play that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
context

It's a pretty important concept in poker.

[WDC]

I think most of them also have really small packages.

[Don Olney]

I did give this book a read and I do like what Dr. Al has to say. Most people that THINK they can read hands are living in a dream world ---- just like most that say they are making money in this game-----
As for a few of the follow up post on here --- WAY TO GO TAKING THIS TO THE GUTTER ----------

Maniacs are only successful when their opponents are folding to their bets/raises at too high a level. If everyone starts calling the maniacs down, the combined strength of the rest of the hands will eventually take all his money. Of course, not all tables are this smart.

[davet]

[ QUOTE ]
I did give this book a read and I do like what Dr. Al has to say. Most people that THINK they can read hands are living in a dream world ---- just like most that say they are making money in this game-----
As for a few of the follow up post on here --- WAY TO GO TAKING THIS TO THE GUTTER ----------

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. Is it even possible to post on this forum without taking **** from people.

Yes, there is a great many dreams in gambling, such as thinking they can win at craps or thinking that they can count cards, etc.etc.etc.

Anyway. For your own information, hand reading is more of a function of pattern recognition, not psycology, if this were not the case, it would be impossible to read hands on- line, short of the plainly obvious.

Anyway, to help you in your writing comprehension, I did not state or imply anywhere in my post that I did not like this book. In fact, if you could manage to do anything without going on tilt and shutting of your mind, you would be able to recognize that I was extremely careful in NOT insulting the book in anyway.

I only wanted to state that I thought it should have been more in dept, but then again, I guess people like you wouldn't be able to comprehend it.

Anyway. I personally find that I deal best with a maniac when I see them from a statistical point of view. I was hoping that perhaps their was a good idea or two on how we can "tilt" these guys, or put them off their "game."

[Al Schoonmaker]

Some people have a natural gift for reading cards and people, and they don't need my book. I felt obliged to say so up front because it was written for the other 90 or 98% of the population. As a responsible author, I don't want to insist that it can help everyone.

You wrote about maniacs: "I simply fail to make complete sense of these weirdos." I can't make complete sense of them either, and neither can anyone else. They are very confusing creatures. Beware of anyone who claims to understand them completely; he is not being honest with you.

I think your "theory" is true for some maniacs, but certainly not for all of them. I honestly don't know ultimately why they (or anyone else) act in self-destructive ways. I can confidently state SOME of the reasons for a maniacal or other style, but it would be presumptuous for me to say that they hate other people or their jobs, have deep-seated inferiority feelings, etc.

That's the sort of pop psychology that no serious psychologist would write. People are NOT that simple, and the ultimate causes for any pattern of behavior are highly varied.

Maniac A may fit your profile. Maniac B may be close. And Maniac C may have a very different profile.

More importantly, the ultimate reasons for other people's behavior are essentially irrelevant. I don't have to know why a person has chosen to play like a maniac to know how to beat him.

Understanding the causes for your own behavior is much more important, and most players don't do enough self-analysis. "The Psychology of Poker" dealt with some of these causes, and they will be the dominant topic of "Poker Psychology Essays." I'm just finishing it now.

Regards,

Al