Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Psychology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-12-2005, 09:42 AM
Marlow Marlow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 25
Default natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

I woke up this morning thinking about the Big Dance. It occured to me that Greg Raymer could very well still be in it, though I thought the chances were remote. Not because Greg's not a fantastic player (of course he is), but just because it seemed so totally improbable.

When I saw this morning that he's got the big stack, I fell off my chair. What an incredible accomplishment...

Anyway, I've been thinking about natural ability and ability gained from experience and study. I think that anyone at his level needs lots of both, but some people seem to have more natural ability then others. I guess that I think of Greg as someone with great natural skills, but not good enough to rocket to the top without years of study.

Now I really don't know all that much about the folks at the top. But I do know that I read over and over that the top pros were winners almost immediately. Thay they crushed people with greater expereince in their second and third outings. This is depressing to me as I'd like to think that I could get to that level if I wanted to. Well, Greg is there and it didn't happen overnight.

I'd be interested to hear people here weigh in on the "nature vs. nuture" debate about poker. Can any person be a winner? What does a natural talent have that an average player does not?

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]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-12-2005, 11:00 AM
Erik Blazynski Erik Blazynski is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

I dont know where you've read that the top pros were winners immediatly. From what I have read they've all gotten broke at least once since they were pros.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-12-2005, 11:01 AM
ipp147 ipp147 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Croydon, England
Posts: 155
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

Hi Marlow,

Good post.

Alot of what you read just makes for good reading. Most of the big name pros seem to be trying to diversify into other financially lucrative areas (sponsorship etc) which makes sense. It helps if they have a story to sell behind it!

I read somewhere that Phil Ivey for instance has worked his way up from something like 8/16 4-5 years ago by playing 60hrs a week for example. He didn't just wake up and crush them.

I think that people that have a natural aptitude for maths/logic etc will always have a headstart. This will get you so far and you then need to include someones temperment and bankroll management etc as you step through the higher games.

I think in terms of the overall debate study/experience makes up a huge part of it.

For study I am talking about thinking about the game/situations away from the table. Reading and absorbing books etc.

For experience I mean playing lots of poker. That's poker where you are concentrating and not 8 tabling 3/6 limit to make money.

I've rambled here, alot. But what I suppose I am trying to say is that I think that study makes up a much bigger piece of someones ability than natural flair for the game.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-12-2005, 11:27 AM
GreywolfNYC GreywolfNYC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 290
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

Hi Marlow,
The two previous posters were right. It simply isn't true that most of the top pro's were immediately successful. Phil Ivey used to play 1-5 stud in AC. Howard Lederer admits it took him two years before he became a winning player in a 1-2 game (that's dollars, not hundreds or thousands of them.)
Studying, playing and having a coach or a very good player to discuss hands with can bring you along very quickly. Beyond the strategy that, for example, Sklansky and the better poker writers can teach you, its mostly experience, game selection and your own temperament. And I dont think the last of these can be stressed enough.
Assuming you've read the better strategy books, read Inside the Poker Mind by John Feeney and by all means read Barry Greenstein's new book. I think those books can explain what I'm talking about in ways that can vastly improve your game.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-12-2005, 11:50 AM
revots33 revots33 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 28
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to hear people here weigh in on the "nature vs. nuture" debate about poker. Can any person be a winner? What does a natural talent have that an average player does not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting post. I've thought about this myself.

I do think any person (with reasonable intelligence) can be a winner if he applies himself and studies the game. Not every successful poker player needs to be a math major from MIT, or an expert in game theory and the like.

With all the accumulated poker knowledge now available in the form of books - plus the ability to play tens of thousands of hands online before ever risking any serious money - it is a more level playing field than ever for a new player to learn and succeed in the game. Even if they don't have a lot of innate ability.

I think natural talent, when discussing poker, consists primarily of a person's psychological makeup. The best players have the type of mental discipline that many of us do not have. I tend to think that stories of certain players magical abilities to read other players are a little overblown. Not that some players can't sense weakness better than others - but they don't have x-ray vision either. Mostly their success comes from a)knowing the proper play, and b)making the proper play. Many of us know a, but our emotions get in the way when it's time to follow up with b.

I do think that this type of discipline can be learned, however. Which is why I think any player CAN overcome a lack of natural talent, with enough work on his discipline and all the psychological aspects of poker.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-12-2005, 02:08 PM
R_Ellender R_Ellender is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 50
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

I think natural ability may play a role in becoming "good" or "better than average" a little more quickly, but no one sits down at a poker table for the first few times and becomes an expert.

I think I had a knack for poker when it came to the psychology of the game, but I played it just like I played any other game, whether its a board game or basketball... look for my opponents weaknesses and tendencies. However, without the study and experience that I've acquired, I'd probably be a break even player at best, and most likely a losing player.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-12-2005, 06:10 PM
TaoTe TaoTe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: I am NC
Posts: 300
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

I found this article while searching through cardplayers archives and thought it might help you feel better.
[ QUOTE ]

Card Player Magazine Volume 14, No. 8

No Title
by Johnny Chan

I'd like to write a bit about the early days of my poker career. Everyone has to start somewhere, and there is no shame in playing small games or small tournaments - quite the contrary, actually. In the early '80s, I played the tournament circuit - but not the circuit you might be thinking of. It was the Las Vegas small-tourney circuit. I played all over town in the $55 buy-in tournaments. I did it for years, and it was a big factor in my becoming the player I am today. I used to play at some casinos that you may have never heard of, or at least probably never entered - like the Landmark and Silver City. A number of other players used to do the same thing. One of those players was Tom McEvoy. Tom and I spent years playing as many small tournaments as we could handle, and sure enough, both of us eventually became world champions.

The point I want to drive home is that playing in these small tournaments gave us the experience we needed to beat the larger ones. Poker is hard work, and just like any other profession, it takes experience to rise to the top. When you play poker long enough, you start to see the same situations come up again and again. Now, I don't mean the exact same cards and people, but close enough. I don't care how smart you are, if a situation is new to you, it is hard to make the correct decision consistently. But if you make the wrong decision a few times and the situation comes up again, you say to yourself, "Hey, I did this last time and it didn't work too well; I'll try this instead and maybe it'll work better." And lots of times it does, and you remember it. That's just one of the things that experience does for you.

Another advantage of having experience is the peace of mind it brings you. After having been in a situation a number of times, you'll be less likely to panic, and you'll feel generally more comfortable in the surroundings. A good analogy is an athlete practicing and honing his skills. You don't see the top players in any sport just winging it. They spend years doing drills and developing their muscles and minds to be able to perform when the time comes.

When I play enough with someone, I know how he plays and I know how he thinks, so when it comes down to getting involved in a pot with him, I almost know what he has. For instance, there are certain players who always play the nuts. I'd watch them time after time when they went all in and they'd almost always have the nuts, or close to it. By spending hours with them in the small tourneys, I learned what types of hands they played, and this helped me avoid getting involved with them at the wrong time in a larger tournament. This in turn translated into a lot of extra money for me, as I avoided getting knocked out on a number of occasions.

Here's an example: Suppose that a certain player opens the pot and I raise with a pair of queens. Now, this player comes back at me, and I've played a lot of times with him, so I've formed an opinion about how he plays. If it were someone I'd never played with, I might be forced to automatically call and see what happens. But if it's a player I've watched a lot and I know that he'd never come back at me with anything but aces or kings, I can muck my hand with confidence. This is one of many examples of how putting in the hours in the small tourneys can pay big dividends. You'll never know how someone plays until you've seen him in action for a while.

Now let's flip that around a little. Suppose that I raise with a pair of jacks and another player comes over the top for all of his chips, and I have been watching this player over the course of many tournaments. Now, I've seen him make this play with aces, kings, and queens, of course, but I've also seen him do it lots of times with small pairs. As a matter of fact, let's suppose that I know this player makes this play every time he has a small pair. Perhaps he thinks his small pair is a big favorite over any two big cards, like A-K or A-Q. He also may think that by doing this, he can get his opponent to lay down A-Q, A-J, K-Q, and a few other hands. I can obtain a read on this type of player by sitting with him in numerous tournaments over a couple of years or more. Now, my play is fairly clear. I've got to go ahead with the hand. If he was an ABC player, I'd be much more inclined to muck it. Had I not spent the time to play so many times with this player, I wouldn't really know the correct play.

Sometimes you'll learn that a player never calls a big bet unless he has the absolute nuts. He likes to open a pot with big hands and then has conviction only if he flops a huge hand. If he opens for a raise and flops a mediocre hand, he bets a small percentage of the pot. He feels obligated to bet, but has no conviction about his hand, so he makes a token bet. Let's say that if he misses the flop completely, he always checks. Now, let's say that you have position on this player. If he opens the pot, you could call him with almost any hand. What he does on the flop will tell you how to play.

Lots of players have different moods at different times. By playing with them often, you can sense their moods and factor them into the decisions you make when playing hands against them. There is an endless list of skills that you can cultivate with experience. The bottom line is that the more you play, the better you should become.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-12-2005, 06:34 PM
AKQJ10 AKQJ10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 184
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

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]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-12-2005, 07:07 PM
TaoTe TaoTe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: I am NC
Posts: 300
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

Should have thought of that, but I'm a N00B so please forgive. I can't get the link to work though.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-12-2005, 07:08 PM
Marlow Marlow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 25
Default Re: natural skill, hard work and Fossilman

You are the man! I DO feel better.

I feel like one of the problems with Cardplayer is that they kiss the pro's asses non-stop. We're supposed to look up to them and root for them. And then they don't look like real people. This really puts it all inperspective... ty.

Can u imagine Chan in a $55 buy-in event? Unreal...

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]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.