I just did something really dumb

[Al Schoonmaker]

Warren,

I definitely did not mean that YOU make those basic mistakes, but most of the mistakes we make are NOT caused by lack of knowledge. We know better, but don't play as well as we know how to play.

The reasons for bad play vary from person to person. My weakness is poor concentration. If I am card dead (or have just played too long), my mind wanders, causing me to make some very silly mistakes.

Your desire to test yourself against tough competition is very negative EV, at least for the short term. You don't seem to have a more common problem: overestimating your own skills. You very directly admitted that these opponents were smarter than you are.

Yet you played, and I believe you did so because the kick of competing against tougher players outweighed -- at least temporarily -- your desire to make money.

However, if you never test yourself, you never learn how good you are, nor can you develop your game. I therefore would not worry too much about it. If you occasionally take a significant loss, but learn from it, the harm is within tolerable limits.

However, if you can't handle that loss and feel obliged to continue to play after losing too much, then you really have a problem.

You might regard the money you lose playing in tough games as "tuition" or "R&D." It's an investment that may well pay off in the future.

I know from our conversations and correspondence that you take extremely detailed records. You might want to add something to those records. For each session you might want to evaluate the relative skills of the opponents and yourself. Then compute your win-rate for various combinations to learn exactly how well you do against various levels of competition.

Regards,

Al

[Warren Whitmore]

That is exactly what I am talking about.

[Warren Whitmore]

There was a time when I would have disagreed with you about that. I have no choice however but to agree with you. It doesent seem like I want to do foolish things so that I will lose but the data certainly does support that theory.

[Warren Whitmore]

Dr. You have done more for my win rate than anyone else. Indeed you would be my first choice for a live tutor/patient if we lived in the same area. I don't say this because I feel that stratagy is unimportant, its just that the stratagy I understand.

Indeed "Most of the mistakes we make are not caused by lack of knowledge." 80% of the people who took this survey agree with you on that. That is going to cause me to shift my poker study time from one third each logic, statistics, and psychology to 50% psychology, 25% statistics, and 25% logic. I just ordered your books "a students survival manual, and Executive career strategy". I did not at first see the relavence of material like that however have learned about anxiety from your book "Anxiety and the executive" I have changed my mind.

Now I must disagree with you on something. "If you never test yourself, you never know how good you are, nor can you develop your game."

That with the help of a computer and your matrix is very easy to find out. My abilities are Y=0.3415X(squared)-7.4814X+68.792. Where Y=The percentage of hands seen in the river where played by the parameter "Stone killer" and X = The big bets earned per hour in a limit game including (Omaha hi low split, 7 stud high low split, 7 card stud, and Texas Holdem).

I have gotten enough data above 68.792% through tourneyment play where I am frequently forced to play against better players to be able to interpolat data rather than depending on extrapolation. I appreciate your offering an out but it would be pure denial for me to take it.

This may sound a bit shortsighted, but how can you misapply information if you don't have any to begin with?

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
This may sound a bit shortsighted, but how can you misapply information if you don't have any to begin with?

[/ QUOTE ]
If an opponent bets into you, and you have no info on him, you make your decision based on the cards, odds, or whatever. This doesn't sound too terrible, right?

But, if you have a read on him that he NEVER bluffs, but you call/raise him anyway (with nothing), is this not MUCH worse?

At best, the 2 can only be equal. If you draw incorrectly without knowing the odds, you're making an equal mistake to the person who knows the odds and draws anyway.

[Dan Mezick]

Warren,

You might consider picking up the books by Mark Douglas TRADING IN THE ZONE and THE DISCIPLINED TRADER. This guy lost everything, experienced "FORCED AWARENESS" and came all the way back. The books are about beliefs. The basic premise is that beliefs drive all behavior. I tend to agree. These are trading books and poker is not mentioned even one time. Do not let that fool you. These books contain many insights useful for poker players committed to mastery.

"FORCED AWARENESS" according to Douglas is the event that forces you to wake up. It's usually a high-magnitude loss big enough to grab your attention.

Everyone holds current beliefs, and each operate from and are somewhat limited by a unique set of temperament variables that, when recognized, can help determine your tactics. For example some players do great in the first 2 hours of a session, and then performance degrades. Nothing wrong with that. Recognize it, see it as reality, and limit sessions to 1.75 hours. Make adjustments, ask questions later. Keep records to pay attention by intentionally tracking the results of making such adjustments. There is no perception without attention. Intentional temperament-aware tweaks like this can and will greatly improve overall win rate.



Some traders take 1% or so of funds and get SERIOUSLY out of line playing risky games with options and other "fun" stuff. The intent is to INTENTIONALLY VENT any out-of-line risk-taking tendencies that build up, such that the trader can eliminate it (in the biological sense) from time to time. Such intentionally risky gambling behavior can be very productive in terms of playing your "A" game in your main line of work.

Some poker players who know themselves well will drop down 2 or 3 or 4 levels in stakes and intentionally play wildly-- for the same reasons. Just to vent. You may usually play 50-100 in a very DISCIPLINED way. And from time to time, you "feel a buildup" and know you need to vent those out-of-line tendencies...so...you drop down to 5-10 and just cap every stinkin' street with QTs early when you know for a fact the late guy still in definitely has a hand in the range of QQ..AA. And you just attempt to run him down. And sometimes you do. Sometimes you dont. Either way it really does not matter because it it not about winning the hand per se.

You may choose to put at total risk from one-half to one percent of total bankroll from time to time this way. You intentionally get involved in this "BS" because you know for a fact that since you adopted this practice, your records show plainly that your equity curve has smoothed out, your drawdowns have decreased in magnitude by half and your frequency (interval of time, from drawdown low to recovery to previous equity peak) has gone from 5000 hands to 1350 hands. In analysis of results, you notice after a while that you tend to engage in this activity after playing approximately every 7000 hands of your 50-100 game.

This is just one example of possible temperament-centric intentional adjustments and practices. I notice you posted recently about a home game you participate in or hosted that appears to serve the very same purpose.

Serious study of poker is a great entry point to diverse subject matter. Serious study of poker probably increases at least some aspects of consciousness.


Inattentional Blindness

The Disciplined Trader- Developing Winning Attitudes

Poker and Consciousness

[Warren Whitmore]

Thank you, I just purchased them all.

[play2win]

First off I play at much lower limits (5/10 and lower) so most of my experience doesn't apply. I can openly admit that I make stupid mistakes due to lack of concentration, almost all of them are due to not applying information that I have or that is/has been available that I didn't acknowledge or recognize.

What I think might apply is what drives me to play in certian games. Usually I play against the same people, but when I make a trip to Vegas or Foxwoods I will often play in a game that I know I can't beat. I expected to win, but inside I knew I probably wouldn't (and I didn't).

I read through Schoonmaker's Psychology of Poker once, I felt like I didn't get much out of it breezing through it. Then months later I picked it up again along with a highlighter and pencil and worked through it proactivley and made notes. I used it more like a textbook and got much more out of it.

I found that I play for differnet reasons than I origianlly thought. For me thoose games are more about the challenge. Kind of like beating up your big brother, it doesn't happen often, but when it does it feels good. This is a recent revelation for me, so from here I will look at it as paying for a lesson. As long as I watch when i'm not in a hand and walk away feeling like I might have picked up something new it will be worth it. I have my next trip to Vegas scheduled in January so I am sure I will sit in on a game that is out of my reach at least once but with this new mentality.

Although I could not imagine losing 6k in under an hour. I will have set a stop loss before I do it....probably more like $750. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[PokerCad]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to your poll is contextual.

If you have more knowledge than your opps, application
is the primary key.

If knowledge is about the same, then both apply. More
towards knowledge for a novice, more towards application
for an expert.

If you knowledge is worse, then there is a limit to
how helpful the application is. Again, specific circumstance
will modify this.

Everything above to a matter of degree, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, UR right on,,UR one smart cookie I say with sincerity