The Psychology of Poker By: Alan Shoomaker

[KenProspero]

If I were to rank all he poker books as far as usefulness to a new-intermediate player, Theory of Poker would be first, and Psychology of Poker would be second.

First of all, it gives you the tools to analyze your 'natural playing style'. In all liklihood, you will see yourself in the descriptions Dr. Al gives, and you will recognize your natural style of play (even if you thought your were TAG). After this analysis, you can begin to make the decision of whether you want to play poker to satisfy your emotional needs, or whether you want to play poker to win money. If you understand your own playing style, through conscious effort, you can mold yourself to the player you want to be.

Further, if you can identify personality traits in your opponents, you can make tremendous gains in reading them and determining how they play.

From these two areas alone, your long-term profits will increase tremendously if you understand what Dr. Al is saying.

[davet]

I will defer common opinion and say that I am not the largest fan of this book.

I am a very experienced player and I do derive most of my income from playing.

However, I will not say that it is useless, just that I would prefer to study other things. Perhaps I am obtuse and analytical, but whatever.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am obtuse and analytical, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that you're being either. If you play well enough to derive most of your income from playing poker, you probably don't need this book.

My experience -- I'm a casual player. I play online at stakes that are fundamentally meaningless to me. Occasionally at casinos, again small stakes.

My natural playing style is weak-tight. In 40 years or so, I could be one of those geezers who are the rockiest rocks you'd ever see. After reading a couple of books, I thought I was becomming TAG -- but looking back at it, I wasn't. I had probably moved my aggressiveness from about 10% to about 25%.

POP got me to analyze my own playing style, and realize that if I wanted to be aggressive, I'd have to work at it, really think through every hand I play and force myself to make plays that are counterintuitive to me, but vital to my success.

Also, in thinking of my own psychological make up, I realized I'll never be a poker pro. If I had to worry about my poker playing ability to support myself, I'd probably worry myself into a heart attack.

So, I've identified myself as a recreational player. I identify stakes where I can play aggressively and win, but where if I lose, I only lose my money, not my sleep.

I think this kind of evaluative process is important to a new player, and even more so to an intermediate player.

You need to identify your natural style, your 'natural' comfort zone, and whether you'll be able to move your comfort zone as you get better.