Studying vs Experience

[Dazarath]

Last night, I was talking to a friend of mine who recently developed an interest in Hold'em. He's your standard college student who plays $5 tourneys with friends. He asked me if I thought reading was more important or playing for experience. When I started out, after playing like 2-3 games, I asked to borrow a book from my friend. He told me to just play with them because "experience is the best teacher", to which I responded, "No, I don't want to lose money to you guys playing incorrectly. I'd rather read, so when I gain experience, I can be learning how to play correctly." (Not in those exact words, but the jist of it is there.) I understand that after the initial step, it becomes a continuous cycle of study/play/study/play.. etc etc. What about for someone just starting out?

I personally don't believe that experience in poker always builds skill level. When I go to the casinos, I see elderly players who've probably been playing for 30-40 years of their life. Even though they've played for twice as long as I've lived, I see them make blatant mistakes that I've learned not to do in only a year. It's very easy to develop bad habits when trying to learn on your own and never have anyone or anything tell you that it's wrong.

As humans, I think we depend a lot on conditioning to teach us what's right and what's wrong. In school, if we work hard, we get a good grade. When playing videogames, if we play correctly, we win. I know this isn't always the case, but it's moreso than poker. The whole idea of positive action leading to a positive reward, whereas a negative action leads to a negative consequence applies in a lot of life, but not so in poker. In poker, I can play my AA perfectly, and still take a horrendous suckout on the river. I can incorrect limp 83o UTG and flop a boat. Combine this with selective memory, and that's a formula for those B&M players we all see who never raise AA because it "always loses" or they always play 83o because "they flopped a boat with it twice in a row."

Assuming a new player knows the rules, I think reading is the way to start off, because then while playing, you can start to work on building good habits. Trying to play first just leads to misguided experience and bad habits, which later have to be broken once you learn the correct playstyle.

[Brom]

[ QUOTE ]

I personally don't believe that experience in poker always builds skill level. When I go to the casinos, I see elderly players who've probably been playing for 30-40 years of their life. Even though they've played for twice as long as I've lived, I see them make blatant mistakes that I've learned not to do in only a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed this too, and have often thought about it. I estimate that I've actually played more hands in my 5 years (mostly online and some live play) of playing poker than some of these guys have in their lifetime of solely live play.

I think they are too cemented in their ways and how they think about the the game. They probably learned to play this way in home games with their drunken buddies, and havn't really been exposed to a more intellectual side of poker. Also, they tend to categorize all us "young punks" in the same group. Just a lot of general things that lead to there inability or unwillingness to improve.

Oh yeah, to answer your post, I think new players should also start off by reading one book. It will teach them what to look for, and how to learn. Just one book though so that they don't become overwhelmed by too much conflicting advice and different styles, etc. Then some live play for a while, then start the whole cycle.