no talent

[Cactus Jack]

I'll give you a different point of view, or POV, as my former obsession put it. I spent 8 years writing novels. I wrote 5, none of which were ever published. Actually, none of which was very good, to be honest. I worked at it, trust me. Finally, I had to admit I simply didn't have enough talent to succeed. I was like a bad karoke singer. Never could see how bad I was writing. Or, like a minor league baseball player, I didn't have enough talent to make it to the big leagues. I didn't give up so much as I gave out.

There is absolutely no sin in quitting. If you are honest with yourself, and it certainly sounds like you are, then there is more honor in that than beating your head against the proverbial immovable object. You are to be saluted for your insight. Few are able to do it. Damn few.

Best wishes to you,

CJ

[Cerril]

I'm not sure I agree with you. I understand that the normal learning process doesn't apply to poker (as outlined in SSH), but that doesn't mean that some people aren't better to innately think abstractly than others.

Math aptitude isn't something most people argue about, and I place logical aptitude in this category as well. Throughout my schooling I would constantly run into people with no ability to think abstractly or to follow a set of false premeses to a false (but valid) conclusion.

Skill in poker involves a lot of these same aptitudes, along with tolerance for loss (or the gap between loss utility and gain utility), along with a variety of other things.

Many people are not completely inept but need a lot of practice at these, while some are just wired this way all along (which tends to make them inept in other social areas). Some people have better tolerances for adapting to new learning styles or picking up concepts without concrete examples to support them. All of these things I would place under 'talent'.

Some people just cannot overcome their natural deficit and can't get good at poker. Like most things in life though, the number who -cannot- is far, far smaller than the ones who simply will not and believe that it means they cannot.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that you know you are not a tremendous player puts you well ahead of your opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the key points of this thread. Knowing that you're not very good at something is the most crucial step toward getting better. And if you already know you're not good at something, you're one step closer to figure out why. If you enjoy the game and want to get better, then the next step is just to start breaking it down, as Mortal wrote. OK, you think, I'm not too good at this. In what particular situations am I having the most trouble? Do I have trouble handling particularly aggressive opponents? particularly passive ones? Do I play many more hands than most of those who post on these forums recommend?

In other words, continue the same analysis that brought you to this point. 2+2 is a great help if you can identify specific problems, as I'm sure you know.

Good luck,
Rhone

[Lash]

About 12 years ago my best friend told me something regarding "talent" that has stuck with me.

I had mentioned that in sports, arts & entertainment, and science you couldn't make it a life choice unless you were a prodigy. He simply responded...

"IF there is such a thing as a prodigy, I am one."

[timmer]

"There is no try. Only do or do not"

-yoda

http://www.kwanumzen.org/primarypoin...gstrymind.html

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-t