Poker: What's so difficult about it???

[CallYNotRaise06]

great posts, really made me think.

[UATrewqaz]

1. Emotional control - Very few people can avoid tilt forever

2. The ability to ride out variance/bad luck/bad beats and still play your A game (see above)

[phish]

One thing I tell non-poker players is that poker seems like a very simple game because, as you said, the rules are simple and decisions are limited. But hidden within that seeming simplicity are layers upon layers of complexity.

All the items you've mentioned only scratch the surface. What's important to win at one level may not be very important at all at a higher level. As you move up and play with different opponents, the complexity of the game peels open gradually like layers of an onion.

So many people think they're great and know all there is about poker, only to look back two years later(when they've much more accomplished) and see that they knew squat at the time. Of course these are the ones who grow. There are many who think they know it all for 20 years, and they never improve.

It seems if you're not discovering how little you knew two years (6 months?) ago, then you are not growing and poker WILL pass you by.

[shutupndeal]

Good post IDN and I like Hotpants's reply. The number 1 thing I say anyone needs is discipline it is also the toughest thing to aster. I am playing this game 26 years on and off and it can still go out the window upon occasion.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
The maths involved should be within the grasp of a good proportion of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I'm amazed at the number of people who don't know even reasonably basic mathematics, like taking 15% out of a bill or multiplying 17 by 11. A lot of people have a perverse respect for innumeracy that they woundn't dream of having for illiteracy (which is only slightly more important). I think the math alone sinks a lot of people.

Playing poker is easy. Playing consistently winning poker is difficult. I took your post to be wondering what makes a player a winner and why are most players losers.

My 2 cents:

The vast majority of players don't try to be winners. They don't read the literature, they don't read these groups, they don't watch the game closely, they don't analyze their play, they don't think about what other players' actions mean and all of the rest. They do not develop the skills to become winners and they don't even know, nor do they care, what those skills may be.

I can't relate to their thought processes. I wouldn't put my money at risk without some idea of what I was doing.

I've gone so far as to recommend Dr. Schoonmaker's book to a few friends because they are 'hopeless' and I thought they would recognize themselves in the book and then take corrective action. None of them ever read it. That's why there are so few winners. Never mind bringing the total package to the game. They don't even know there is one.

[AlanBostick]

Not only do most people not put the effort into becoming money-winning players, they simply don't want to do so.

Likewise, I enjoy playing Scrabble, but I have absolutely no interest in putting the effort needed to become a successful tournament Scrabble player. Doing so would destroy what it is that I enjoy about the game.

Bridge writer Victor Mollo wrote a wonderful book called You Need Never Lose at Bridge. The introduction was all about how how his various characters with whom he populated his chapters on play were each and every one of them winners ... because whether or not they won any particular rubber, they each and every one of them got what they were really playing to get. Many of the so-called fish from whom we money-winners take the money in poker are also winners, because they are getting satisfaction out of the game that maybe some of us money-winners don't get any more, and that this satisfaction, not the money, is why they play.

All this self-congratulation about how hard it is to become a winning poker player is nonsense. How many of you have tried to get good at, say, chess? Jeebus, compared to the work you have to do to become a decent chess player, getting good at poker is child's play.

I consider myself a mediocre poker player, not a good one. I work on my game to improve, and I do improve, but in the grand scheme of things I'm a spear-carrier compared to the stars like Chip Reese and Doyle Brunson.

I've been a winning poker player for almost a decade now. That part was easy.

[scotty34]

Here's some of my thoughts on the subject, in addition to agreeing with most of the previous posts. This post is assuming the players are not addicted gamblers, and are generally rational in their thinking.

There are people who just play poker for fun, and there are people who want to get serious about it and make money. The people who play for fun are obviously rarely going to get very good at the game, and just play at whatever limits they feel comfortable with and will almost always lose long term.

For the people who are serious about getting good at poker, they have some big obstacles to overcome. You cannot just read a book and jump into a 5/10 game and start winning. You probably can't even just jump into a .5/1 game and start winning. It takes a lot of discipline and study and experience to become a winning player. I think for a lot of players who want to make money, starting at .5/1 just isn't worth it for them. It would take ages to build your skills enough to go from .5/1 to a level where the amount of money you can make is actually significant. Many players simply do not have that kind of time, due to their jobs, families etc. (as an aside, I believe this is a reason why there is an decreasing trend in the average age of good players).

They will get frustrated grinding through the micro limits, and take shots at games that they clearly aren't ready for and/or are underbankrolled for. Either that, or they may just decide to start off at 3/6 or 5/10 or higher, where even with decent basic knowledge of the game, you aren't likely to be a winner.

In summary, the lower limit games can easily be beaten. I am very confident that I could teach anyone without a major learning disability to beat Party .5/1 within two months if they were actually serious about it. The problem lies in discipline and frustration for those who are serious about getting good - the risk/reward payoff or opportunity cost just don't seem to warrant the time that needs to be invested.

Also, you would probably be very surprised with how many players 'think' they are winners, and chalk up losses to bad beats. I can tell this from talking to friends that play who are clearly losers in my mind, and from the countless times of watching the 50/5 player berate the 40/30 player for sucking out, and how terrible his play was.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
It would take ages to build your skills enough to go from .5/1 to a level where the amount of money you can make is actually significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only statement of yours I really disagree with. I started playing 0.5/1 in October 2004. It's still 2005 and I am now playing 10/20 and 15/30. I still have weaknesses in my game and I will likely stay at these levels for a while to improve my game, but I am now playing in games that, while hardly world class, are substantially more difficult than the games I initially started playing, and I am pretty confident I am at least a marginal winner.

Realistically, it is possible to move up to another limit properly bankrolled in about a month if you play full time and within several months if you play part time. Of course, you have to do the right things during that time and it is hard work.

It's not the time consumption that keeps people from moving up. It's their laziness in not making more of an effort to get better.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the only statement of yours I really disagree with. I started playing 0.5/1 in October 2004. It's still 2005 and I am now playing 10/20 and 15/30. I still have weaknesses in my game and I will likely stay at these levels for a while to improve my game, but I am now playing in games that, while hardly world class, are substantially more difficult than the games I initially started playing, and I am pretty confident I am at least a marginal winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course their are anomalies for people that are just very gifted at learning this game, and those that run very hot. From the sounds of it, you probably have benefitted from both of those factors. I have played roughly 6 months, and have reached 5/10 and take shots at 10/20 - however, I look at some of the posters that I was playing .5/1 with when I started, and they are playing 1/2 now, or getting beat at 2/4. I still believe for the average person, even if they are serious about learning, it takes quite a lot of time and patience to be able to beat a game where the money is significant.