I'm glad to hear you will be doing the audio after the fact and I hope more coaches adopt this approach. One of the biggest weaknesses in poker video coaching, especially when playing multiple tables, is having to rush through the analysis of a hand, which completely ruins the whole point of the video. One of the reasons I think the BobboFitos videos at leggopoker are so good (apart from the fact that he's a very good player and teacher) is that he pauses the video often to make sure he is able to cover every aspect of the hand clearly and in full detail before moving on.

great thoughts chris

I also prefer after the fact videos. Doughnutz is another player who makes excellent videos this way, he's able to clearly explain his plays by pausing the video without having to rush onto the next hand.

This also brings up another point, not only is it difficult to teach, but it's also difficult to learn. Watching live videos is entertaining, but is it educational? I believe personally that I've improved as a player by watching the LHE experts play, but I struggle to think of a single concept that I can say I've improved upon. What I mean is, I feel instinctively that my game is improving so maybe watching videos is helping some of the info sink into the subconcious level, so I may be unaware of what I've learned.

Does any of that make sense? )

Great article, Chris. I especially liked this line:

"The truth is, he is an expert at hitting a baseball, but his subconscious mind shoulders the workload, leaving his conscious mind to try to come up with an explanation for how the whole operation works"

And this part:

"If we accept that we may not be able to consciously defend our brain’s actions when making unorthodox plays or ones that fall into the gray area between clearly correct and clearly awful, we as poker coaches must attempt to orient the student to all the factors we process at the conscious and subconscious level. It is therefore imperative that the student hones his own “feel” for the game through repeated experience, which can never be hastened or replaced with poker coaching."

We could think of there being three phases, like the phases of matter, gas, liquid, and solid. There's having knowledge -- knowing what to do. There's acquiring "feel." And there's the physical/mental act of attaining and maintaining a body-mind condition that is most likely to produce our best "feel" while we are actually playing.

I've always thought the highest compliment in the poker lexicon was to say "He's a solid player." This brings a whole new meaning to the word! (I definitely wouldn't feel complimented if someone called me gaseous. :-) )

Tommy

In after the TA ! Excellent article by the way DD. You could have titled it Musings on Learning Anything

Further into the topic of explaining one's actions. True thinking is never consciously motivated. We never know what our next thought will be, what generally happens is that a thought/feeling occurs (from who knows where) then action of some sort follows and then in the final analysis we make up some "excuse" or "reason" for this action.

Public Hammer: Funny enough Doughnutz was the exact example I had in mind when writing the sentence about being disappointed with a video from a well-respected player. I don't really want to stir up any trouble but he plays a lot better than the reasoning he gives for his plays (example: limps in sb with 23o with one limper and the explanation is "if they are going to let me see the flop for cheap then I'm going to take it!").

Tommy: Since we've met and hung out and aren't just internet buddies I'm going to share this, when I first read your posts on 2+2 before really knowing much about you, I would fall into the category of the guys who would dismiss you due to the perceived "bad poker strategy" you employed amidst your stories. I know now that I did that because I learned poker the way a lot of "internet players" learned poker, by trying to apply science and math to every scenario until it was solved! It's only been more recently that I've re-kindled an interest in really improving at poker again (I thought I had it all figured out) but my new methodology is to put my mind into a ready position to play optimally without "thinking" about anything. Getting rid of the HUD that shows online PokerTracker stats was one great example of how I've done this. As you well know, after we learn all the "strategy" of checks, calls, bets, raises, and often folds, we can start getting to all the important stuff, but first I think I have had to forget some of what I learned along the way to really start making progress. So I'm thinking using your analogy we should strive to end up as the "gas" because we leave behind a lot of the physical handicaps those solid states have but can condensate or desublimate (I looked this word up!) as necessary.

-DeathDonkey

So I'm thinking using your analogy we should strive to end up as the "gas" because we leave behind a lot of the physical handicaps those solid states have but can condensate or desublimate (I looked this word up!) as necessary.

I like that very much. We could even go another step and say that the ideal state of a poker player is superfluid.

From Wikipedia:

"A superfluid acts as if it were a mixture of a normal component, with all the properties associated with normal fluid, and a superfluid component. The superfluid component has zero viscosity, zero entropy, and infinite thermal conductivity."

Infinite thermal conductivity sounds a lot like tiltlessness to me. :-)

Tommy

Infinite thermal conductivity sounds a lot like tiltlessness to me. :-)

Tommy

Does that mean you run hot forever? That'd be pretty awesome

Chris, that was a really good article.

I read Blink about 3-4 months ago, and I seem to remember Gladwell citing a decision making experiment where people did pretty well when they were instructed to just intuitively choose (I don't remember how many choices they had, the nature of their options, etc.). However, when subjects were asked to justify their decision verbally to the experimenter, their decision making was much less strong. Maybe you can flesh out some of the details there since you read it more recently. If you don't remember I can try to look it up the next time I swing by a bookstore.

But given that, the results seem to suggest that live commentary actually hampers the play of the video making poker player. I'm wondering if you could address this point a little further. I'm especially interested in trying to reconcile these thoughts with, say, The Psychology of Poker, where Alan Schoonmaker urges players to have a continuing dialogue (possibly even out loud) about their decisions. In other words, to do the exact opposite of what the studies cited by Blink recommend.

And by the way, you and Tommy should extend the analogy to account for plasma and Bose-Einstein condensate.

Great question / point PygmyHero...

I think really the answer is two parts: 1) There are times where you just don't know what to do, villain's play either doesn't make sense or you just have a very marginal hand in a very marginal situation and if you are being honest with yourself, you just aren't sure what to do. That implies that your subconscious doesn't know what to do either, so in this situation talking through all the things you do know would definitely help you come to the most logical conclusion you can in that moment, which is what I think Dr. Al's main point is.

Contrast that with situation 2, the main point of my article (imo) - there are many times where you do "know" what to do, but you just might not have a great reason for it on the tip of your tongue. I think these are totally different situations than in #1, just like in the Blink experiment (I'm sort of hazy on the details too, audio book) where I believe the subject they were asked about was a familiar one, where we can presume people would have an easier time coming up with a decision.

Now as it pertains to making videos about poker, in my own experience doing the audio commentary does indeed hamper my play, but only at higher stakes (or more appropriately, in tougher games). I noticed this when contrasting my experience making videos for Mano a Mule, especially near the end vs decent players as opposed to the LAGs on a Leash series, which is at much lower stakes and generally makes for easier decisions. Furthermore, its a matter of my target audience, when I am doing a lower limit video I am concentrating on the fundamentals of sound poker play and theory, a subject that is easy to address with my logical mind. But when playing higher stakes, the target audience demands and deserves some second level analysis, metagame, detailed player reads, etc. and all these types of analysis / decision making occur at least partially at the subconscious level for me, so trying to articulate them quickly and concisely takes away from some of the things my brain needs to be doing to be a winning player in those games, so I give up something one way or the other.

An example of that last point immediately springs to mind and I don't mind sharing a failed video experiment - a bunch of us were up in Seattle and me, Entity, and Danzasmack tried to record a 15/30 video, single tabling with me playing and all three of us just discussing things as they came up. My brain was so busy trying to hold the conversation with those two, and analyze some of the plays we made post-mortem, that I realized part way through my play was just no where near the level its normally at, and that by the end of the video, with 3 good limit players sharing ideas and only one table to focus on, I knew hardly anything about my opponents in the game! We got destroyed in the video, and yes probably ran a bit bad, but I was never comfortable, and I think on a smaller scale that happens any time someone has to add in the audio commentary when the decisions are difficult and partially subconscious. I will probably know for sure after putting my plan into action and making some videos doing the commentary afterwards. By the way, I hope I didn't just tilt Entity if he was planning to release that vid, but I really doubt it

And by the way, you and Tommy should extend the analogy to account for plasma and Bose-Einstein condensate.

You just went way above any science knowledge I have!

-DeathDonkey

An example of that last point immediately springs to mind and I don't mind sharing a failed video experiment - a bunch of us were up in Seattle and me, Entity, and Danzasmack tried to record a 15/30 video, single tabling with me playing and all three of us just discussing things as they came up. My brain was so busy trying to hold the conversation with those two, and analyze some of the plays we made post-mortem, that I realized part way through my play was just no where near the level its normally at, and that by the end of the video, with 3 good limit players sharing ideas and only one table to focus on, I knew hardly anything about my opponents in the game! We got destroyed in the video, and yes probably ran a bit bad, but I was never comfortable, and I think on a smaller scale that happens any time someone has to add in the audio commentary when the decisions are difficult and partially subconscious. I will probably know for sure after putting my plan into action and making some videos doing the commentary afterwards. By the way, I hope I didn't just tilt Entity if he was planning to release that vid, but I really doubt it

I'm only tilted because you said you ran a bit bad. We ran insanely bad.

Rob

You see the same thing in other sports.

Magic Johnson and Michael Jordon couldn't coach a bunch of up and coming regular NBA players, but they could put a bunch off seasoned talented players (Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kareem, Rambis, Cooper, etc) on their back and take them to the NBA title over and over again.

It seems some of the best coaches were not the superstars of the game.

It begs the question, Would the best Poker coach be someone who is a winning player at midstakes yet was never talented enough to play the nose bleed levels?

DD,
I know you love to teach poker, but please do us all a favor, including yourself.
And become/BE the best poker player you can. This also means giving yourself permission, and allowing your brain to be "ARTSY-FARTSY".....think in the abstract, subconscious....FEEL..
I have so many thoughts here, and so much to say...wow.....(or is it I just FEEL, like I have a lot of thoughts here?...lol)

I know very little about poker compared to you.
By that, I mean, I dont understand poker theory, math wise or strategy wise etc....the brass tacks, nuts and bolts.....or "COOKBOOK" of poker.
The conscious part of poker.
The explainable part of poker.
The TEACHABLE part of poker.(I agree, debatable)
(the part me and Mr Tall agree, takes the "IT DEPENDS" out of poker)

However, I have enough confidence in my ARTSY FARTSY, subconscious, FEEL part of my thinking.
That when (ok IF) I ever master the nuts and bolts, I plan/can/will whoop your ass!!
Now you may pooh pooh my line of thinking here.(I actually expect you to, at first glance)
But I dont think you will, because my FEEL for your thinking on what I am saying is.....I(Mickey) have some merit in your(DD's) mind.
if I am wrong....never mind, either I am leveling wrong or you are, and thats ok BTW.

I believe what you said about thinking you had it(poker basics) all figured out. I think its true, or atleast 98% true, you got the nuts and bolts down pat. This makes you a good teacher and a good poker player. But I dont think (by itself) it makes you a GREAT poker player. In fact, I will go so far as to say, it only gives you the ability to play "adequate" poker. The ability to master the "basics" at this point in pokers history makes you better than maybe 95% of all poker players. In the not so distant future, if poker theory and teaching techniques continue to improve, mastery of the basics may be needed to play 1/2, and any higher limit game will need FEEL, METAGAME, ARTSY-FARTSY stuff, in order to beat.(course I agree that wont happen because the rake will kill the game first, as no player will have a big enough edge)

As for the videos, and poker teaching techniques at DC and others.
And I apoligize if I offend anyone.
THE PLAYING VIDS ARE TOO ADVANCED FOR TEACHING BASICS!!

I understand there is a GIVEN, that players/students on DC, have played some poker, post on 2+2, own and have read/studied at least some poker books, and UNDERSTAND THE BASICS of poker......
but wait....that doesnt make sense.....do they understand the basics? Is DC teaching FEEl and leveling, and metagame stuff to players who already know the basics.
I dont think so......(ok maybe oink, pokerbob,schneids,kpr16 and a couple other guys are)

Why are the vids too advanced? (and I admit, it may just be me, I am old and think slow)
you are showing the finished product, before showing the "how to"!
I understand the making of vids better now, as I have made some myself, although for a different purpose...."to show my finished product"...the way I play at present (hopefully constantly changing for the better)
The feed back I get on my vids, helps to fill in the holes in my thinking and/or builds better basics. But I am not using my vids to show a concept or basic tool. I think teaching a basic tool/idea/concept is done in a slower more indepth process. Danzasmack has used this process in the past.

so...what would I suggest, like to see?

1) there is no point in a 1/2 video (and debatably .02/.04 thru say 5/10, IMO the learning the basics limits), except to show a finished product of how to beat that specific game from a "basics Mastered point of view".

2) make a list of basics...how ever long that list is...make one vid on each concept, on JUST that concept, going in depth to the best poker knowledge available. The individual concept may need a short vid or a entire series, but once finished you are done teaching that concept!(course you would need to monitor the current questions and perhaps add if new info on that concept was found)

3) make this library of basics easy to access and if possible, in a order of learning thats makes some sort of sense.


4) I like the idea of you playing first and commenting after the vid is made, for lots of reasons. You play your best, and then after you can concentrate on all factors and take all the time neccessary to explain.

5) I would like to see some long(2-3 hours) "finished product" vids, as to get a feel for metagame. Especially at the higher limits.


one last thing...
Is the "feel, metagame" stuff, whats holding back the "internet kids"?
Cause they sure do seem to play better than the "old guard".
or maybe its, live reads vs how many tables we can play at once!?!?!...hhhhhmmmmm


DD..perhaps I over-estimate you (but I doubt it), I think if you allow yourself, you can be a truely GREAT poker player....and teacher too.....and thats that.

This article was great and really helped me to grasp some concepts I hadn't thought of before.

Also BTW Mickey, the 10-20 challenge krantz and whitelime do in an earlier video series has lots of metagame for higher limits

How do you teach art? While there are mathmematical concepts and logic behind every poker decision, the difference between you (DD and TA) and I is artistic, and that can be taught only to a certain degree. What you are really talking about here is talent, and that can be honed or nurtured or guided, but it cannot be taught.

There was a guy at the Wynn who was a former student of Joe Tall. Tommy, too, I think, as well as many others. He was terrible. Flat out awful. Joe called him a "poker consumer." I call him untalented. He's searching for someone to give him something he can never grasp. He simply cannot play poker at even a modest level. He has no talent.

Many of us have varying levels of talent, but few are elite. DD is elite. Danzasmack is elite. Krantz is elite. They have a talent for something I do not have, or at least to this point, haven't shown I have enough of it. One can only go as far as one's talent will allow. Accepting this as a fact is the beginning of understanding, and peace and satisfaction. There will always be a few who cannot explain what they do. While it may lie in the subconcious, it's basis is their talent.

There is nothing any teacher can do about this, except accept it. Tommy is one of the few I've ever heard of that told a student to quit--although he put it in a softer way. His ego is strong enough to accept that some are just not cut out for it. (I'm waiting for him to tell me to quit, but so far he's been a really nice guy and letting me find it out for myself.)

It's a good article, Chris, and well thought out, except for not quite getting to the point of saying, "If you don't have enough talent, nothing I can do for you is ever going to get you past the point of basic competency."

That hitter is extremely talented at hitting. He doesn't know how he does it. He can't explain it. He just does it. That is the essence of what talent is.

Tommy--no amount of practice would make me Pablo Casals.

Interesting take CJ, thanks for that. I think I disagree with you but I understand what you are saying. I think there is a spectrum of "mechanics" vs "art" in any skillful activity - composing music I think would be heavily on the "art" side, but I think poker is still more on the "mechanics" side. I am not ready to say to anyone "you will not ever get great at poker, you don't have the talent for it" - I don't believe it, but its an interesting question that opens up a whole different can of worms than my article intended.

-DeathDonkey

I believe poker can be learned almost as a degree course. The trouble is there isn't anywhere that teaches poker in that manner.

You can get most of the info you need somewhere online, but having a set of lessons, for example, lesson 1: basic pot odds, lesson 2: starting hands, or whatever, is nowhere to be found.

So we have to study where we can and learn by experience, and I actually believe that DC comes closest to the learn in stages format. Beginners can watch The Price Is Right, Intermediates can watch Shouldn't Fold, etc.

I think the desire to learn and applying yourself is more important than anything else. There probably is some variable that seperates the great players from the rest, but I do believe that with the will to learn any of us can become good, solid winning players.

Talent is largely a myth. Academic studies have found only one real correlation for expertise in practically any field and that correlation is the amount of hard work, or deliberate practice, the individual has put in. (Though incidentally a coach typically has a critical part in this process, because it's very difficult for an individual to objectively assess his/her weaknesses.) Now, you might argue that it takes talent to do years of hard work, but that sets up sort of a slippery slope in my opinion.

But that's not all. The mindset alone that one has these inborn restrictions (inborn talent), makes one perform worse. If you have this sort of fixed mindset that you "have it or don't have it", and run into a difficult problem, you're much more likely to give up. But if you have a growth mindset and run into difficult problems, you're likely to think that you just haven't worked hard enough and you decide to work even harder. This is much much more likely to lead to success.

So not only is it a false view that talent matters, but it's also a harmful attitude to have.

If you want to know more, a guy named K. Anders Ericsson has done a lot of research into expertise. Carol Dweck has studied and written about the effect of the mindset. She's a written (a bit touchy-feely but solid) book about it, called The Mindset.

Tommy is one of the few I've ever heard of that told a student to quit--although he put it in a softer way.

In the spirit of "the rest of the story" ...

There have been two times that I've advised clients to give up poker. Neither time was it based on money or talent. One guy was a full time pro who was making good money at poker. He came to a spot where he had to pick between the game he loved or the girl he loved. Another guy was a multi-millionaire before he played his first hand. He loved the idea of poker, but he hated what the actual playing of poker was doing to him.

I have many hats on my hat rack that I pick from when I coach. One of them looks like a sheet of reflective glass, bowl shaped, like a radar dish. When I have that hat on, I just gather photons and reflect them back in a narrower beam than they were sent out in.

Tommy

Let's get real here. I love music. I picked up a guitar for the first time when I was 13. I can play no better now than when I was 14. I cannot read music, despite many attempts. If effort was all that was needed, I'd be pretty good. I'm not. I have as limited a talent for music as one could possibly have who isn't completely tone deaf. I'm not tone deaf. In fact, I have close to perfect pitch. But I do not have musical talent.

Musical talent is closely related to math ability. I have very little math ability. Not math skills. I've learned enough math skills to get by. But it wasn't easy, and no amount of study is going to make me better to a great degree. I don't have the aptitude. It's not the way my brain works. My brain works in other ways.

I can write. I can write as well as 98% of the people on the planet. I can do abstract thought with the best of them. I have created memorable characters and semi-interesting stories. I can paint with words, but even the crudest stick-figures are beyond my hand.

No matter how much we want to believe that there is no such thing as talent, there is. We see it all the time. Talent without work will never be recognized. It takes great effort to make the most of talent. But when you start in a deep hole, no matter how much you build up, you're starting from behind. Talent is a high hill on which to build. The higher you start, the farther up you can go.

Manny Ramirez is known as one of the greatest hitters of all time by his peers. He's also know for his work ethic. The guy works harder than almost any other hitter in baseball. He has great talent and a great drive to be the best. If he didn't have both, he wouldn't have ever made it to the majors, much less to the Hall of Fame someday.

When we deny that talent is uber alles, we are begging to be disappointed. I know I'm rapidly approaching the zenith of my poker ability. I'm not ever going to be great, and how good I CAN be would be debatable. Not by me, however. I'm good enough to be much better than a break-even player, but perhaps not good enough to beat the rake. There is a limit to how much ability I have. My age, my lack of math ability, my stamina, my talent--even my emotional control--are all limiting factors. No one can question my drive, or effort, or desire. I'm going to get the most out of what I have to work with. I'm close to that point now.

Once you accept that there is a limit to how good anybody can be, then you can accept when you've achieved greatness. And greatness is when you've maximized your ability, not when measured against anyone else, because it's your talent. It's your ability. Since everyone has different starting levels, you cannot measure yourself against anyone else. Only yourself.

It's a pretty liberating thought. It's also reality.

CJ

I don't want to start arguing about this any further, but I still disagree with CJ's views on this subject.

But one point that might be relevant to the context that I perhaps didn't put enough emphasis on was the nature of the hard work. In academic research, it's described with the words deliberate practice, which refers to activity in which huge effort is put to eliminate errors. Most of the time it's not pleasurable or fun, which is why most people can't bring themselves to do it, constantly, frequently, year after year. But there are people who have a huge passion about what they do and they will not give up no matter what.

Coaches seem to have an important role in this process as it is really difficult, if not impossible, for a person to objectively identify weaknesses in his skills. We tend to ignore our weaknesses, or at least not put much emphasis on them, whereas it's coach's job to do just that, and to make you work on removing them. So, coaching is not so much about teaching what to do, but to identify what's wrong and make an effort to remove the mistakes.

I am sure that anyone who has a normal functioning brain can be great at this game or anything else that does not require some special physical or mental ability. I am not the smartest or most talented person on the planet. I am also over 50 years of age. Fortunately for me my brain still functions normally and I have no reason to believe that I can not learn anything I want to learn.

Now there are somethings I will never be able to do, but it is do to lacking physical ability or lacking interest. I will never be able to run 100 meters in 10 seconds. I will never be able to stand flat footed and jump straight up and touch the top of a regulation height NBA backboard (I am 6'1" 215 lbs), but this is due to a lack of physical ability. If I had the physical ability to run 100 meters in 10 seconds, I would certainly be able to learn the techniques to accomplish it.

The only thing that has prevented me from being an excellent poker player so far was finding someone or someplace that teaches the basic fundamentals in a structured, organized, systematic, step by step, line upon line, precept upon precept approach. This is how I learned as a youngster so this is how I learn today.

[quote]DD,

[b] 2) make a list of basics...how ever long that list is...make one vid on each concept, on JUST that concept, going in depth to the best poker knowledge available. The individual concept may need a short vid or a entire series, but once finished you are done teaching that concept!(course you would need to monitor the current questions and perhaps add if new info on that concept was found)

3) make this library of basics easy to access and if possible, in a order of learning thats makes some sort of sense.[b/]

This is exactly what I have been looking for. I have been a paying member of at least eight different training sites. Always looking for that structured, organized, systematic approach. I have finally been able to put together a course based on videos and articles from the different sites I have been a part of. I am sure that I will now be able to learn the fundamentals of this game and eventually reach my goal.

I will most likely never be a great high stakes player, but this is due to a lack of interest, not the lack of being able to learn and figure out how to beat the game. I just want to learn this game so I can travel whenever I want to. Beating two tables of $5/$10 for at least 5PTBB/100 will meet my goal. If I was interested in being a great high stakes player, and the information needed to become a great high stakes player was available, I just don't see how me or anyone with a normal functioning brain could not learn it.

Now I will be first to agree that **MOST** people will not be great at poker or anything else. This is not because they can't be great at anything, but because they are not willing to do what it takes to be great( study, hard work, practice, etc...).

So I would strongly disagree with the statement that some people just don't have what it takes to be great at something, unless that something requires some SPECIAL physical or mental ability.

Paul
Expert_Wanna_B
Seriously hoping C.J. is wrong :-)

Seriously hoping C.J. is wrong :-)

Me, too.

CJ I think a little study into Scientology (yeah, I said it) and some other brain-function education would go a long way with you.

I can say this in short but with confidence; believing what you do can only limit you.

CJ I think a little study into Scientology (yeah, I said it) and some other brain-function education would go a long way with you.

I can say this in short but with confidence; believing what you do can only limit you.

As soon as Tom Cruise starts on meds.

Ok, how about this? Knowing your limitations and not letting them hold you back is third-level thinking.

"A man's got to know his limitations." Josey Wales

I understand what you're saying, Joe, and everyone else, too. It's definitely going against the accepted dogma and damn-near UnAmerican to say you have limitations. Perhaps it's a function of age or an accumulation of disappointments, but at some point you either accept that you have limitations or you spend enormous amounts of energy trying to hold back the inevitable flood-tide. Which you'll always lose against.

Accepting your limitations doesn't mean accepting defeat. It doesn't mean making excuses. It's accepting reality, which isn't easy to do, but gets easier as you get older. It can actually be liberating. I don't have to wonder why I take three times as long getting out of bed in the morning. Because of my decreased short-term memory function, the extra fifteen minutes I spend looking for keys is a pain, but not worth going nuts over. I don't look longingly at the rim and wish I could dunk. I still look at hot chicks, but I can smile and go on with my day, knowing I'm not ever going to try to chase them down anymore.

Talent in many things is obvious. Tiger Woods has more talent than anyone. What he does with that talent--his obvious dedication and will to win--makes him the greatest golfer ever. We hear a great musician and know how many hours and years he's put in practicing, but even if we did the exact same amount of effort, we'd never play like that. Anyone who thinks he can, be my guest. Let me know when the frustration gets to you.

Poker is a talent, too. Joe, you work very hard at it. I know. DD does, too. So does Chuck. I've worked at it pretty hard. I'll never be in the same league. My age is one--which someday I hope you'll all live long enough to find out on your own--and my talent level isn't high enough. These are limitations which I have no problem embracing. In fact, I'm pretty proud of how far I've come with those two things holding me down. And they do, whether I like it or not.

Really, it's not a big deal. If at some point down the road I'm as good as I absolutely can be, then I've accomplished a lot. I'm not done yet, trying, but I'm done beating my head against a wall that I cannot knock down. I've done that before, plenty of times. It used to be worth the headache. Now, it only makes me realize I'm not the kid I used to be.

Sorry, Joe. Even if I had the inclination, interest or could put aside my distaste of that peculiar institution, I'd doubt I'd have any sudden epiphanies. I think I'll let L Ron Hubbard lie in peace.

You guys seem to think that what I'm saying is a bad thing. It's a perception problem. I'm not discouraged but at peace myself. I've been discouraged many times by failing to get where I wanted to go. I won't be this time, because I can accept where I am lacking. It's not a bad thing, at all.

TT spent a huge amount of time with me over the past year, and I came a very long way. He's a great coach and a very good teacher. Obviously, to get as much out of me as he has. But even with all the time he spent with me, and as much time as you and DD and Tommy have spent on me, I'm not going to be half the player you guys are. I know that I'm pretty close to maxing out. I can beat most people my age and many half my age. I'm pretty good. Not as good as I'd like to be, and not nearly as good as I wish to be, but I accept that I'll never be good enough to get past the middle of the pack.

As long as I'm not the worst player at the table, that's good enough. That's accepting your limitations, and it just ain't all that bad. Heck, I'm happy. How many can say that?

Peace.

You see the same thing in other sports.

Magic Johnson and Michael Jordon couldn't coach a bunch of up and coming regular NBA players, but they could put a bunch off seasoned talented players (Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kareem, Rambis, Cooper, etc) on their back and take them to the NBA title over and over again.

It seems some of the best coaches were not the superstars of the game.

It begs the question, Would the best Poker coach be someone who is a winning player at midstakes yet was never talented enough to play the nose bleed levels?

I like this line of thought because it fits very well with the way I view sports coaching and coaching in general. I watch an amount of football (soccer) that would make most people's eyes bleed and something that always crops up in debate is the extend to which the greatest players cut it as coaches later in life. It is fairly rare that someone in football achieves greatness in both management and playing.

I coach at junior levels (upto 16yr olds) and I can't run as fast as the players, I could never kick as well but I think about the game so much that I feel/hope that I can at least impart some knowledge to those I'm instructing. The players automatically know what to do but often struggle to explain to the team as a whole the role they play and why, I step in analyse the play break it down into a series of patterns or phases in the game and show with examples of cause and effect why a and b work but c does not. Then along comes some young up coming genius who goes and does c and the ball ends up in the back of the net.

Nice read DD

"There was a guy at the Wynn who was a former student of Joe Tall. Tommy, too, I think, as well as many others. He was terrible. Flat out awful. Joe called him a "poker consumer." I call him untalented. He's searching for someone to give him something he can never grasp. He simply cannot play poker at even a modest level. He has no talent".

CJ, I recall that guy cause I was there with you last Dec. I found it odd when he started the name dropping of various coaches(my "those who know don't know" meter pegged) that he used to have or currently had. Then I watched his play. He wasn't good. That guy was really the type who thought that he would be good at anything just because he could hire the best, own the best or read the best etc thinking that this would improve his particular flavour of the month activity. It's like he bought a $45k Steinway grand piano thinking that this was somehow magically going make him a better pianist than playing on his $800 1924 upright that was worn but played fine. These types of people only go so far with most activities they pursue because not only do they not put in the work but they dont apply things they learn. They think that just hiring a coach will make them a better player.

I have had various music students in the past. The ones that typically do the worst are the ones who are finacially well off, like to talk a lot(about themselves),can afford nice instruments. The ones that seem to do the best are the ones that put in the most work. True, some have varying degrees of natural abilities like in just about anything you can think of in life. True also that some just will never have it. Like me: I can't draw a picture. I could take some classes and learn the basics, but will I ever be as good as the little kid in my daughter's kindergarten class who was an amazing artist? Some things you can't teach. So I am with you regarding some of your points.

How does this apply to poker? I will let you know. I have been given a map, compass and a canoe for my trek.

One hugely relevant point to all this is that in order for one to develop these "blink" or intuitive decisions, you have to train your unconscious by this process of deliberate practice. But poker misses one critical component of this process which is immediate and accurate feedback. Yeah, sometimes the feedback is somewhat accurate, say when you value-bet a decent hand and get called by a worse hand or when you bluff with a hand that has no chance of winning the showdown and you pick up the pot. But equally as often the feedback is not accurate. You bet and your opponent folds and there's no immediate feedback whether that was the correct play. You bet and get called by some hand, but what's missing is the entire calling range of the player which is what ultimately decides whether the bet was good or not.

Contrast this to any physical activity where the feedback really is immediate and very accurate. If you're shooting something to a target, you immediately and accurately see whether you succeeded. Now, the feedback from things like your position/posture and other subleties are not quite so accurate, but still they are still there, you just need to learn how to learn them. Deliberately and consistently training in this kind of feedback loop sets an efficient and pretty reliable learning process which is largely unconscious to begin with. That is, you don't consciously learn how to hit the target, your brain does that automatically.

One area in poker that's a bitter in this respect is hand reading, but it has problems too. Ultimately, you'd need a probability matrix, but that's another one of those things that cannot be learned directly; we aren't just capable of thinking in probability matrices. But if you make this simplification of putting people on narrower ranges and pretty simple categories, stuff like "he doesn't have a small pair here ever", while similarly recognizing that this is a simplification, you get a much better environment for learning. This is area where you can get pretty good blink decisions, at least accurate enough to be basing decisions on. And when it becomes automatic, you don't have to start weeding out hands in your conscious mind, but "you just know" the opponent's hand, much like "you just know" that a person is angry when she has a specific expression on her face. But this is not a god-given intuition and some magic property of some people, it's a long and a hard learning process in which you just get better at time.

OHHH LALALAL

I think the in-game commentary is great and a very valuable resource to see what a player is thinking and deciding at that moment. It might be nice in the videos to go back over particular hands ( at the end of the video to further elaborate on the rationale behind the decision. This would obviously make the videos that much longer, but I think would be well worth it.

CJ I think a little study into Scientology (yeah, I said it) and some other brain-function education would go a long way with you.

I can say this in short but with confidence; believing what you do can only limit you.

I'm not going to pretend to know alot about Scientology much more than the media hype/South Park episode. I done some wikipedia'ing but can't make the link here. Can you help enlighten me here Joe?