great thoughts chris

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

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

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

Tommy

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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 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 :-)

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.

"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.

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.

OHHH LALALAL