June 29, 2010
It's interesting how we approach learning.
As a coder my skillset is fairly easy to quantify:
1. I understand a concept/discipline at an unconcious level. I am confident in the theory and implementation. I am able to utilize it, leverage it and extend the scope of it. I am also able to provide quality training and guidance to others.
2. I am familiar with a concept/discipline, but not at an unconscious level - I still have to refer to documentation / manuals to clarify some points of syntax or implementation. I can safely implement it in a live environment, although perhaps not with optimum efficiency.
3. I am aware of a concept but not very experienced in it. I have experimented with it in a sandbox environment and have some limited understanding of the scope and implementation. I am very likely to miss apply or overlook some concepts and features of the discipline and the process is likely to be flawed and unreliable.
4. I have seen some discussion of a concept which may or may not be related to my current discipline. I have not investigated further and would be unable to describe the scope of the concept beyond a vague definition.
5. I am completely unaware of a concept or its meaning and definition.
And looking at this list it seems possible to apply this to my study list for Poker, and try to identify those areas that require additional study.
I've been experimenting with trying to create a study schedule for myself that ties in with how I learn on a personal level. And given that I have definitely succeded in learning web development to a point where I am at the top of my game, I'm trying to review that journey and apply it to Poker.
I'll write more on this idea in separate posts, as I experiment with the concept and test the theory a little. I'm debating how far down the rabbit hole to go with discrete concepts of a discipline, whether to take a broadbase approach to all round "poker" theory or to specialise. It might boil down to personal choice.