---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by WiltOnTilt (Micro/Small Stakes)

what is this? I could find any series with "haj" or "school" in the title/author

it's under "the haj school" so look under the T section in the "any series" drop down on the video page.

Time Link to 00:17:35

lol pizzanits

Great video, and very interesting!

I was an INFJ in the personality test, the least common in males, wonder how I should take that... lol.

Anecdotally, many poker players show attributes of Asperger's Syndrome or High Functioning Autism. There is an online tool developed by Cambridge University to measure autistic traits in adults.

The Autism Spectrum Quotient http://aq.server8.org/

As WOT recommends for the personality test featured in the vid, if you take this AQ test think about what biases your score might mean for your poker play. For example, high functioning autistics tend to be somewhat rigid in their thinking and may have trouble adapting to poker table dynamics.

Anecdotally, many poker players show attributes of Asperger's Syndrome or High Functioning Autism. There is an online tool developed by Cambridge University to measure autistic traits in adults.

The Autism Spectrum Quotient http://aq.server8.org/

As WOT recommends for the personality test featured in the vid, if you take this AQ test think about what biases your score might mean for your poker play. For example, high functioning autistics tend to be somewhat rigid in their thinking and may have trouble adapting to poker table dynamics.

Hey QD, thanks for posting that. I'll check it out when I get a chance.

WoT

Anecdotally, many poker players show attributes of Asperger's Syndrome or High Functioning Autism. There is an online tool developed by Cambridge University to measure autistic traits in adults.

The Autism Spectrum Quotient http://aq.server8.org/

As WOT recommends for the personality test featured in the vid, if you take this AQ test think about what biases your score might mean for your poker play. For example, high functioning autistics tend to be somewhat rigid in their thinking and may have trouble adapting to poker table dynamics.

I scored 24, slightly above average, which makes sense to me. I suck at social situations mainly because I never got much practice and don't particularly care much to improve.

The problem I have with tests like these is the elimination of nuance. Like the 1st statement/question of this autism test - do you prefer to do things with others or by yourself? Well, I prefer to have sex with others and to watch porn by myself.

#2 - 'I prefer to do things the same way over and over again'. Well, if I did it perfectly, then I prefer to continue doing it perfectly. If I did it poorly, I'm not going to keep doing it that way.

The problem I have with tests like these is the elimination of nuance. Like the 1st statement/question of this autism test - do you prefer to do things with others or by yourself? Well, I prefer to have sex with others and to watch porn by myself.

#2 - 'I prefer to do things the same way over and over again'. Well, if I did it perfectly, then I prefer to continue doing it perfectly. If I did it poorly, I'm not going to keep doing it that way.

certainly a valid concern and I like that you are thinking in this way because ep2-4 is going to deal with biases and fallacies and I'll talk about how it's good to get in the habit of looking at all the angles while trying to decide if a certain piece of info is valuable for you.

When I take a test like that I immediately start trying to figure our what the creator of the test was trying to find out with each question, and how that relates to how the test is scored. It's sort of amusing. Basically I want to know how to get a max score and a min score.

(Doing it properly I scored 24 as well.)

The problem I have with tests like these is the elimination of nuance. Like the 1st statement/question of this autism test - do you prefer to do things with others or by yourself? Well, I prefer to have sex with others and to watch porn by myself.

Social cognitive psychologists like Albert Bandura agree with you. Bandura argues that dimensional tests such as in the vid report statistical artefacts that are less than useful in real life. That is the tests create an average across all circumstances but, to be useful, a theory needs to be able to explain past behavior and to predict future behavior in specific situations not general. These statistical averages turn out to be poor explainers and poor predictors in specific social situations precisely because the nuances that explain are averaged away.

It is best to think, as suggested in the vid, of these background factors as tendencies modified by circumstances. You might be more or less likely to be say, introverted or extroverted, depending on circumstances. Despite a test score of strong extroversion, for example, you may be very introverted at a party of non-English speaking foreigners while your friend, the extreme introvert poker player, might be very extroverted at a party of poker playing relatives. Most of us are more extroverted when we share common passionate interests.

I wish this series was also available MP3 format

There are now mp3 versions of all pokersense episodes available.
-Rusty

Only now started watching this series, seems really sweet.

At the end of the video you discuss with Paul and wonder why a persons aggressiveness IRL correlates with his WTSD%. I think this is pretty clearly because these people tend to have a huge ego and getting bluffed would be a catastrophe for them They also tend to dare other people to bluff them rather than valuebet themselves and hence more pots go to showdown. These are ofc just my own observations.

Only now started watching this series, seems really sweet.

At the end of the video you discuss with Paul and wonder why a persons aggressiveness IRL correlates with his WTSD%. I think this is pretty clearly because these people tend to have a huge ego and getting bluffed would be a catastrophe for them They also tend to dare other people to bluff them rather than valuebet themselves and hence more pots go to showdown. These are ofc just my own observations.

sounds reasonable

Hey, WiltonTilt^^

I have just right now heard a lot of great things about your series here.
Hence I also wanna stick now with it.

One question:
I would like to listen it per a MP3-file (only audio).
Do you think this is enough to get the keypoints out of your series?

Yes the slides aren't really necessary

Yes the slides aren't really necessary

cool and thank you for the quick respond

Time Link to 00:43:53

It's interesting that the only common attribute among the list here is that everyone on the list is "intuitive". Would be interesting to know if that is a big trend among players, in general, or just this list. fwiw, I came out as an INFP

Time Link to 00:56:57

Why is the myers-brigss more popular?

my rough ratings
high - low
O |x----------------------------|
C |--------------------------x--|
E |--------------x-x-x--------| depends on mood and who I'm with
A |--x--------------------------|
N |-x---------------------------|

Sad for me that western mass media and pop culture says (and worryingly popular opinion it seems) if we are not.
O |---------------x------|
C |x---------------------|
E |x---------------------|
A |----x-----------------|
N |--------------------x-|

Then we are weird, losers, ill, or need to man up, sort ourselves out, stop being lazy and take drugs if it's chronic. Sad that many can't see the benefits of those who don't fit the mould.

I haven't read up on personality lately, but going to go back on it, feel like the big 5 is pretty solid (quite valid) but has some gaps.

I am high on neuroticism but hardly tilt anymore (still not very experienced) probably because I have a math background and have got used to bad beats over time and understand the game is about learning and volume.

I am very compassionate towards other people generally but it often depends what I think of them (and my general view of other people isn't totally stable but provisonal, at the moment it's quite misanthropic) and don't care when it comes to playing poker because it's a fair game (and it's against men). On the other hand I'm on the political left and high empathy.

The part about studying the righ sort of videos hit home with me - definitely need to focus on the big picture videos first and struggle with hand history and review videos. Looking forward to going through the rest of the series and being reminded what an idiot I am a lot of the time.

Thanks for posting. Definitely there are some things in this series I should re-listen to for myself. I think a lot of things I teach are from self discovery and fixing, sometimes it helps to go back and always stay on top of things. I hope you like the rest of the series.