---

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

what is the book he mentions at 13:50? Gary sth?

Also, could you post his website and some useful links to NLP info/books/videos/resources

what is the book he mentions at 13:50? Gary sth?

Gary Vaynerchuk - "CRUSH IT"

Time Link to 00:18:26

How long should I be massaging my forehead?

How long should I be massaging my forehead?

5-10min/hour he said.

cool video michael and saibot.
great videoproducing skills saibot, keep it up!

My gf said that your huge forehead is indicative of great intelligence.

5-10min/hour he said.

cool video michael and saibot.
great videoproducing skills saibot, keep it up!

Thanks

My gf said that your huge forehead is indicative of great intelligence.

lol - I will choose to take that as a compliment

disappointed to see a reputable poker site give time to someone who suggests NLP which is widely considered to be an absolute joke of a discipline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

from wikipedia;

"Criticism of NLP extends beyond a lack of reliable experimental evidence to support its claimed effectiveness. The title of "neuro-linguistic programming", has been described as pseudo-scientific because the claims, concepts and terminology may appear scientific but are not grounded in scientific research. NLP appeared on list of discredited psychological interventions in related research that investigates what does not work.
The title of NLP has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific. Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever." Roderique-Davies (2009) states that "neuro" in NLP is "effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility". Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly, experimental psychologist Corballis (1999) in his critique of lateralization of brain function (the left/right brain myth), states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[19]
Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding yet questionable expressions such as; pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc. Canadian skeptic and psychologist Barry Beyerstein (1995) also says that NLP contains terms such as, eye accessing cues, the metamodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, representational systems, and submodalities, intended to obfuscate and to give false impression of a scientific discipline. He says "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[67] Furthermore Beyerstein (1995) believed that NLP has helped popularize myths about the brain and neurology. He believes that the aphorism, “you create your own reality”, promotes a relativistic perspective and only seeks to gain immunity from scientific testing.
Clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005) identified NLP as an early example of a power therapy. Devilly claims that these so called power therapies share characteristics of pseudo-science including: the promotion of unobtainable goals, rationalization traps, manufactured credibility, a set of specific beliefs, self generated persuasion, vivid appeals, the use of common misconceptions, and attacks on critics through the use of innuendo.
NLP has been criticized alongside theories and practices characterized as questionable, pseudoscience and/or discredited practices in therapy. Sources within therapy and psychology include books such as Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work? (1997), Science and Pseudo-science in Clinical Psychology (2002), and Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain (2007). Articles critical of NLP also appear in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000), and The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003). NLP has more recently been used[22][22] as a key example of pseudo-science to facilitate the understanding of the importance of rational and critical thinking in a number of academic subjects. Lilienfeld et al (2001),[22] Lum (2001), and Dunn et al (2008)[22] have used NLP as an example of pseudo-science for teaching undergraduates how to identify pseudo-scientific psychological interventions.
According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. With reference to work by Carroll (2003), Della Sala (1999), Lilienfeld et al (2003) and Singer and Lalich (1996) on “pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies” within clinical psychology, Norcross et al. included NLP for treatment of mental/behaviour disorders in a[24] survey of the opinions of psychologists who rated NLP between possibly discredited and probably discredited, a rating similar to dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT). Norcross et al. in their Clinician's Guide to Evidence-based Practices[25] listed “neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” seventh out of their list of the ten most discredited drugs and alcohol interventions, and it is listed as “certainly discredited” in Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy (Fala et al. 2008 as cited by Glasner-Edwards and Rawson, 2010)."

Hi guys, Michael here writing from Saibots account.

First of all cool with the feedback.

Using the powerpoints I described is not massaging, it's holding lightly. And you hold untill you can start to feel a pulsation on both points, and that can take from one minute to 45 is my max I've tried with a client. The reason why it's not massaging or holding with force is that then it will be the pulse from your fingertips you'll notice instead.

For nlp books and ressources check out stuff by Richard Bandler himself, the old book using your brain for a change is very cool. Also his latest books got some very good stuff in them that's somewhat easy to do yourself.

And about the scientific thing about nlp and energy psychology. Richard Bandler who created NLP and who I've learned from says himself that nlp will never be scientific. One of nlp's definitions is the structure of subjective experience so...
Second, there's a huge, vast amount of people claiming to do nlp, many bad trainers etc. NLP can work very fast if done by a skilled trainer/person and it's NOT easy. Many people training and certifying people will like to make people believe it's easy, it's not.
So expecting it to be scientific is nonsense, it would almost be like saying, loose agressive isn't scientificly proved to be profitable.

Energy psychology has been studied and verified to be very effective and in a study done in 5 university hospitals basically kicked the s... out of cognitive psychology and medication when it came to people with anxiety. It should be easy to find on google, I get paid to get people results, not convince people, so I'm not really interested in long discussions about what other people can't do or can't get to work. I choose to focus my time on learning from and modelling people who can get great results.

For me it's always been about getting results, and getting them to last and getting them as fast as possible. And I've found that having nlp they way I've learned it, and refined it further myself with some things, and the same with energy psychology is a big part of what enable me to get results with clients that I see few others in the world being able to. And still, it's far from all I do and use.

Let me know if you have more questions, I'll drop by a couple of times to check.

Sincerely Michael

How about wearing a headband or a bandana like the tennis pros of yore, would that work, too?

Michael

do you have a website or any books?

The only youtube videos I have seen from you were about comfort zones, but I couldnt find anything else on the web about your services.

That was great I'd like to see some more of these interview style videos on DC!

Hey,

cant agree with your criticism about NLP less.

First: two of the major characteristics of a science are a systematic approach to the matter and a method. Both of this is widely recognizable within NLP- dont get me wrong. I am not a aprentice of this science but read and used a couple of books and it worked and made sense. You can find so many tecniques by NLP in several fields like Management, sports with just anther lable anothe. I ran a department with 5 people using this stuff to motivate and overachieve. Look at any sports-star . golf- formula one etc. all of them use visualization a method originally developed by NLP.

Just because it does not have a wide academic following means it is a piece of shit etc. Traditional psychology is based on sick assumptions from more than one hundred years ago by sick individials like Freud etc.. Their professional followers do everything to stop stuff NLP etc. to not enter the academic world and mainstream media.

Best regards

disappointed to see a reputable poker site give time to someone who suggests NLP which is widely considered to be an absolute joke of a discipline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

from wikipedia;

"Criticism of NLP extends beyond a lack of reliable experimental evidence to support its claimed effectiveness. The title of "neuro-linguistic programming", has been described as pseudo-scientific because the claims, concepts and terminology may appear scientific but are not grounded in scientific research. NLP appeared on list of discredited psychological interventions in related research that investigates what does not work.
The title of NLP has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific. Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever." Roderique-Davies (2009) states that "neuro" in NLP is "effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility". Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly, experimental psychologist Corballis (1999) in his critique of lateralization of brain function (the left/right brain myth), states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[19]
Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding yet questionable expressions such as; pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc. Canadian skeptic and psychologist Barry Beyerstein (1995) also says that NLP contains terms such as, eye accessing cues, the metamodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, representational systems, and submodalities, intended to obfuscate and to give false impression of a scientific discipline. He says "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[67] Furthermore Beyerstein (1995) believed that NLP has helped popularize myths about the brain and neurology. He believes that the aphorism, “you create your own reality”, promotes a relativistic perspective and only seeks to gain immunity from scientific testing.
Clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005) identified NLP as an early example of a power therapy. Devilly claims that these so called power therapies share characteristics of pseudo-science including: the promotion of unobtainable goals, rationalization traps, manufactured credibility, a set of specific beliefs, self generated persuasion, vivid appeals, the use of common misconceptions, and attacks on critics through the use of innuendo.
NLP has been criticized alongside theories and practices characterized as questionable, pseudoscience and/or discredited practices in therapy. Sources within therapy and psychology include books such as Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work? (1997), Science and Pseudo-science in Clinical Psychology (2002), and Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain (2007). Articles critical of NLP also appear in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000), and The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003). NLP has more recently been used[22][22] as a key example of pseudo-science to facilitate the understanding of the importance of rational and critical thinking in a number of academic subjects. Lilienfeld et al (2001),[22] Lum (2001), and Dunn et al (2008)[22] have used NLP as an example of pseudo-science for teaching undergraduates how to identify pseudo-scientific psychological interventions.
According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. With reference to work by Carroll (2003), Della Sala (1999), Lilienfeld et al (2003) and Singer and Lalich (1996) on “pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies” within clinical psychology, Norcross et al. included NLP for treatment of mental/behaviour disorders in a[24] survey of the opinions of psychologists who rated NLP between possibly discredited and probably discredited, a rating similar to dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT). Norcross et al. in their Clinician's Guide to Evidence-based Practices[25] listed “neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” seventh out of their list of the ten most discredited drugs and alcohol interventions, and it is listed as “certainly discredited” in Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy (Fala et al. 2008 as cited by Glasner-Edwards and Rawson, 2010)."