dont create your own style....by dr al

[jordiepop]

I really like this article but i dont totally agree with it. follow me here...I practice martial arts. jeet kune do to be exact which is bruce lee's "style". But his attitude was to not have a style at all. he studied a form of martial arts for several years and realized he needed to adjust it to better suit his physical make up.
'

with that being said, i think you can see why i dont agree out right with what he says. after time you can adjust various styles as long as you understand the basis for them. I think you need to truly understand something through and through before you can adjust, but you still can do it.

this article really struck a chord with me....i wonder what you guys think about it.

[jfk]

Normally a player would disregard Dr. Schoonmaker's advice, especially about limit play, to their peril. This article is not one of those times.

The great worth of poker books is not in teaching a system but in teaching a player what to consider in a given situation. This is especially true of 2+2 titles.

The complexities of poker are such that a player can't really think of correct play as a system. There are too many variables. In a game like limit hold 'em, you could argue that starting hand requirements are something which can be codified, but there are freqently going to be game conditions where a good player must make adjustments from standards.

[ QUOTE ]
Good authors have recognized that the game has changed over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and poker literature sometimes can't keep up with the changes. For instance, a move seen with increasing frequency is the auto 3 bet in BSB play in full ring. Let's say the botton opens for a raise. There are many players who will now automatically 3 bet any playable hand out of the blind. This seems to be partly an import from shorthanded games where a great premium is put on taking control of the hand. This move is made not by players who would fall in the "maniac" category that some books address. Generally, they're tight and aggressive with the emphasis on aggressive.

Which "system" would best counter this? If a reader was steeped in the Lee Jones or Ciaffone/Brier camp, they'd likely get cuffed around for the night? How long would a player have to stay with this system before realizing his failings? How well would a player do who learned limit play solely from SSHE in a very tight and aggressive game? How well would that Axs fare?

The value of good poker literature is that it teaches concepts and principles which can be applied to individual circumstances. Even the notion that a system could be learned, from say, Phil Hellmuth's very brief (and very unorthodox) advice in "Play Poker like the Pros", is quite a stretch. One can't even neccessarily assume that [ QUOTE ]
...(good authors) have also looked self-critically at their own work and seen ways to improve it

[/ QUOTE ] when it comes to a book like Hellmuth's or Ken Warren's or an older title by say, Amarillo Slim or John Scarne. Is it not possible that some of these books are published primarily for commercial purposes rather than to teach solid, winning poker.

How unfortunate would a player be to stumble upong "Play Poker Like the Pros" and stick to those methods for a prolonged period?

Poker is not yet at a point where systems will have an edge over thinking players. Bots (as far as has been reported) have not fared well against good players. decisions in poker are too complex and a player following a system would eventually be exploited.

Dr. Schoonmaker's advice may be well applied to players in a very early stage of poker development. To the typical 2+2 reader who is a devoted, reflective, winning player this is a very poorly considered page of advice.

[Ungoliant]

When reading the article, I kept thinking to myself "wtf is he talking about?". Most poker books I've read, especially the good ones, don't teach a "system"; they teach players how to think about the game. They don't say, "In situation abc, do xyz." They say "In situation abc, here's what you should consider when choosing your play." It's ultimately up to the player to learn to analyze the situations and make the right decisions.

While I can sort of see what he was trying to say, the crux of the article seemed to be, "These poker authors are pretty smart guys, you're too stupid to come up with anything better, so stop thinking so much and just do whatever they say." IMO, that's horrible advise to give any poker player unless they're a complete novice and you're just looking to give them a starting point. In fact, I would argue that taking that attitude actually leads to some of the pitfalls he discusses, such as players taking authors' advice too literally and using it out of context. It causes people to focus too much on what the authors say to do instead of thinking critically about why they're doing it and how their action would change if certain conditions were different.

There's a reason why there are so many strategy forums on this site. Based on this article, it almost seems as if the author would suggest shutting them all down and taking all discussion to the Books forum to decide which author has blessed us with the best "system".

[jordiepop]

vnh.... your one of my favorite posters.

[Gelford]

Do not criticize Dr. Al, My question is why has our magazine editor not rejected this at best beginner aimed article (and at worst a piece of misleading crap) ???

[SlantNGo]

Depends how you read the article. He is right in that when you read and are skeptical of the advice you right, it is natural to not engage it critically and only compare it to your initial "hunch". Thus, if you are not going to follow the advice that is published, engage it critically, write down why you think it is wrong, and let another good player review your criticism to make sure that you're not just accepting/rejecting it because it follows/doesn't follow from your "hunch".

[LearnedfromTV]

I think this article is fine for bad players who want to be mediocre or mediocre players who have trouble thinking about poker situations for themselves, but no one who is interested in playing poker well should think of the game the way he implicitly assumes it should be thought about. Yes, poker authors who play well will present in their books a well-integrated set of guidelines. But the reason they can do this is because they play well, not the other way around.

A full "poker system", which isn't writable, is a game-theoretic monster of adjustments and counteradjustments. People who play well do so because they adjust well to others adjustments. No book does this justice, and many books are fundamentally flawed in that they do not even address it. Some books are decent at describing the most common situations, incorporating static descriptions of your opponents' play, and walking through the thought process that gets you to a decision. This is very different from providing the reader with a system for winning money or being a good poker player. Reading a book like it is a system and following it robotically will at best make you a marginal winner, and I'd be surprised if the best poker authors would say any differently. As advice for marginal low-limit winners who do themselves more harm than good by misapplying concepts, maybe this article is fine, but it has little to say beyond that.

Final point. I think players who play in game conditions that are different from those primarily described in whatever author's book they read are far more likely to be harmed than helped by the reasoning in this article.

[Rijeka]

this is a great example of terrible article. some articles that have incorrect premises or conclusions are helpful because they stimulate thought and/or debate, which will ultimately lead to a keener insight into the game. this one is just plain stupid because any debate over it won't shed any light whatsoever.

previous posters are correct. i strongly doubt most serious poker writers would claim that they have written airtight "systems" that cannot be deviated from.

if anything, shoonmaker is doing a great dis-service because the logical conclusion of his advise is to simply memorise and blindly follow guidance without critically thinking about what went into it in the first place.

i owe a lot of gratitude to dr. shoonmaker for his ideas, guidance and interesting writing over the years. this is far and away his worst article yet, and comes as a disappointment.

[PJS]

I agree with everyone's comments so far. First off, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Schoonmaker's contribution to the poker literature, and have enjoyed his book/previous articles. However, I must admit that I'm surprised that someone with such a strong academic background would advise you to read something and take it as gospel. When I started university, we were constantly being told we must develop a "critical" understanding of the material, and not accept something because it has been written by an authority. As a result, this should deepen our understanding.

As we know, there are many poor books on the market, for example Ken Warren, and if we apply all his advice as a "system", I don't think it would take too long before going broke.

Also, Doyle Brunson says on p.529 in Super System 2: "you don't have to play exactly the way I describe in this chapter. You'll probably want to pick your own style and modify these concepts to fit the games you play".

As we know, poker is a game where you always have to adapt to situations. I beleive the only way you can do this is by having a good knwledge of the theory, as a "memorized system won't allow you to adjust appropriately.

Anyway, like I said, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Schoonmaker, and look forward to his future articles.

PJS

[BigBuffet]

Here's an ecerpt which sums up my view on Dr. Al's article:

article (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/Mezick1106.html)

POKER AND FINANCE PART 4 AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON BROWN BY DAN MEZICK

Q. You argue on page 19 that a focus on individual poker hands leads to high-variance, random results. Then you say that "If you can see the game from a fresh angle, not already embedded in everyone else's play, you can come up with new ways to win." Give us an example of a fresh angle.

A. This question has the same problem as hot stock tips. Once it's published in 2+2, it's not exactly going to be a fresh approach that takes everyone by surprise. The key is seeing from a fresh angle to generate your own ideas , not reading about other people's.

[Nietzsche]

I don't get this article at all. It seems to me Dr. Al totally dismisses the value of critical thinking which is so essential to becoming a high stakes player (same in the academics world). Those who are still stuck at the low limits after years of play are those who follow books religiously. It is very easy to become a slave of books. The hard part is thinking for yourself. Some people, it seems, let books prevent them from reaching this stage.

[Dynasty]

For those of you criticizing the article, who do you think Dr. Al was writing the article for?

[mshalen]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you criticizing the article, who do you think Dr. Al was writing the article for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

My impression of the article was that it was aimed at beginners who may sit down and read two or three poker books and think that they have all the information to create their own winning strategy.. Put yourself in the shoes of a novice player and imagine how confused you would be if you read Hellmuth, Small stakes holdem and anything by TJ. After a beginner understands one style of play he is then ready to learn others, discuss with people that have more experience (that is what brought me here) and then eventually they will develop their own "style". But if the beginner starts with a chinese menu style of play he will soon be broke.

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you criticizing the article, who do you think Dr. Al was writing the article for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good quesion.

Here is what I found:

contributing (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/contributions.html)

Contributing to the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine
High priority topics are:

· Intermediate to advanced level discussions of poker strategy. This can be about any form of poker, cash game or tournament.

Low priority topics are:
· Beginner to advanced beginner level discussions of poker strategy. Usually these are restatements of concepts you could find in most strategy books.

[Ungoliant]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you criticizing the article, who do you think Dr. Al was writing the article for?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question and it's a shame Dr. Al didn't address it in his article. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Seriously though, several people have already said that it's not horrible advice for novice players. However, I don't think it's good advice for the vast majority of the readers of the magazine.

My fundamental disgreement is with the premise that most books present a "system" that the authors expect their readers to follow precisely. Here are a few quotes from some of the better books I've read:

From Harrington on Hold 'em, Vol. 1:
[ QUOTE ]
In many cases good arguments can be advanced for an alternate play to the one I recommend in this book. No-limit hold-em is not an exact science. My recommendations are always reasonable but under certain conditions a different play could be slightly or even clearly better.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Phil Gordon's Little Green Book:
[ QUOTE ]
There are many ways to win at this game. I intend in this book to write exactly how I play. You may disagree with many of the plays that I recommend here. Good. I want you to approach this book not as a definitive quide for how to play, but as a catalyst for thinking about the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And finally, from No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice:
[ QUOTE ]
Relatively little has been written about the game, and most of what has been written is either misleading or is presented in a "recipe book" format. That is, most of the discussion has been of the "If you have top pair, and your opponent bets, raise..." variety. These recipe books give you a taste of how to play the game, but can get you into trouble quickly if you know only the what's and not also the how's and why's.

This is not a recipe book. We don't tell you what to do if you have top pair and your opponent bets. We tell you what factors you should consider when you make your decisions. We teach you how excellent players think about the game. We don't give you a fish so that you can eat today; we teach you how to fish so that you may eat forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

What they all basically say is that they are NOT presenting a system which should be followed rigidly. They admit that they can't cover every possible scenario and that there may be better plays than those that they suggest. They encourage thinking critically about what the best play is in any given situation, rather than telling player exactly what to do. Dr. Al's opinion of how these books should be used seems to differ from that of the authors themselves.

That's not to say he doesn't make some good points. People can misuse poker books in a multitude of ways, including many of the ways he mentions. But just because many people are prone to misapply concepts, that doesn't mean everyone should just give up on trying to think about the game and just do what some author says without understanding why. And once you fully understand why an author is giving the advice he's giving, you're more than qualified to think about how you might improve your own game by deviating from their system.

[Al Schoonmaker]

The most fundamental principle of all my writing is that most poker players greatly overestimate their own abilities.
This overestimation causes countless players to play in games they can't beat, to continue to play long after they should have realized that they are not playing well tonight, to ignore criticisms, and countless other extremely costly errors.
A second major principle of my writing is that most people grossly misunderstand their own motives. They claim to be trying to maximize profits and ignore the other drives that cause they to take negative EV actions.
Both of these tendencies cause people to believe that they can quickly and easily improve the systems of Sklansky, Malmuth, Brunson, et al.
I will agree that poker systems cannot be as tight and unified as those in the hard sciences, but that's a minor point.
The critical question is: WHY are you modifying a system? If you are doing it to make yourself comfortable, you are probably making a mistake.
Regards,
Al

[jfk]

Without wanting to pick a fight, the reply here is as unsatisfactory as the original article. Not mentioned is how one might see poker books as offering a "system", rather than a theoretical framework which would lead to correct play.

Several posts in this thread have pointed out how several of the authors have said that they don't teach systems.

Also not discussed is how a player might take the very brief sections devoted to play of given forms of poker by authors like Brusnon or Hellmuth and derive a system from them? How would a reader know that they've found a flawed system if they happened to start with an author like Ken Warren?

While it may be true that [ QUOTE ]
most poker players greatly overestimate their own abilities

[/ QUOTE ] it is fair to say that many of the readers who make the effort to thoughtfully reply and comment on these articles spend a lot of time evaluating their own play motivated by a desire to improve.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Several posts in this thread have pointed out how several of the authors have said that they don't teach systems.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of a system?

HEPFAP would certainly be a system if the basic tenets are:

1. Pre-flop play tighter in early position and looser in late postion.
2. Bet and raise with your good hands to protect your hand and win more money.
3. Make your big folds on early streets and your loose calls on later streets.

Those three points are rather basic and generally accepted as solid play. But, using a broad definition, it is definitely part of a system to beating limit poker.

Doyle Brunson's book has System right in the title. But, it also advocates adjusting your play when appropriate.


I think part of the dispute in this thread is that critics are defining a system very narrowly. They are thinking of it as an inflexible way of playing

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
I will agree that poker systems cannot be as tight and unified as those in the hard sciences, but that's a minor point.
The critical question is: WHY are you modifying a system? Regards,
Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a minor point to me. We are not installing plumbing where a deviation could cause a flood in the basement.

We are playing a dynamic game. Each person who plays will interpret aspects of various books differently. More importantly, the other players and situations at the table will not be static. We need an arsenal of tools and skills to use in various situations against varioust types of players.

Case in point. The current HOH vs Snyder tournament book discussion. Why should I pick one 'school of thought'? If I see valueable ideas from each author, I will use those ideas as appropriate. I'm not playing football and required to follow the coaches play calling. I can pick and choose from various books as I need to.

Again, as someone brought up earlier, your post may be great for new players. But according to the goal of the magazine, they aren't the target audience. There is a beginners forum and your article would have been better placed there.

The dispute is not the validity of the article but the audience.

And to answer your critical question: Why? Because we feel we have the experience and ability to adapt to changing circumstances at the table in order to maximize winning.

It's not like I have cartoon ballons above my head with book titles in them and I go "Hmm, which one now /images/graemlins/confused.gif "

It's more fluid and intuitive. The right move comes naturally. While I may use nuggets from various authors in a given session, it's not a conscious pick-from-the-menu activity.

Think of Mixed Martial Arts genre of fighting. They have many martial arts school moves to draw from. If an opponent steps into the cage knowing only one technique of fighting, they are at a disadvantage, to put it mildly.

[SA125]

Doc, I agree 100% with your pricinples that most players overestimate their abilities and misunderstand their own motives. But I believe you're way off base in asking your critical question of why players are modifying a system.

It may just be a case of semantics as far as what's considered modifying, but I don't think smart players who are in line with your principles do it to be comfortable. They do it because it's the only way they can succeed.

Every book has the disclaimer that it can't cover every situation and every situation shouldn't be played the same way 100% of the time. Rightfully so because almost situation is a new one. You can't sit there and keep referencing over and over again what you've read.

You play, you study, you critique, you study, you play, etc. What happens is you evolve as a poker player with a style of your own. Close to others but, like a fingerprint, it's your own.

[threeducks]

Interesting article - the replies are more interesting. This article came at a good time for me. I have studied so many books in the past 4 years that I actually got myself confused on many points. My results has improved over the years so I must have learned something.

Low limit Texas hold'em as everyone knows is a dynamic game and the answer to most situations is it depends.

There may be a mathematical answer but depending on game conditions that might not be the correct answer.

So as mentioned, play, study, review, post and learn seem to be the way to improve my game. Coming up with a system, mine or someone else's does not seem to be the way to go.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The critical question is: WHY are you modifying a system? If you are doing it to make yourself comfortable, you are probably making a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually the reverse is true. It is usually a bad idea to play in a way that makes you uncomfortable.

That's pretty self-evident for recreational players who play affordable stakes for fun and don't care very much about winning. Making yourself uncomfortable pretty much defeats the whole purpose behind playing.

Let's move on to "serious" players. I'm talking about players who play to win money and because they love the challenge of an intellectual game. This category includes many beginners, most winning players, many losing players, and almost everyone reading this forum.

A very underrated poker concept is that all of the betting rounds are interrelated. Every street is built on the preceding streets and affects future streets. The most successful players view a hand as a whole and not merely a group of completely separate decisions.

You won't get very far if you try to maximize your preflop play without any regard for how it will affect the postflop play. Or you make a bad river fold because you don't appreciate that your flop and turn play are designed to induce a bluff.

[Note: circumstances change during a hand and that means plans often need to change too, sometimes radically. I never said otherwise.]

So why would a serious player be "uncomfortable" making a recommended system play? Three reasons come to mind:

1. It's a bad play and needs to be changed. There's plenty of bad advice available in bound form.

2. It's a fine play but it doesn't fit the game conditions. The play described in the book needs to be replaced with a different play.

3. It is absolutely the right play at the right time but Hero is uncomfortable because he doesn't understand it. This is the crucial case from the article. The reader takes a good system play and replaces it with an inferior play that he mistakenly thinks is better.

My contention is that this is not the problem it is being made out to be. Making good plays that you don't understand is a very good way to get in trouble. You create situations you don't understand and wind up making much more serious mistakes on later streets. Examples:

1. Preflop: inexperienced LHE players are taught to make all sorts of preflop raises in the name of pot equity. Then one of two things happens. Their preflop raise gives them an incorrect sense of entitlement and they pay off like an ATM postflop with overcards. Or they always play fit-or-fold postflop and the pots they inflate preflop come back and bite them. Usually these players are uncomfortable making so many raises because they know from experience that these raises don't work for them. They would be much better off following their instincts. They can always change later after their understanding of the game has matured.

2. Postflop: finding examples is hard in a way because very few books are actually systemic about postflop play. They just give lots of advice in the form of general guidelines. The reader usually finds in any real situation that three rules favor calling while two others require raising. One is hard-pressed to even recognize when one is "violating" the system, much less deliberately modify the system.

My example is a darling of the 2+2 LHE forums: the wait-for-the-turn play in a large multiway pot. Certainly it belongs in any complete LHE system and it actually appears in Ed Miller's SSHE. Many inexperienced micro TAGs are intimidated by this play and decidedly uncomfortable with it. They feel much more comfortable blasting away on the flop whenever they have a good hand. Their approach is "incorrect" but nevertheless they are doing the right thing for themselves. The wait-for-the-turn play is undoubtedly a very fine technique. It also requires sound understanding and very good judgment. Beginners rarely have an acceptable batting average recognizing when the play should be used. Plus the play can induce opponents to become very active creating unfamiliar turn crises with a lot of money at stake. That's very profitable but only if you know what to do. Otherwise it can cause a disaster.

There is another larger problem with making uncomfortable plays. It makes you an uncomfortable player and that leads to tilt, indecision, and not having any fun. Not having fun at the table is about as negative EV as it gets. It destroys your soul and your bankroll at the same time. It's almost impossible to be a long-term success at poker if it isn't fun.

I once had a bridge teammate who was pretty talented but undisciplined and lacking in theoretical understanding. He made some pretty dubious bids at times. But he always bid and played quickly, was never indecisive, and always looked like he knew exactly what he was doing. It was just amazing how many of his mistakes were redeemed by even worse blunders by his opponents. He had an aura and his results were much better than you would ever expect "on paper". You can't get that with "uncomfortable". Uncomfortable is death at the poker table. It's the ultimate bad image.

My advice to new players who want to become good is to read as much as you can from as many sources as possible. Consider expert advice seriously and with an open mind. Then think for yourself and do what you believe is right. You are responsible for your results, not Doyle, or David, or Ed. It's your money.

The most important thing is never stop working. Review your play, keep reading, keep analyzing, and don't be afraid to make changes. In the last three years I've reinvented my poker game several times over. It's a continuous process of trying new ideas and critically reexamining the old ones. I've said and done a lot of things during that time which I no longer believe in. It doesn't matter because I always had fun and somehow I made money. The mistakes I made then were the foundation of what I have now because they were my mistakes. I would not have learned nearly as much from copying other people's published mistakes.

I will come to realize that much of what I know and play now is also wrong. That doesn't bother me at all. It's actually exciting because today's mistakes are where my future is coming from.

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, several people have already said that it's not horrible advice for novice players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's exceptionally bad advice for novice players, who should be developing their own theoretical foundation for their understanding of poker, rather than accepting it on authority.

If the answer to "why are you doing this" is ever "because Author X says to" then both the player and Author X have failed.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The critical question is: WHY are you modifying a system? If you are doing it to make yourself comfortable, you are probably making a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the reverse is true. It is usually a bad idea to play in a way that makes you uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on whether or not that level of comfort led to bad play. For instance, in SSHE (and originally in TOP) one of the more unnatural concepts for a new player is raising a hand known to be second best in order to limit the field and increase the equity of the second best hand.

Few new players will do this naturally though it is a correct play. For most this is a book learned concept. To Dr. Schoonmaker's point, if a player decides he won't make this play because it doesn't feel right or he doesn't think his Q7 (SSHE is not handy, but I believe this is the hand Miller uses for his example) is going to win, that player is deviating from a known correct and profitable play to keep within their comfort zone.

Another example from limit hold 'em might be reraising a typical late position raiser when holding a middle pair. Most new players are very uncomfortable playing middle pairs aggressively because they worry about post flop decisions when they don't hit a set. Many would prefer to play the hand passively in case they happen to be against someone who spikes an overcard. Instead of playing their pocket 88 heads up, they wind up pricing in the blinds and the hand gets deevalued (and their prejudices about the complexities of 88 are reinforced). This correct play, perhaps a systematic play, is most likely to be found in a book and will bring a player onto ground on which he is most likely out of a comfort zone.

This point of Dr. Schoonmaker's is well taken by the typical new player. There are things which will need to be done systematically because they're the right play and that correct play has been worked out by experts. Many of these things are uncomfortable and feel risky but they need to be understood and followed for a new player to develop into a reliably winning player.

[patrick10]

i agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that you must adapt and draw your play from different styles

i am no pro. but, i believe that regardless- dr schoonmaker has brought up an excellent point in looking into our motives for changing play. for example; playing looser preflop. everyone has done this at some point in time during some game. there are many justifications which make looser preflop play +EV. maybe the players are exceptionally bad, maybe it is an extremely tight table.. whatever.

having this knowledge, i must admit that i , when on semi tilt, or when bored playing 20 hands/hr live have backwards rationalised playing looser- using the perfectly acceptable reasoning noted above- when in reality, it was ultimately my lack of restraint. Sure, i MAY actually be better than the other playes and the table IS tight- BUT my actual subconscious motivation for altering my play was for the wrong reasons.

i've done this for either short or long stints every live session i have played.

this article perhasp went too far in critisizing piecemeal systems- but i think there are some valid points. as a beginner compared to most 2+2ers, literature and experience wise, maybe i can take more from this article... but i do not believe the article was in any way nearly as bad as early replies make it out to be. they focus purely on the advice to not alter systems : rather than dr. s's advice to question our motivations for actually picking and choosing from systems. maybe these negative responses are due to the fact that the pros can intuitively make changes- although they cannot actually justify afterwards what their motivation was.

[patrick10]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, several people have already said that it's not horrible advice for novice players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's exceptionally bad advice for novice players, who should be developing their own theoretical foundation for their understanding of poker, rather than accepting it on authority.

If the answer to "why are you doing this" is ever "because Author X says to" then both the player and Author X have failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many novice players can develop their own theoretical foundation of understanding poker though?
schoonmaker correctly identifies that many novice players who have read diffent systems will be too easily swayed by the WRONG motivations to adapt and blend styles. that is, they will apply different particular plays and use them out of context where they will not be effective. i dont think he want s players ot just learn ABC poker, but to understand that the difference between a poker pro blending systems and a novice blending systems is that the pro will have the correct motivation often, while the novice liek me most of the time, does not.

the blending of styles and systems is however 100% necessary to winning play

[Petteri]

I really appreciate Dr. Al's contribution to Poker and he has written very interesting books and articles.

But this article gives horrible advice. I do not think it was Dr. Al's intention, but this is the way I _read_ it.

The article suggest that the player should copy systems exactly as they are written. It is better not to think at all or make any adjustments.

Twoplusplus magazine is mainly targeted to "thinking" poker players. I think this advice in Twoplustwo magazine is as good as in first day of university students should be thought "All the knowledge in the world is created, just copy it and you will succeed, you do not really need to think".

Of course you have to learn basics in poker. Anyhow main driving force in becoming a better player is willingness learn, trying to understand consepts behind the systems and understanding of poker theory. Some systems are pretty good, some other are worse. Learning requires critical thinking, ability to vary own style, making mistakes and learning from them.

[Ungoliant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, several people have already said that it's not horrible advice for novice players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's exceptionally bad advice for novice players, who should be developing their own theoretical foundation for their understanding of poker, rather than accepting it on authority.

If the answer to "why are you doing this" is ever "because Author X says to" then both the player and Author X have failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you for most players, but I just meant that if a player is a complete novice and has no desire to ever really work on their game, following a system robotically will give them better short-term results than trying to invent their own style. Of course, for anyone who intends to take the game seriously, it's horrible advice, which was my main point.

[SlantNGo]

I agree with Dr. Al because his article makes sense from a more abstract point of view. As people, we generally tend to accept facts or opinions that support our own, and we feel comfortable about these facts or opinions. Vice versa for facts or opinions that we don't support. I'm not very well versed in psychology but I interpret this as a psychological bias.

I don't interpret the article to mean that you should blindly accept what is written by authority. I interpret it to mean that if you're going to question something, you should be aware about this bias and realize that you'll probably just end up taking what is necessary to reinforce your own beliefs rather than engaging the question at hand carefully enough to see and validate different approaches.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
It would depend on whether or not that level of comfort led to bad play. For instance, in SSHE (and originally in TOP) one of the more unnatural concepts for a new player is raising a hand known to be second best in order to limit the field and increase the equity of the second best hand.

Few new players will do this naturally though it is a correct play. For most this is a book learned concept. To Dr. Schoonmaker's point, if a player decides he won't make this play because it doesn't feel right or he doesn't think his Q7 (SSHE is not handy, but I believe this is the hand Miller uses for his example) is going to win, that player is deviating from a known correct and profitable play to keep within their comfort zone.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good example for my argument.

This is not a suitable practical play for most new LHE players who lack the required hand reading and situation assessment skills. Those who insist on using this play because it is in the book are likely to repeatedly raise draws at the wrong time and lose a lot of money.

Beginners who are uncomfortable with this play because they don't understand it are much better off changing their personal system to not include it. Making plays you don't understand is the road to disaster.

The system book will still be there in six months. As the player continues to study and learn he should eventually be able to incorporate this play into his repertoire. But until he really understands it shouldn't be a standard play because it will cost him money.

New chess players are carefully steered away from learning openings that lead to middlegames they don't understand how to play. The same warnings are given to bridge players against using bidding conventions when you don't understand the underlying principles. Somehow poker pedagogy is behind in this area. Beginners need beginner plays.

I have a confession. There is a well-known advanced postflop play that I don't use. It's in Ed's book and a lot of other good books too. I understand the paper theory just fine but it doesn't work for me. I always make it at the wrong time and lose money. Maybe someday I will finally understand how to use this play in practice. Until then I'm going to be comfortable and stop giving my money away.

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
I just meant that if a player is a complete novice and has no desire to ever really work on their game, following a system robotically will give them better short-term results than trying to invent their own style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really any danger of a player like this being creative enough to mix styles? All the ones I've run into just read Play Poker Like the Pros and resist even the idea of reading another book, much less thinking about it.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Dr. Al because his article makes sense from a more abstract point of view. As people, we generally tend to accept facts or opinions that support our own, and we feel comfortable about these facts or opinions. Vice versa for facts or opinions that we don't support. I'm not very well versed in psychology but I interpret this as a psychological bias.

I don't interpret the article to mean that you should blindly accept what is written by authority. I interpret it to mean that if you're going to question something, you should be aware about this bias and realize that you'll probably just end up taking what is necessary to reinforce your own beliefs rather than engaging the question at hand carefully enough to see and validate different approaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that very good poker players are exactly the kind of people who do what is described in line I bolded. If you want to be very good you have to approach poker problems from all available angles and do so without bias. The fact that this isn't easy doesn't prevent it from being necessary; one of the main reasons being a very good poker player is difficult is that if you concede and just follow an expert's advice, believing you are too biased by your own inclinations to study the game properly, you are choosing a really poor substitute for the only approach that makes it possible to be very good.